121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.
Bixby North Elementary School
A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.
Bixby North Elementary School
A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?
If you are so concerned about this, then why not complain about polling stations being located at churches.
Okay, I'll complain. Why are some polling places at churches? My current one is a fire station, but my last one was a Catholic church.
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.
Bixby North Elementary School
A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?
I'm not clear on whether this church is being built "ON" school property or simply in close proximity.
Assuming it is in close proximity, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state but not by location. As long as zoning laws are observed it doesn't seem to be offensive. However, should a Synagogue or Mosque also locate nearby, the same rules should apply.
A quick check of my memory banks reveals that I have seen this arrangement many times growing up. Downtown schools were always near a church, sometimes several. A Presbyterian church sat across from Kendall Elementary dating to 1913. They did recruit youth from the school for Bible studies with permission of the parents and in exchange for gym class. That, along with forced prayer and Christian only pageants, were obviously discontinued in the 60's as they are a violation of church/state.
Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.
Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Okay, I'll complain. Why are some polling places at churches? My current one is a fire station, but my last one was a Catholic church.
Well duh Robert, the government obviously wants you to become Catholic. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.
Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....
They might even benefit from one another's security. I can see where a live-in pastor at the church watching over the block would be more beneficial than a bunch of school floodlighting and no one watching.
Re: polling places located in churches. Ironically, this issue was addressed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Oklahoma for those not in the know) in a case arising out of Miami, Oklahoma. In Otero v. State Election Board of Oklahoma, 975 F.2d 738, 739-40 (10th Cir. 1992), the Court discussed the application of the "Lemon Test" in responding to the plaintiff/atheist claim that locating polling places in churches was violative of the 1st Amendment:
"We agree with the district court that for the 'establishment' analysis the three part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), is to be applied. That test has been criticized in some aspects but never abandoned. See Lee, 505 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2655; Friedman, 781 F.2d at 780. Part one of that test is clearly met in that the establishment of the polling place in the church has the 'secular' purpose of providing a place to vote. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. We also agree with the district court that the 'principal or primary' effect is one that 'neither advances nor inhibits religion.' Id.
The final test is that the statute not foster an 'excessive government entanglement with religion.' Id. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. Plaintiff is perhaps correct in his argument that voting in a church might remind voters of religion, which might make some think of the religious affiliation of a candidate on the ballot or remind them of the candidate's stands on issues on which the voter's church also has taken a stand. But the test is an 'excessive' entanglement, which requires a weighing of the governmental interests and motives and the extent to which the action might promote religion. Here the defendants assert the need for a conveniently located place that can accommodate the voting public. They say, 'Church buildings are located throughout a city, including in the residential areas of which many precincts consist; they have parking lots; and they typically have a commons area, parish hall, foyer, nursery or some other such nonconsecrated portion of the church building which can be used as the polling place.' Answer Brief of Appellees at 6. The appendix to plaintiff's own complaint indicates that of the twenty-nine polling places in Miami, Oklahoma, nine are in churches; but the churches include several denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Assembly of God, and Christian. Plaintiff has not alleged nor shown that an excessive rent is being paid for these polling places or that the defendants are attempting to promote a particular religion or religion in general. We hold that plaintiff has made an insufficient showing of excessive entanglement to escape summary judgment.
Focusing on the 'free exercise' First Amendment analysis, we agree with the Second Circuit decision in Berman v. Board of Elections, 420 F.2d 684 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1065, 90 S.Ct. 1502, 25 L.Ed.2d 687 (1970). Plaintiff attempts to distinguish that case as involving someone who had a religion (Orthodox Jew) and on the differences between the absentee ballot laws and the atmosphere in New York versus Oklahoma. We find these differences insignificant. Like the Berman court, we conclude that by voting in a church building plaintiff is not required to attest to the nature of his religious beliefs, and that the burden of free exercise of religious beliefs 'is so slight that it does not begin to outweigh the interest of the state in having available to it the additional polling places which the use of the churches affords.' Id. at 686."
(Internal citations and punctuation in original).
The teachings from Otero is applicable to the issue raised in this thread. Unless the purpose for locating the church is the advancement or inhibiting religion or causes excessive governmental entaglement with religion, then the proximate location of the church to the school is not inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. TextText
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.
Bixby North Elementary School
A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?
I'm not clear on whether this church is being built "ON" school property or simply in close proximity.
Assuming it is in close proximity, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state but not by location. As long as zoning laws are observed it doesn't seem to be offensive. However, should a Synagogue or Mosque also locate nearby, the same rules should apply.
A quick check of my memory banks reveals that I have seen this arrangement many times growing up. Downtown schools were always near a church, sometimes several. A Presbyterian church sat across from Kendall Elementary dating to 1913. They did recruit youth from the school for Bible studies with permission of the parents and in exchange for gym class. That, along with forced prayer and Christian only pageants, were obviously discontinued in the 60's as they are a violation of church/state.
Many schools cooperated with nearby churches, renting out each others facilities, utilizing parking lots etc. They still do. Thoreau has a church that uses their site on Sundays. No big deal really.
Nearby or even adjacent doesn't bother me. Now, if they are on school property.....
I am not sure if it is the school's property and I too would not be as offended if it were across the street, etc.
I have provided a link below. What you will see are the green top buildings (Bixby Public Schools) in an upside down L-shaped arrangement to 121st Street...along with what looks to be a small pond and a construction site in the middle of it. The construction site is where the church will stand.
Link:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=pzydct707n04&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=16890982&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
Where the church is building is not on school property. From what I understand the school system had the option to buy it, but the land owner/developer wanted too much and the church ended up buying it.
After looking at the arial photo I have no objection to the church. It was originally described as being in the middle of the L shape, from the map it was across the parking lot on adjacent land. As to being a youth church, no problem there either. Most of the churches activities will happen when school is not in session for the day. There is nothing wrong with this.
While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Re: polling places located in churches. Ironically, this issue was addressed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Oklahoma for those not in the know) in a case arising out of Miami, Oklahoma. In Otero v. State Election Board of Oklahoma, 975 F.2d 738, 739-40 (10th Cir. 1992), the Court discussed the application of the "Lemon Test" in responding to the plaintiff/atheist claim that locating polling places in churches was violative of the 1st Amendment:
"We agree with the district court that for the 'establishment' analysis the three part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), is to be applied. That test has been criticized in some aspects but never abandoned. See Lee, 505 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2655; Friedman, 781 F.2d at 780. Part one of that test is clearly met in that the establishment of the polling place in the church has the 'secular' purpose of providing a place to vote. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. We also agree with the district court that the 'principal or primary' effect is one that 'neither advances nor inhibits religion.' Id.
The final test is that the statute not foster an 'excessive government entanglement with religion.' Id. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. Plaintiff is perhaps correct in his argument that voting in a church might remind voters of religion, which might make some think of the religious affiliation of a candidate on the ballot or remind them of the candidate's stands on issues on which the voter's church also has taken a stand. But the test is an 'excessive' entanglement, which requires a weighing of the governmental interests and motives and the extent to which the action might promote religion. Here the defendants assert the need for a conveniently located place that can accommodate the voting public. They say, 'Church buildings are located throughout a city, including in the residential areas of which many precincts consist; they have parking lots; and they typically have a commons area, parish hall, foyer, nursery or some other such nonconsecrated portion of the church building which can be used as the polling place.' Answer Brief of Appellees at 6. The appendix to plaintiff's own complaint indicates that of the twenty-nine polling places in Miami, Oklahoma, nine are in churches; but the churches include several denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Assembly of God, and Christian. Plaintiff has not alleged nor shown that an excessive rent is being paid for these polling places or that the defendants are attempting to promote a particular religion or religion in general. We hold that plaintiff has made an insufficient showing of excessive entanglement to escape summary judgment.
Focusing on the 'free exercise' First Amendment analysis, we agree with the Second Circuit decision in Berman v. Board of Elections, 420 F.2d 684 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1065, 90 S.Ct. 1502, 25 L.Ed.2d 687 (1970). Plaintiff attempts to distinguish that case as involving someone who had a religion (Orthodox Jew) and on the differences between the absentee ballot laws and the atmosphere in New York versus Oklahoma. We find these differences insignificant. Like the Berman court, we conclude that by voting in a church building plaintiff is not required to attest to the nature of his religious beliefs, and that the burden of free exercise of religious beliefs 'is so slight that it does not begin to outweigh the interest of the state in having available to it the additional polling places which the use of the churches affords.' Id. at 686."
(Internal citations and punctuation in original).
The teachings from Otero is applicable to the issue raised in this thread. Unless the purpose for locating the church is the advancement or inhibiting religion or causes excessive governmental entaglement with religion, then the proximate location of the church to the school is not inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. TextText
Interesting. I didn't have a major issue with voting in a church, just wondered how that came to be.[:)]
"Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school?"
I read this entire thread and kept waiting to come to the response where someone calls out TurismoDreamin for such a ridiculous notion. I never read that reply so I felt compelled to do it. TurismoDreamin, that is one ridiculous notion.
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS CCCCCC
SSSS CCCCCC
SSSS CCCCCC
S being school property
C being church property
I believe that is the "L" the poster was talking about.
A church is free to buy whatever land they want to. Just like most other businesses. A video arcade, a fast food joint, or a daycare could locate on the land just as well. Some things are evil and would ruin our society if we didn't pretend they did not exist: bars, liquor stores (which ironically we must have by state law to sell wine), strip clubs porn shops. Otherwise, build where you want.
Clearly I think they are building there in an attempt to capture the kids. But it is their right to do so. As hostile towards religion as I am, so long as the church doesn't try to influence what happens IN the school building I'm I will not complain what they do inside their building or where it is located. (I realize they do try to influence what happens in schools, but I don't want to stoop to their level).
And re polling in churches - if you don't like it find an alternative polling place that will let you use their facilities for a day free of church and suggest it to the election board.
The church isn't exactly a "youth church" either. It is one of those non denominational places. I work with several people that attend Lifechurch TV.
Bizarre name, but it isn't a youth church.
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
121st Street between Memorial and Sheridan.
Bixby North Elementary School
A church is being built on what is literally school grounds (not across the street). The school is arranged in an upside down L-shaped configuration to 121st Street and the church is in the middle of this L-shape (google maps is out of date). On top of this, it is a youth church, so their target group is obvious. Is this unconstitutional that they are building a church within that kind of proximity to the school? Shouldn't there be a law that prohibits building so close to a school? Why doesn't separation between church and state also include land and proximity?
That church has been holding services at the school on Sundays for several years. Nice church, good people.
Boy, everytime someone opens up this can of worms I have to go back and simply read the 1st amendment.
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.
Now I still haven't found a place where it says "keep churches away from us!"
A church built next to a school does not involve the government making a law establishing that church as the official church of Bixby schools.
Great communities usually have strong relationships between schools, churches and other places of assembly, learning, philosophy, and introspection.
I know that the rabid libs keep trying to change the interpretation of the 1st amendment, but unless they actually rewrite it, it says what it says.
Sorry.
If you are going to really complain, why don't you take it up with the schools that are actually leasing space to churches?
There are a few Union schools that allow churches to meet there on Sundays.
Gaspar:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.
quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.
Very clearly it is a two way street. Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion. If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.
By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people. There is far less push against religion. It simply isn't as profitable [;)] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.). The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.
Not that it has any bearing in this instance. As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof." It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views. But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -
Interesting aside:
Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion. That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities). The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.
Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
There are a few Union schools that allow churches to meet there on Sundays.
What is the point of your statement? Are you suggesting they don't "allow" them to meet there? If that is what you are suggesting, implementing your suggestion will do nothing other than produce income for some local first amendment attorneys.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.
quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.
Very clearly it is a two way street. Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion. If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.
By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people. There is far less push against religion. It simply isn't as profitable [;)] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.). The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.
Not that it has any bearing in this instance. As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof." It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views. But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -
Interesting aside:
Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion. That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities). The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.
Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.
I agree with what you are saying, I'm just curious as to how people could "propose" a law to restricts the free exercise of religion. It seems that we continue on a path of not separation, but rather restriction.
If you restrict the construction of a church to 1,000 ft away from a public building, aren't you just as guilty of violating the first amendment as you would be for allowing a church to operate within a public building?
The latter is obviously a violation, but so is the former.
Is the view of a church from the classroom or courtroom a violation because it may serve to encourage religious thought?
Urban environments are strewn with churches next to schools and courthouses. Why would anyone get worked up because a church is being built 140ft away from a public school.
Insane!
I understand your position and largely agree, just making sure I was clear.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.
quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.
Very clearly it is a two way street. Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion. If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.
By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people. There is far less push against religion. It simply isn't as profitable [;)] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.). The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.
Not that it has any bearing in this instance. As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof." It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views. But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -
Interesting aside:
Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion. That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities). The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.
Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.
Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Fatstrat, you have stepped in it now, sick em CF. Oh, and welcome to Tulsa Now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means the United States is obligated to prevent laws or policies from establishing a state religion.
quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That means the government shall not prohibit the practice and/or belief in a religion.
Very clearly it is a two way street. Many "rabid" conservatives would love to have you believe Christianity is the State religion, we were founded as a Christian nation, that our founders (many of whom were rabidly anti organized religion) were all fundamentalist Christians, that Christian doctrine should be taught in school (particular as science) and that the 1st Amendment is only a limitation from the government hindering religion, not a limitation on the government encouraging religion. If one side is pushing harder on the Establishment of Religion clause, it would have to be the conservative side.
By the very nature of the beast, many Christians are supposed to push their religion on other people. There is far less push against religion. It simply isn't as profitable [;)] (you'll note there is not one TV network devoted to the disestablishment of religion, no temples or other massive complexes built to convince people to abandon religion , very few nonprofits espousing the benefits of more freedom and disposal income, etc.). The paranoia of the Right about "anti religious" sentiment is disproportional to any actual threat.
Not that it has any bearing in this instance. As part of the tit for tat Churches can build wherever they please so that members can "exercise thereof." It annoys me a little bit because I assume they will put up billboards or other signage in an attempt to convince people of their views. But that is their right and if I wanted I could buy a billboard or land nearby and express my views (though I wouldn't be a non-profit, but that's a whole other discussion).
- - -
Interesting aside:
Our fear of the secular state largely comes from watching Europe abandon organized religion. That movement is often attributed to the post WWII period - and studies have shown that people who lived through the destruction essentially lost their appetite for religion (unsatisfactory answers to the "how could God allow..." questions coupled with other priorities). The United States, which was the most notable victor of the war and whose population was largely spared having to see the destruction, actually became more religious.
Not sure what that says, but I found that tidbit interesting.
I agree with what you are saying, I'm just curious as to how people could "propose" a law to restricts the free exercise of religion. It seems that we continue on a path of not separation, but rather restriction.
If you restrict the construction of a church to 1,000 ft away from a public building, aren't you just as guilty of violating the first amendment as you would be for allowing a church to operate within a public building?
The latter is obviously a violation, but so is the former.
Is the view of a church from the classroom or courtroom a violation because it may serve to encourage religious thought?
Urban environments are strewn with churches next to schools and courthouses. Why would anyone get worked up because a church is being built 140ft away from a public school.
Insane!
i dont think thats the point. I think there needs to be a closer look at how the church got the land in question.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
I like any speech which includes the phrase "unrestrained intercourse."
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Funny, the 'proof' that he is a good Christian man wanting a Christian nation makes no mention of Jesus. For that matter, it never uses the word God. He certainly talks about how a religious belief is important to his morality,
The next paragraph spends a greater amount of time talking about the importance of allowing the government to spend on "public credit." Which is followed by how we should get along with every other country but wars "might be occasioned" (actually the next 7 paragrphs talk about foreign affairs). One would think a Christian Nation might use the name of God, or at least reference CHRIST in the address... or perhaps afford more than 5 sentences to the notion of vague morality. (keep in mind you cited to the actual version, not the "updated version" that ends with a salutation to Jesus).
The paragraph you allude to could be written by any religious person. A Muslim, Jew, Zorrostrian, Scientologist, Mormon - it doesn't even specify a single God so it could be Hindu, Seikh, Aboriginal. Nor does it even specify a creator so it could be Shintoist, Buddhist, Wikkan or a host of pagan religions. 6 references to Religion or Morality, two dozen to reason, knowledge, and understanding.
Please go get a biography of the man, read it, and then try to tell me he was a devote Christian who wanted to found a Christian nation. Look up most of the "big name" founders and make the same claim. Washington was a standout religious man compared to most of them, and he had plenty of public things to say that are against religion:
quote:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
- From his Farewell Address
quote:
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
quote:
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.
quote:
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]
quote:
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102]
quote:
I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. [George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]
quote:
The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.
quote:
To give opinions unsupported by reasons would be dogmatical. [George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]
He favored reason over dogma (by definition not religious).
He didn't believe in life after death.
Never refers to Jesus in a public speech.
Rarely attended church.
Refused to take communion (his wife did, he left early when he went and sent the carriage back for her).
In fact, very little, if any evidence would suggest Washington was the pious religious man you wish us to believe. He had religious beliefs certainly, but there is
no evidence that he was attempting to found, ever wanted, or would have maintained a Christian Nation.
Just for fun, go look up the religious beliefs of Ben Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Ethan Allen or Thomas Paine. Then come back and argue that they tried to setup a Christian Nation. Or change your story to exclude them from have a significant role in the founding of our nation. Pick one. To make your argument you'll have to redraft history some how or other. Think we can get religion in history class as well as science class?
quote:
Guido wrote sick em CF.
And how.
- - -
and indeed, Welcome to Tulsa Now!
Oh sweet jesus (no pun intended)...
I have had this discussion with a friend of mine on several occasions. There is a literal meaning of SoCaS and one made up from the bleeding heart political correctedness crowd.
What harm will come out of a church being in the general area? Will the people of different religions get a little God on them? Will they see a cross and ask their parents about it? Now if there is a bell, I would agree with you, those things are damn annoying. And it will interrupt the school day.
As for the OG Gee Dub and our wonderful founding fathers... this country was founded upon religous freedom... to remove themselves from the reign of the Church of England. What you now say is that our country was intended on being strictly Christian and everything else is null. Shoot, why don't we just start burning witches and having religous crusades (err... okay, so we might be having a slight crusade, but it was for WMD).
Again... A church is not a bar, or a Jail or a house of ill repute. Now if it was a Church of Scientology... I would be right there with you. Those people are nuts.
Portland Maine has both a Church Street and a State Steet.
The separation between Church and State is 10 blocks.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.
A church is just a building.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelWayne_71
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.
A church is just a building.
With pictures of Jesus and a cross around every corner waiting to jump out and scare you...
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelWayne_71
A church is just a building.
With pictures of Jesus and a cross around every corner waiting to jump out and scare you...
They get me every danged time.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelWayne_71
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
While I'd rather not have to vote at a church, I don't have a big problem with it. There aren't a lot of other options, really..at least not that wouldn't make voting more inconvenient.
A church is just a building.
With pictures of Jesus and a cross around every corner waiting to jump out and scare you...
Sounds like CFS back in the day...only substitute Bartman for Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Read George Washington's Farewell Address and then tell me our founding fathers didn't intend this to be a Christian nation
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Funny, the 'proof' that he is a good Christian man wanting a Christian nation makes no mention of Jesus. For that matter, it never uses the word God. He certainly talks about how a religious belief is important to his morality,
The next paragraph spends a greater amount of time talking about the importance of allowing the government to spend on "public credit." Which is followed by how we should get along with every other country but wars "might be occasioned" (actually the next 7 paragrphs talk about foreign affairs). One would think a Christian Nation might use the name of God, or at least reference CHRIST in the address... or perhaps afford more than 5 sentences to the notion of vague morality. (keep in mind you cited to the actual version, not the "updated version" that ends with a salutation to Jesus).
The paragraph you allude to could be written by any religious person. A Muslim, Jew, Zorrostrian, Scientologist, Mormon - it doesn't even specify a single God so it could be Hindu, Seikh, Aboriginal. Nor does it even specify a creator so it could be Shintoist, Buddhist, Wikkan or a host of pagan religions. 6 references to Religion or Morality, two dozen to reason, knowledge, and understanding.
Please go get a biography of the man, read it, and then try to tell me he was a devote Christian who wanted to found a Christian nation. Look up most of the "big name" founders and make the same claim. Washington was a standout religious man compared to most of them, and he had plenty of public things to say that are against religion:
quote:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
- From his Farewell Address
quote:
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
quote:
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.
quote:
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]
quote:
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102]
quote:
I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. [George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]
quote:
The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.
quote:
To give opinions unsupported by reasons would be dogmatical. [George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]
He favored reason over dogma (by definition not religious).
He didn't believe in life after death.
Never refers to Jesus in a public speech.
Rarely attended church.
Refused to take communion (his wife did, he left early when he went and sent the carriage back for her).
In fact, very little, if any evidence would suggest Washington was the pious religious man you wish us to believe. He had religious beliefs certainly, but there is no evidence that he was attempting to found, ever wanted, or would have maintained a Christian Nation.
Just for fun, go look up the religious beliefs of Ben Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Ethan Allen or Thomas Paine. Then come back and argue that they tried to setup a Christian Nation. Or change your story to exclude them from have a significant role in the founding of our nation. Pick one. To make your argument you'll have to redraft history some how or other. Think we can get religion in history class as well as science class?
quote:
Guido wrote sick em CF.
And how.
- - -
and indeed, Welcome to Tulsa Now!
I hope all your quotes aren't taken as out of context as the 1st one (from farewell address).
Here is the same quote with the lines you omitted.
" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are INDISPENSABLE SUPPORTS. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of human men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.
A volume could not trace all their connections with the private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
As tempting as it is to base your argument on the taken out of context liberal talking points. You really should read the material for yourself. Especially before attempting to use it against someone who has refered to it as one of their power points.
Moreover, I believe that most reasonable people would find your theory that since Washington (as far as we know) never mentioned Jesus by name, meaning he was not a Christian, and was possibly a follower of some other religion, as laughable.
Washington was baptized in the Church of England in 1765. And was known to be an active member. The reports that he refused to take sacrament along side his wife, does not diminish the fact that he was present during the services. Which would certainly point to him being a of Christian belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Washington was baptized in the Church of England in 1765. And was known to be an active member. The reports that he refused to take sacrament along side his wife, does not diminish the fact that he was present during the services. Which would certainly point to him being a of Christian belief.
I was baptized in an Assembly of God church and I attended service every Sunday, though I would never consider myself a Christian. I've attended services in a Jewish temple, though I would never consider myself a Jew.
The Washington quote is in no way out of context. It implies that he thinks religion is important to morality. The very position that you are taking, the quote speaks fondly of religion - I don't understand why of all the quotes given you would have an issue with that one.
quote:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
More important than the single quote are the volumes written on the man by a flurry of biographers. He was not a religious man. The address given to PROVE he wanted a Christian nation never uses the word God and he never mentions Jesus in any of his writings or speeches.
The same goes for the litany of men I mentioned.
quote:
. . . out of context liberal talking points. You really should read the material for yourself.
Thanks, I read it. I've read a biography of most of the men I cited. Your new here but will find that I do not make a habit of talking about things I am not familiar with and when I am wrong I readily admit it.
I do not, however, recite "liberal talking points." In fact, I believe this is the first time I have been accused of such. It would seem I am reciting reality while those that wish to brand us a "Christian Nation" are holding to a particular ideology and talking points.
Why is it so hard to believe that most of the Founding Fathers would not identify themselves as Christians in today's world? Of those that did, many would be doing so for political expedience. I implore you to read up on the men and get a foundation for your understandings. Go get a couple of biographies of Washington and see what firm beliefs were attributed to him. Educate yourself on the topic then tell me WHY I'm wrong - I'd be happy to hear it.
quote:
. . . never mentioned Jesus by name, meaning he was not a Christian, and was possibly a follower of some other religion, as laughable.
But if he did mention Jesus it would PROVE he was a God Fearing Christian Man who wanted Christian Nation. I wholeheartedly support the notion that Washington would have identified himself as a Christian if asked. If, in the same breath, you asked him if he thought the Bible was the literal word of God or if he wanted to found a Christian Nation his answer to both would have been an eloquent but fervent no.
I too was baptized, attend church from time to time (as Washington did), I do not take communion, and I am not a Christian. When I die someone may build a monument to me, on that monument that might put a cross or scripture passage - that doesn't mean I was a Christian. Nor does it matter. My argument was the man was not the ardent Fundamentalist that seems so important to so many people.
Pick another argument. The one that the founding fathers were Fundamentalists who wanted to create a Christian Nation is a losing one. I have no doubt revisionist history (American History for Christians, et. al) will keep trying, but biographers, historians, and the national archives will keep debunking. Not too mention treaties, laws, and the constitution.
/ramble
Your interpretation is again laughable. Washington doesn't say that religion is important to morality. He says that religion AND morality are INDISPENSABLE supports in the way of life in the new nation. Note he mentions both the politician and the pious man.
Let's just take what the man said at face value.
Furthermore, your bully tactics of suggesting I do research as a means to support YOUR arguments doesn't fly. If you have proof to prove your points,please have the courtesy to post them. As I have.
Your claims of knowledge mean nothing to me.
And as we have seen by by your attempts to misconstrue Washington's words,modern biographers too often also have an ulterior agenda.
Give it up, Fatstrat. I've been on this board a long time, and cannonfodder's a real smart guy. And he's making the case much better than you are. (Not to mention you've made several assumptions that are outright wrong.)
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Fatstrat. And if you do, don't whine if you get plugged fulla holes.
Just sayin'.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Give it up, Fatstrat. I've been on this board a long time, and cannonfodder's a real smart guy. And he's making the case much better than you are. (Not to mention you've made several assumptions that are outright wrong.)
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Fatstrat. And if you do, don't whine if you get plugged fulla holes.
Just sayin'.
[:D] Now I'm skert.
Don't worry about me. I love a good challenge. Especially when the truth is on my side.
So uh, are you his toadie?
I'll make you the same offer I made him. Put up or shut up. It's one thing to proclaim that I've made wrong assumptions. Quite another to PROVE IT.
Anyone w/an IQ over 6 can read Washingtons address and see for themselves what it says. And it's you that are makng assumptions. I'm quoting him word for word.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Give it up, Fatstrat. I've been on this board a long time, and cannonfodder's a real smart guy. And he's making the case much better than you are. (Not to mention you've made several assumptions that are outright wrong.)
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Fatstrat. And if you do, don't whine if you get plugged fulla holes.
Just sayin'.
[:D] Now I'm skert.
Don't worry about me. I love a good challenge. Especially when the truth is on my side.
So uh, are you his toadie?
I'll make you the same offer I made him. Put up or shut up. It's one thing to proclaim that I've made wrong assumptions. Quite another to PROVE IT.
Anyone w/an IQ over 6 can read Washingtons address and see for themselves what it says. And it's you that are makng assumptions. I'm quoting him word for word.
The truth is on your side? Did you ask Washington specifically what he meant?
Didn't think so. You haven't proven your argument. You're parsing Washington's words to align with your own beliefs. I'm gonna have to side with CF on this one.
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation? I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm. How's that weak? It's a valid point. No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.
Frankly, I don't see Christianity being relevant to good government.
How is Christianity going to guide you in creating a budget? Or drafting an appropriations bill?
You can believe what you want in private. But if a person is assigned to a certain role, I judge him/her by his skills and competence, not his/her church. The church thing is just not relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation? I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm. How's that weak? It's a valid point. No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.
Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either. [:D]
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation? I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm. How's that weak? It's a valid point. No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.
Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either. [:D]
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.
Counter an argrument with an abstraction. Brilliant.
If victory is saying what the founders meant in your own opinion, then you've won. Last I checked, America wasn't a theocracy.
Saying that the USA was founded to be a Christian nation dispels the 'freedom of religion' argument. So in that, I believe you've lost. Unless of course Christianity is the only religion practiced in the USA.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation? I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm. How's that weak? It's a valid point. No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.
Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either. [:D]
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.
Don't let RW or Hoss try to convince you that you are right or wrong. Hoss is such an intellectual midget that I have put him on ignore. As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.
Again, welcome and I look forward to your contributions.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.
I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation? I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm. How's that weak? It's a valid point. No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.
Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either. [:D]
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.
Don't let RW or Hoss try to convince you that you are right or wrong. Hoss is such an intellectual midget that I have put him on ignore. As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.
Again, welcome and I look forward to your contributions.
Haha! I feel blessed that I have rankled someone so much they feel the need to put me on ignore.
Thank you, King of the Ad Hominem!
Wait a minute! You won't even see this since I'm on IGNORE. Wheee!!!
[8D]
I am related to George Washington by marriage. His wife had many sisters, one of who moved to Missouri and bred on my mther's side. Thus, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on what Washington meant with his words.
I believe it was something along the lines of, "whatever".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Quote
As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.
Am not. RecycleMichael outweighs me by 15 pounds or so.
Go cannon fodder!
I want to be the cheerleader who gets to be on the top of the pyramid. Who is going to volunteer to be the base?
Fatstrat, 2 more things:
1) The person bringing the notion has the burden of proof. The notion was raised that this was intended to be a Christian Nation and George Washington, specifically his farewell address, was raised in support of that notion.
In response I posted the supporting facet from the farewell address that you referenced. I then pointed out the shortcomings in that analysis and posted a litany of quotes from well known founding fathers that are frequently hostile to what we recognize as the Christian religion. Thus suggesting that the idea that the founders wanted a Christian Nation is a more modern creation and a misconstrued notion.
In response to that you attack on the Washington point again. Not with any new evidence or suggestions, but by calling my assertions laughable. When I suggest that you read up on the topic you are debating you tell me that you don't have to prove my point...
I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to support your own proposition. Simply saying it is so and demanding someone prove it is not doesn't work. See, e.g., Russel's teapot.
2) For the sake of argument I'll acquiesce and say that Washington wanted nothing more than to have a fundamentalist sectarian state based on Christian Doctrine and laws. He would then be a coward and a traitor to his faith for making no effort towards this goal and signing off on treaties, policies, and a constitution that goes to lengths to prevent this end. The most powerful man in the colony failed at his goal.
Which must mean that the litany of other founding fathers wanted to prevent a Christian Nation more than Washington wanted to found one. Washington was an eloquent communicator and much of that communication is preserve in writing and record. The other Fathers were equally adept at oration, drafting, and letter writing and their thoughts are well documented on the subject. Please keep in mind that pamphlets, newspapers, speeches, letters and posted documents were instrumental to the War of Independence and have survived history - none that I have seen asking for soldiers to fight for a Christian Nation, or to cast off the oppressive British for Jesus, or the like.
Had they wanted a Christian Nation, surely one of them would have figured out how to request one and put the notion forth. If it was done, it was not well received. If it was intended, then they uncharacteristically failed at getting their point across.
Ignore the merit of Washington. He's one tree in the forest. There is plenty of evidence to suggest many of the founders were religious (some were ministers of varying faiths) and still others hostile to religion. There is little evidence to suggest the notion of a Christian Nation was ever given consideration.
- - - - -
Damn proud of me cheer squad! Now all I need to do is get them to agree with me more often and financially contribute to my causes (me). And Guido, you're just a closeted member of my cheer squad. You might not know it yet though. [:P]
I think the founding fathers can be describe as mostly an agnostic group.
Oh, and if the founding fathers wanted a christian state, i'm fairly sure they could have come up with better wording for the 1st amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I am related to George Washington by marriage. His wife had many sisters, one of who moved to Missouri and bred on my mther's side. Thus, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on what Washington meant with his words.
I believe it was something along the lines of, "whatever".
Interesting.It never occurred to me that family lineage would be of relevance. I am a relative (by marriage) of John Hart who signed the Declaration of Independence. And a descendant of Joab Houghton, who was a Colonel in Washington's Army. And to whom a monument is erected in Hopewell NJ.
Cannon Fodder: Do you think I would have referenced Washington's Farewell Address had I not had some knowledge of the subject?
1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.
2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one. If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals. Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.
3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address. Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian. He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation. He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else. If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.
In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on. I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship. To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.
The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow. Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).
4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.
I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please. Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit. So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.
In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone. Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs.. If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so). But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.
Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree? Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world? Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree? Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world? Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?
Yes.[;)]
Well then, touche. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.
2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one. If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals. Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.
3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address. Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian. He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation. He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else. If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.
In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on. I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship. To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.
The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow. Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).
4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.
I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please. Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit. So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.
In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone. Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs.. If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so). But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.
Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree? Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world? Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?
I think we can agree that the founders wanted religious freedom and expressed that in their amendment that there be no govt. mandated religion.
Where we differ is your position that the govt. cannot be religious. There is not and has not been a mandated religion in the U.S. But it is obvious that the majority of our founders, and the citizens of the nation, have largely been Christians. And therefore the nation and it's Govt. has always been a Christian nation. As evidenced by the Christian motto's on our money, our public buildings, and even the Christian Bible Obama took his oath on.
Our Govt is (supposed to be) a Govt, BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. And if the people are predominantly Christian, and the reps they elect are Christians, then you have a Christian Govt.
Nowhere is it said that other religions are unwelcome or may not exercise their beliefs both in public or govt. And nowhere is it said that Christians are not afforded the same freedom in either venue.
You my friend, are the ones who seek to restrict religious freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.
2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one. If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals. Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.
3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address. Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian. He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation. He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else. If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.
In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on. I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship. To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.
The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow. Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).
4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.
I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please. Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit. So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.
In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone. Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs.. If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so). But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.
Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree? Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world? Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?
I think we can agree that the founders wanted religious freedom and expressed that in their amendment that there be no govt. mandated religion.
Where we differ is your position that the govt. cannot be religious. There is not and has not been a mandated religion in the U.S. But it is obvious that the majority of our founders, and the citizens of the nation, have largely been Christians. And therefore the nation and it's Govt. has always been a Christian nation. As evidenced by the Christian motto's on our money, our public buildings, and even the Christian Bible Obama took his oath on.
Our Govt is (supposed to be) a Govt, BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. And if the people are predominantly Christian, and the reps they elect are Christians, then you have a Christian Govt.
Nowhere is it said that other religions are unwelcome or may not exercise their beliefs both in public or govt. And nowhere is it said that Christians are not afforded the same freedom in either venue.
You my friend, are the ones who seek to restrict religious freedom.
You are making this easy.
What if an Hasidic Jew were to take the Oath? Would he do so on the Christian Bible? Would we then have a Hasidic government?
If you are saying that just because the Christian Faith is predominant in the country, what about state governments where that isn't the case? How about Utah? Should they be practicing those ideals that Mormons practiced?
The government, any government, state, local or federal, should NOT be in the business of dictating what religion it should align itself with, nor should it strive to be a theocracy. I'm seeing that from your posts, that you wish this nation would become a Christian Nation. That's what got England in trouble that drove out the Pilgrims to the New World.
It's pretty narrow-minded IMO to think that people aren't sensitive to that. You come off sounding like a preachy bible-wielder hellfire and brimstone type.
Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your specific religion. It doesn't mean to allow government to mandate it.
But that's just my opinion.
Christian motto on the money?
"In God We Trust."
"On Nation Under God."
Those are not Christian mottoes. They are generic references. May as well argue that we are mostly Greek because of the Goddess of Justice and "E Pluribus Unum."
Furthermore, those sayings have NOTHING to do with the founding fathers. In God We Trust was added after the Civil War (nearly 100 years after the founding fathers) for fear that the new fangled pictures of death would cause future generations to believe the Civil War era was Godless. Legally speaking, it has been held that the motto is a common usage and has no "significant religious content." If it had religious content it would have been stricken from our coinage. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.html (last visited 02/03/09).
One Nation
Under God was added to the pledge during the Red Scare to separate ourselves from those Godless Communists. A leftover from the 1950's. It goes to prove that form was way more important than function in the McCarthy hysteria (we're better than you because we have GOD in our national pledge!).
The relgious icons on our buildings are offset by images of scales of justice, Confucius, Solon, Lady Liberty, Octavian, Napoleon, Hammurabi, the much hyped "10 Commandments" tablets are NOT the 10 commandments but an illustration of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) according to the person who created the sculptures. Hell, even Mohamed appears on the walls in Washington DC (not a new addition mind you). Arguing that we are a Christian Nation on symbols engraved on our buildings is a dubious proposition.
I understand your sentiment and have given it to you. Most Americans are Christian and most of our customs and norms reflect those beliefs. That is NOT the same as being a Christian Nation as we do not reject or accept beliefs on the basis of religion (science advancements everywhere thank you for that).
In fact, the founding fathers specifically rejected the notion of a Christian Nation in the Treaty of Tripoli. Were they lying hypocrites are not?
quote:
AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION;
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. May 26th 1797. Submitted by John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate. (as much as it pains me, the best scanned version is available at wikipedia (//%22http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif%22)).
There it is, in black and white. The United States President in an official Treaty of the United States said we were not a Christian Nation. Ratified by the US Senate in the time of the Founders.
Furthermore, you have avoided the notion that they could easily have included language in the Constitution declaring this a Christian Nation. Or assigning the religion of majority that noble status. They didn't. They told government to stay away from religion and religion to stay away from government.
I believe what you are failing to grasp is the assumption of a particular religion by the Government of the United States is precluding other religions. If our Courthouse lawn proclaims the greatness of Jesus Christ, most Muslims or Jews would assume they would not get a fair trial. The Courts in Pakistan are secular Courts, but if they had you swear on a Holy Koran and bow to the Prophet Mohamed - certainly an American Christian would be up in arms that it wasn't a fair trial (they would not have imagery of Mohamed).
Under your interpretation, anything is OK short of "I, the United States Government, declare Christianity as the ONLY allowable Religion." Fortunately, it takes much less than that to appear to "adopt" a religion or to prohibit the "free exercise" of religion. A school across the street from a church is not a problem - but favoring one deity over another in any capacity is.
You are free to practice your religion as you see fit. You are free to run for Congress wearing your religion on your sleeve. You are free to stand on street corners and proclaim your religion. You are allowed to tell others religions that their beliefs are stupid. In public or in private, YOU are allowed to express whatever religious beliefs you want.
The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to. See the difference? When official governmental actions are taken to promote one religion or to adopt aspects of that religion for the sake OF religion, you are forcing it upon others. The only thing I am attempting to restrict if your ability to force your religion onto others.
Hence, declaring the United States as a Christian Nation, placing the 10 Commandments alone outside the Courthouse, or if a Bible were required to swear in a president - I would object. And the Founding Fathers as well as the Courts they have left to adjudicate such things are on my side.
(http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/oppressed.gif)
(sorry, had to)
Why is it so important to broadcast your religious identity on others? You're Christian, I get it. But the country is not.
No apology needed. Your graph actually helps my point. Your argument has some valid points. While it is true that the founders were against mandated govt. religion. It is also true that the words "Separation of Church and State" appear nowhere in the Constitution.
They were written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. IMO hardly more valid than Washington's pro religious statements in his earlier, Govt. function, Farewell Address to the nation.
Also your argument that the religious motto's used on U.S. money etc. are generic, is really reaching. You, me and any other sensible person knows perfectly well what God it refers to. And to say differently is nothing less than a ridiculous attempt to re-write history.
To the graph.The U.S. is a Christian nation because as the graph illustrates, it just is. The American people are by vast majority of the Christian religion. And vote for representatives of common belief. Religion is a common factor in elections. Being a Mormon no doubt hurt Romney. (BTW, Have you ever been to Utah? I submit that Utah is completely run by the LDS church.) And if Obama had claimed Islam as his primary religion, he would NOT be POTUS today.
So regardless of what the founders intended in the Constitution, the U.S. by practice is and has always been a Christian nation.
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
The freedoms provided by this means no preferential treatment to any religion.
Your pomposity is a very good reason for many of us to look down on your vision of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
The freedoms provided by this means no preferential treatment to any religion.
Your pomposity is a very good reason for many of us to look down on your vision of faith.
Pomposity? I merely see the facts as they are. Rather than how some think they should be.
I agree 100% that the Constitution states that there be no mandated religion. And there is not, and has not been. Nonetheless the United States is, and has always been, a Christian nation. Regardless of if you like it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Nonetheless the United States is, and has always been, a Christian nation. Regardless of if you like it or not.
A nation with Christians. Not a Christian nation.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Nonetheless the United States is, and has always been, a Christian nation. Regardless of if you like it or not.
A nation with Christians. Not a Christian nation.
Exactly. One infers a theocracy. The other denotes content. If you go by demographics, the US of A contains 88.3 percent self prescribed Christians, 3.5 percent other, and 8.4 percent reported as atheist/agnostic/none.
So how would you explain your so-called 'Christian Nation' then? Is it an '88.3 percent Christian Nation'?
"As evidenced by the Christian motto's on our money" In God We Trust was added to coins around the Civil War and added to paper money in the late 50's. Not at first. I am assuming we don't need to go into Under God in the pledge.
I would also like to point out that a reference to "God" is not a determination of as specific faith. It does however limit the references to monotheistic religions. Hopefully we don't go to old testament laws. I will pray for that!
The American people are by vast majority Caucasian. And vote for representatives very often of common race. Race is a common factor in elections. We were founded ENTIRELY by white males. Business and governmental culture are the culture of white society. It is ingrained in our society, culture and government. If Obama had claimed "BLACK MAN" as his primary identifier (with all the social stereotypes that entails) he would NOT be POTUS today.
Ergo, we are a WHITE NATION. So regardless of what the founders intended in the Constitution, the U.S. by practice is and has always been a white nation.
/see what I did there?
Just to be clear fats,
Are you proposing that the religion of the majority should rule?
Please state what marriage of church and state you would like to see. A full theocracy? Just some laws based on the Bible? National Institute of Science research based on the Bible? Please, in all honesty, state what you would desire if you were not constrained by the intent of the founders or the Constitution.
Works for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Should work for us right?
I have to agree with a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation.
Word order can be very important in the English language.
I agree too, all churches should be moved out of state.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The American people are by vast majority Caucasian. And vote for representatives very often of common race. Race is a common factor in elections. We were founded ENTIRELY by white males. Business and governmental culture are the culture of white society. It is ingrained in our society, culture and government. If Obama had claimed "BLACK MAN" as his primary identifier (with all the social stereotypes that entails) he would NOT be POTUS today.
Ergo, we are a WHITE NATION. So regardless of what the founders intended in the Constitution, the U.S. by practice is and has always been a white nation.
/see what I did there?
Just to be clear fats,
Are you proposing that the religion of the majority should rule?
Please state what marriage of church and state you would like to see. A full theocracy? Just some laws based on the Bible? National Institute of Science research based on the Bible? Please, in all honesty, state what you would desire if you were not constrained by the intent of the founders or the Constitution.
I haven't said that I want a theocracy. I have only said that since the citizens of the U.S. are, and always have been predominantly Christian. And our govt.is a govt (supposedly) BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. That the U.S. has historically always been a Christian nation governed BY Christians in a decidedly Christian manner. Could there be a BETTER definition of "Christian Nation"? And that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in our Constitution. The government has not mandated any religion, but certainly has reflected the religious values of the people it governs. And that this is completely legal.
And now some, what 12% of the population don't like it? And use the words written to the Danbury Baptists, many years after the Constitution was written, as false Constitutional proof of their argument. It simply doesn't fly.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
I haven't said that I want a theocracy. I have only said that since the citizens of the U.S. are, and always have been predominantly Christian. And our govt.is a govt (supposedly) BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. That the U.S. has historically always been a Christian nation governed BY Christians in a decidedly Christian manner. Could there be a BETTER definition of "Christian Nation"? And that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in our Constitution. The government has not mandated any religion, but certainly has reflected the religious values of the people it governs. And that this is completely legal.
And now some, what 12% of the population don't like it? And use the words written to the Danbury Baptists, many years after the Constitution was written, as false Constitutional proof of their argument. It simply doesn't fly.
Woo, Just choose to ignore anything but your own thoughts huh Fats? If it doesn't fit into your own beliefs it doesn't exist. Your contributions are worthless.
So what do you want?
It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.
"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States. There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19... There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies. Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.
Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.
We are a nation of mostly Christians? Sure. Sounds great. How does that change the status quo? Do we need Roseries in schools? Crosses in every courtroom?
I don't know how else to say it. What's your point? What about the status quo do you want changed?
"I have to agree with a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation.
Word order can be very important in the English language." - Red Arrow
+1
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
I agree too, all churches should be moved out of state.
Perhaps they could move to Guam, since that's only a territory. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So what do you want?
It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.
"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States. There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19... There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies. Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.
Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.
We are a nation of mostly Christians? Sure. Sounds great. How does that change the status quo? Do we need Roseries in schools? Crosses in every courtroom?
I don't know how else to say it. What's your point? What about the status quo do you want changed?
Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So what do you want?
It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.
"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States. There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19... There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies. Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.
Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.
We are a nation of mostly Christians? Sure. Sounds great. How does that change the status quo? Do we need Roseries in schools? Crosses in every courtroom?
I don't know how else to say it. What's your point? What about the status quo do you want changed?
Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.
Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.
Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation? I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.
Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning. I was born at night, but not last night.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So what do you want?
It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.
"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States. There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19... There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies. Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.
Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.
We are a nation of mostly Christians? Sure. Sounds great. How does that change the status quo? Do we need Roseries in schools? Crosses in every courtroom?
I don't know how else to say it. What's your point? What about the status quo do you want changed?
Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.
Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.
Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation? I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.
Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning. I was born at night, but not last night.
Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So what do you want?
It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.
"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States. There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19... There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies. Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.
Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.
We are a nation of mostly Christians? Sure. Sounds great. How does that change the status quo? Do we need Roseries in schools? Crosses in every courtroom?
I don't know how else to say it. What's your point? What about the status quo do you want changed?
Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.
Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.
Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation? I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.
Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning. I was born at night, but not last night.
Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). [:D]
Don't need to; you've been fed talking points from Gweed, it sounds like.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). [:D]
The only thing you've won is an all expenses paid trip back to grade school English.
Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
Also known as "I've had my donkey whipped and I'm taking my ball with me".
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
FWIW, I am anything BUT a liberal. You lost this one fair and square on your own merits.
Alright then. So we are in agreement. The current system of separation of church and state works just fine:
Abortion being legal because civil authorities determined it to be so is just fine. A ban on singular religious icons in public places. No prayer in schools. Equal access to all religions on public spaces. A movement towards state recognized gay civil unions of some sort as well adoptions and status as a protected class as increased open homosexuality in general. Loss of tax status for churches that "preach politics" as part of their services. No litmus test for office (non-Christians can serve, be sworn in on the Koran, etc.). The right for military men to be buried under the religious icon they see fitting (even if it is a Wikkan symbol). Basically, all the elements that enable a secular nation to thrive.
I thought you had a problem with those things and wanted to see them changed. I mistook you for someone who wanted to see more church mingled with state. Prayer in schools. A ban on gay marriage because your God(s) tell you to (interestingly enough, Sodomy didn't refer to gay sex until about 1297).
This discussion has been totally worthless if you agree that a firm separation of church and state as we currently work to enforce is pivotal to a secular state.
quote:
Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
1. Non-religious does not equal liberal. The religious right has attempted to hijack the entire conservative agenda. And it has served us real well too (other than losing both House, the Senate, and the presidency as well as many state legislatures and governors and, of course, not getting anything done when they had power). Actually, back in the day it was a mark of pride for conservatives to hold their civil and religious beliefs separate.
2. Intellectual discussion? Your entire argument was based on repeating talking points, shifting away from previous points that had been destroyed, and ignoring items you didn't want to address. You're grand thesis is that because most Americans self identify as Christian we are a Christian Nation. Which is proofing your prime thesis by creating a definition for it. And you based that declaration off of a satirical pie chart.
High brow stuff there. I repeatedly attempted to get you to identify what out wanted, what you were arguing for. You finally declare that you are arguing in favor of the status quo, declare a victory, and leave.
3. and also... don't argue about who "won" a discussion on the internet. It's kind of sad.
The point isn't to win against an anonymous user ID on the internet, it is merely to engage in a discussion to attempt to broaden perspectives. I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives. Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.
Anyway, sorry you took your ball and went home. Which means you won't read this anyway...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives. Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.
People's minds can be changed about religion, but only through humor.
People laugh and come clean about the foibles of their particular brand of spirituality. Not that I'm one to try to change a religious person's mind, unless their mind is set on foisting their religion upon me. There are enough problems in the world for me to worry about to waste my time being concerned with some people who worship an invisible bearded guy in the sky, again, so long as they leave me out of their collective hallucination.
I say that entirely without judgement, by the way. There's nothing wrong with hallucinating behind closed doors.
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
Richard Jeni (On going to war over religion)
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
I would advise that you read cannonfodder's response. And I have this to add ...
Part of the purpose of this forum (and America in general) is the free flow of ideas -- a most nonpartisan concept, I might add.
If you take a stance, you are expected to defend it with facts or well-reasoned opinions. Some of the retorts might be painful. You might still get some disagreement afterward. But at at least you'll gain some measure of respect.
But if you continually duck the issues that are brought up, then both liberals and conservatives, as they already have, will conclude that you either cannot or will not defend your ideas. They will conclude that your convictions are as thin as weathered tissue paper. Thus, your credibility will be damaged.
Conclusion: If you're going to come to this forum, you'd better be on your toes and use your brain to defend yourself, instead of repeating simplistic mantras.
I heard Marshall Brewing Co. in bottles is available!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Alright then. So we are in agreement. The current system of separation of church and state works just fine:
Abortion being legal because civil authorities determined it to be so is just fine. A ban on singular religious icons in public places. No prayer in schools. Equal access to all religions on public spaces. A movement towards state recognized gay civil unions of some sort as well adoptions and status as a protected class as increased open homosexuality in general. Loss of tax status for churches that "preach politics" as part of their services. No litmus test for office (non-Christians can serve, be sworn in on the Koran, etc.). The right for military men to be buried under the religious icon they see fitting (even if it is a Wikkan symbol). Basically, all the elements that enable a secular nation to thrive.
I thought you had a problem with those things and wanted to see them changed. I mistook you for someone who wanted to see more church mingled with state. Prayer in schools. A ban on gay marriage because your God(s) tell you to (interestingly enough, Sodomy didn't refer to gay sex until about 1297).
This discussion has been totally worthless if you agree that a firm separation of church and state as we currently work to enforce is pivotal to a secular state.
quote:
Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
1. Non-religious does not equal liberal. The religious right has attempted to hijack the entire conservative agenda. And it has served us real well too (other than losing both House, the Senate, and the presidency as well as many state legislatures and governors and, of course, not getting anything done when they had power). Actually, back in the day it was a mark of pride for conservatives to hold their civil and religious beliefs separate.
2. Intellectual discussion? Your entire argument was based on repeating talking points, shifting away from previous points that had been destroyed, and ignoring items you didn't want to address. You're grand thesis is that because most Americans self identify as Christian we are a Christian Nation. Which is proofing your prime thesis by creating a definition for it. And you based that declaration off of a satirical pie chart.
High brow stuff there. I repeatedly attempted to get you to identify what out wanted, what you were arguing for. You finally declare that you are arguing in favor of the status quo, declare a victory, and leave.
3. and also... don't argue about who "won" a discussion on the internet. It's kind of sad.
The point isn't to win against an anonymous user ID on the internet, it is merely to engage in a discussion to attempt to broaden perspectives. I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives. Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.
Anyway, sorry you took your ball and went home. Which means you won't read this anyway...
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black. You principly base your position on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and somehow equate that to Constitutional law.
I base mine on Washington's Farewell Address to the nation.
I will concede that as with any group of people, the founders were a mixed lot of both hot and cold towards religion. And that they all agreed that the U.S. should have no mandated state religion. And there has been NONE.
You accuse me of straw manning my points, all while you have done nothing less yourself.
I have based my entire argument on 1 speech by the "father of our nation"
And you have absolutely rejected and refused to consider them at face value. Instead attempting to redirect focus on minor theoretical arguments that Washington wasn't a Christian because he didn't take communion or mention Jesus by name in any known document.
I have his words. You have theory that fits your position.
Washington said that religion was an "indispensable support" of the new nation AND it's government, that "both the pious man AND politician" should recognize. And it is quite clear that he meant that the Government should NOT be free from religious influence.
And by your own graph, we see that the U.S., after 230+ years of immigration, is STILL 88% Christian.And I think any reasonable person could therefore strongly suspect, that at the time of it's founding, the vast majority of U.S. citizens were Christians. And that it was the Christian religion Washington was referring to. And while this should not be taken as being of pro govt. mandated religion. It certainly proves that Washington believed that in govt of the people, that religion, which in this case is certainly Christianity, should be an important part.
And therefore, the absolute separation of church and state position just doesn't fly.
AWWW, it missed us
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Alright then. So we are in agreement. The current system of separation of church and state works just fine:
Abortion being legal because civil authorities determined it to be so is just fine. A ban on singular religious icons in public places. No prayer in schools. Equal access to all religions on public spaces. A movement towards state recognized gay civil unions of some sort as well adoptions and status as a protected class as increased open homosexuality in general. Loss of tax status for churches that "preach politics" as part of their services. No litmus test for office (non-Christians can serve, be sworn in on the Koran, etc.). The right for military men to be buried under the religious icon they see fitting (even if it is a Wikkan symbol). Basically, all the elements that enable a secular nation to thrive.
I thought you had a problem with those things and wanted to see them changed. I mistook you for someone who wanted to see more church mingled with state. Prayer in schools. A ban on gay marriage because your God(s) tell you to (interestingly enough, Sodomy didn't refer to gay sex until about 1297).
This discussion has been totally worthless if you agree that a firm separation of church and state as we currently work to enforce is pivotal to a secular state.
quote:
Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!
1. Non-religious does not equal liberal. The religious right has attempted to hijack the entire conservative agenda. And it has served us real well too (other than losing both House, the Senate, and the presidency as well as many state legislatures and governors and, of course, not getting anything done when they had power). Actually, back in the day it was a mark of pride for conservatives to hold their civil and religious beliefs separate.
2. Intellectual discussion? Your entire argument was based on repeating talking points, shifting away from previous points that had been destroyed, and ignoring items you didn't want to address. You're grand thesis is that because most Americans self identify as Christian we are a Christian Nation. Which is proofing your prime thesis by creating a definition for it. And you based that declaration off of a satirical pie chart.
High brow stuff there. I repeatedly attempted to get you to identify what out wanted, what you were arguing for. You finally declare that you are arguing in favor of the status quo, declare a victory, and leave.
3. and also... don't argue about who "won" a discussion on the internet. It's kind of sad.
The point isn't to win against an anonymous user ID on the internet, it is merely to engage in a discussion to attempt to broaden perspectives. I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives. Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.
Anyway, sorry you took your ball and went home. Which means you won't read this anyway...
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black. You principly base your position on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and somehow equate that to Constitutional law.
I base mine on Washington's Farewell Address to the nation.
I will concede that as with any group of people, the founders were a mixed lot of both hot and cold towards religion. And that they all agreed that the U.S. should have no mandated state religion. And there has been NONE.
You accuse me of straw manning my points, all while you have done nothing less yourself.
I have based my entire argument on 1 speech by the "father of our nation"
And you have absolutely rejected and refused to consider them at face value. Instead attempting to redirect focus on minor theoretical arguments that Washington wasn't a Christian because he didn't take communion or mention Jesus by name in any known document.
I have his words. You have theory that fits your position.
Washington said that religion was an "indispensable support" of the new nation AND it's government, that "both the pious man AND politician" should recognize. And it is quite clear that he meant that the Government should NOT be free from religious influence.
And by your own graph, we see that the U.S., after 230+ years of immigration, is STILL 88% Christian.And I think any reasonable person could therefore strongly suspect, that at the time of it's founding, the vast majority of U.S. citizens were Christians. And that it was the Christian religion Washington was referring to. And while this should not be taken as being of pro govt. mandated religion. It certainly proves that Washington believed that in govt of the people, that religion, which in this case is certainly Christianity, should be an important part.
And therefore, the absolute separation of church and state position just doesn't fly.
It's like if you keep telling yourself something that is at best a shady truth, you begin to believe it.
Not surprising it came back, though.
So anyone who disagrees w/you is an "it". You hypocrites cry about tolerance and then are the least tolerant people on the planet.
Hos, you are IMO a moron. You haven't contributed one thought to this discussion other than your toadie parroting of Cannon Fodders points. If brains were dynamite, I doubt if you could blow your F'ing nose. At least CF has the guts and brains to attempt an intelligent discussion.
You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it to some other corner of the internet because I really do not care for it.
[ You are free to discuss whatever viewpoint you like. You are free to in fact mock this forum or assign it political ideology. You are not free to do so in a vulgar manner.
This thread is now on an amazingly short leash and will be locked if further insults or profanity ensue by any party.
- Moderator]
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
So anyone who disagrees w/you is an "it". You hypocrites cry about tolerance and then are the least tolerant people on the planet.
Hos, you are IMO a moron. You haven't contributed one thought to this discussion other than your toadie parroting of Cannon Fodders points. If brains were dynamite, I doubt if you could blow your F'ing nose. At least CF has the guts and brains to attempt an intelligent discussion.
You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it up your donkey.
Oh noes, we pushed the button!
Calling you an 'it' is more a by product of you not producing, at the very least, your real first name in your profile, unless PMand is your first name.
If you're a man, would you rather me call you 'her', or vice versa?
And when it comes to intelligent discussion, I don't think you'd be one to talk. You're quick to call me stupid, but who provided you with your '88 percent' statistic, which was as easy as using Google.
Go back to FreeRepublic or wherever it is you came from, since you obviously hold a contempt for anyone more liberal than your conservative talking points.
mild insult removed[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it to some other corner of the internet...
Bye.
This gets kind of tiring hearing the same two arguments on the same thing. You can just read a book to get the same point.
1) I thought you took your ball and went home?
2) We have gone over Washington ad naseum. You are using 3 select sentences to show what the mans intention for religion in society was. I've gone beyond those 3 lines and read other things.
For arguments sake, Washington was a pious man past all others. So what? One mans personal beliefs are not important, having a fervent religious beliefs says nothing of his stance of religion in government. Washington was a Christian who thought religion was needed for morality, therefor he wanted a Christian Nation.
So was he too stupid to put that in writing or what? (You'll no doubt ignore this 3rd incarnation of this question as you did the previous 2)
3) I am not primarily basing my notion on a single letter from Jefferson (as you base your argument on one paragraph from Washington). I listed a litany of founder quotes. As well as the Constitution, treaties, and constitutional case law.
I cite a treaty, you call out Washington. I talk about 10 other founders, you talk about 3 lines from Washington address. I reference the ability to better articulate a Christian Nation in the Constitution, and you remind me that Washington once said...If you fail to grasp the work I have put in attempting to discuss this and the litany of sources I have referenced, then why should I bother continuing?
4) I am not pretending Jefferson's writings are constitutional law. I am basing my constitutional law knowledge on 6 hours of constitutional law graduate credit, research in the area, and limited practice in the field of constitutional law. If you want to stack resumes on ConLaw knowledge, lets get to it. But don't pretend I'm extrapolating (read making up) my contentions.
5)
quote:
I have [Washington's] words. You have theory that fits your position.
Horse being beaten. It's dead. Still being beaten.
6) So you are not OK with the status quo as you previously stated? If we are a Christian Nation the things previously discussed should be banned and punishable by stoning. If you are not satisfied with the status quo do you retract your previous statement, and in that instance, what would you like to see done? (you'll ignore these questions again)
I really do enjoy discussing topics. But I am frustrated by the fact that you refuse to acknowledge any of my arguments and repeat the same mantra over and over again (most people are Christians, Washington was a Christian). PLEASE, for the love of your Christian God(s), what are you trying to say?
Do you like the current separation of Church and State system or not? Either way, why/how would you change it?
If you don't really understand how things work at the moment, let me know and I will hotlink the most relevant case law on monuments, prayer in schools, etc. I'm not trying to talk over you or show that my side is right because of education, I just don't know how else to make this discussion worthwhile any longer. A discussion that is just a repetition of ideology is of no use.
Sorry if I sounded harsh, you seem intelligent but just aren't discussing this very well.
Thank you madam (or mister) moderator.
I do not enjoy shutting down discussions. I understand any discussion on religion can be heated and am happy that it is contained in this thread as such things can spread to unassociated threads. I am reluctant to shut it down as it would likely reemerge in a new form.
However, further insults or profanity will see it locked in short order.
- Moderator
I read that the Ten Commentments Monument passed a Oklahoma house panel. While I support the concept, I think our tax dollars would be better spent on much needed std treatment programs, family planning programs, and maybe re-sodding the national mall. Seriously, we cannot afford this now.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I read that the Ten Commentments Monument passed a Oklahoma house panel. While I support the concept, I think our tax dollars would be better spent on much needed std treatment programs, family planning programs, and maybe re-sodding the national mall. Seriously, we cannot afford this now.
I agree wholeheartedly. Educating people about STDs and family planning reduces health care costs and reduces the number of unwanted children.
And nobody wants a mosh pit on the mall.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349
Maybe the lawmakers that enter won't break them now. (((sarcasm)))
quote:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:
The Legislature finds:
1. That the Ten Commandments found in the Bible, Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma;
2. That the courts of the United States of America and of various states frequently cite the Ten Commandments in published decisions;
3. That the Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of government held by many of the founders of this nation and by many Oklahomans and other Americans today, that God has ordained civil government and has delegated limited authority to civil government, that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
4. That in order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government, the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law; and
5. That the placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol would help the people of the United States and of Oklahoma to know the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of law.
SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 10.1 of Title 73, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Ten Commandments Monument Display Act".
B. The Oklahoma Secretary of State or designee is hereby authorized to permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments monument shall use the same words used on the monument at issue in Von Orden v. Perry, that the United States Supreme Court ruled constitutional. This monument shall be designed, constructed, and placed on the Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma. The Secretary of State or designee is authorized to assist private entities in selecting a location for the monument and arranging a suitable time for its placement.
C. In the event that the legality or constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument is challenged in a court of law, the Oklahoma Attorney General or designee is hereby authorized to prepare and present a legal defense of the monument and shall work with any legal services provider, if any designated by the Legislature.
D. The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others, but rather will be placed on the Capitol grounds where there are numerous other monuments.
SECTION 3. This act shall become effective November 1, 2009.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HB1330_int.rtf
The law maker is certainly something other than up front. One pet peave of mine is legislators that refuse to just be up front about it. Anyone actually think the purpose of this is to teach people about history? Just come out and say it.
quote:
Ritze said the monument he is proposing is the same as a monument in Texas. The Texas monument was challenged and withstood that legal challenge, Ritze said.
The monument in Texas was donated in 1961 and is part of a 22 acre site devoted to sources of inspiration for our nation's laws (it was a Fraternal Order of Eagles monument). The display in its entirety has a purpose other than an expression of religion and does not favor one religion over another. It was not paid for by the state and any group that meets a set of criteria can donate a monument.
This is a monument to the Protestant Christian religion (different version of the 10 Commandments for Protestant, Christian, Jew and Muslim) displayed by itself by the State on public ground (saying it will be placed with other monuments doesn't cut it) with funding solicited by the State (it should be noted that the bill explicitly requires the State to defend the constitutionality of the measure).
quote:
The 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol contain 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001).1 The monolith challenged here stands 6-feet high and 3-feet wide. It is located to the north of the Capitol building, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. Its primary content is the text of the Ten Commandments. An eagle grasping the American flag, an eye inside of a pyramid, and two small tablets with what appears to be an ancient script are carved above the text of the Ten Commandments. Below the text are two Stars of David and the superimposed Greek letters Chi and Rho, which represent Christ. The bottom of the monument bears the inscription "PRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE AND YOUTH OF TEXAS BY THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES OF TEXAS 1961."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500
See the differences? It is more similar to the 2 that were heard along with the Texas case - where the Ten Commandments were displayed with no context and paid for by the State. They were forced to take them down.
He just tried to copy everything the Texas case had. However, he can not change the fact that the Texas monument was donated in 1961 unsolicited by a non-religious organization and placed in a greater context. Attempting to copy the "text that was on the monument in the Texas case" that was legal simply won't work (it says "presented to the People and Youth of Texas by... 1961"
CNN article from the time the Texas and Kyntucky cases came down:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.ten.commandments/
Also worth noting that it has passed out of committee, it has not passed out of the House or become law.
But lets take a step back for a second and examine the text as a basis for laws:
#1) The Bible God is the only and correct God.
Blatantly against the Separation of Church and state. Not a law.
#2) No Graven Images
No value to the secular State and many Christians disagree about what it might mean. Not a law. Conflicts with 1st Amendment free speech rights.
#3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
No value to a secular State.Not a law. Conflicts with 1st Amendment free speech rights.
#4) You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
No value to a secular state.
#5) Honor your mother and father.
Good advice, but certainly not a basis for our laws.
#6) You shall not murder (killing of non-Hebrews is fine).
Great advice. It was law before the bible and is a law in every ancient culture, in fact the oldest dated law against Murder is credited to the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu from more than a thousand year before the Hebrews existed as a culture. Why cite a newer edition?
#7) You shall not commit adultery
Almost laughable in today's world. We could talk about the Founders (Franklin or Jefferson to name a couple infamous and well known pair) or Bill Clinton. Or just look at our Divorce rate, watch TV... well, you get the idea. Also, not really a law (some have it on the books, but spitting in public is also illegal).
#8) You shall not steal
One that is a law. One that has always been a law. Like Murder, there are older examples and it is doubtful any legal code would neglect it with or without religion.
#9) You shall not bear false witness
Lying is bad. Though lying to State officials is the only thing that is illegal. Which is more a matter of governmental power and efficiency that virtue. I doubt the 9th commandment is the driving motivation for perjury or obstruction laws.
#10) You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Now the bible is trying to destroy the basis for our entire economy. Arguing that is is relevant to our laws is simply a joke.
Pardon me if it doesn't appear those 10 Rules are a guideline for the laws of the United States. Of the Ten you could argue that 3 have a law that reflects them, but a stronger argument can be made that without said Bible the laws would exist just the same (see, e.g., every culture in the world). The other 7 have no bearing on secular laws and in most instances are overtly contrary to a secular government.
Do religious people not actually read the entire list or what?
[edit]spelling[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Do religious people not actually read the entire list or what?
Sure they do, they're just too pious to believe they will have to answer for breaking them.
So sayeth the prophesies.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349
That guy is kinda creepy looking.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
That guy is kinda creepy looking.
I agree. "Bad touch" creepy.
"show me on the doll" creepy.