Tweet

Originally Posted by NewCreation

Here's a question to ponder: When Thomas Jefferson, whom the seperatists love to hold up as there shining beacon of seperatism, was President of these here US of A states--and, concurrently, head of the Washington, DC public schools--he REQUIRED two books be used in every school. Can anybody name them?

For the record, I do not believe we should be ruled by any religious body. However, I do believe--and the facts bear me out--that activist, constitution-revising, ACLU-worshipping judges have swung the pendulum too far to the left. An abortionist can perform a very invasive procedure on a child without having to tell the child's parents (yet she would not be able to get so much as an aspirin at her public school without notifying those same parents). Yet if that same child wanted to bow her head and say a simple prayer in her homeroom class, she'd more than likely be sent to the office, and her parents would more than likely be notified.

When he was president the establishment clause was binding only on the federal government. The states had much greater autonomy.

The religion clause in the First Amendment was not meant to keep the exercise of religion out of government, but to keep any religion from having too much control over the government.

I agree

Tweet

Originally Posted by roark

If you can show me otherwise, I will definitely check it out. Oddly enough though, I do agree with you on a lot of things.

I'm sorry I think I missed something, show you what?

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm sorry I think I missed something, show you what?

JohnnyB

It was about the scalia thing...doesnt matter, its a moot point.

Tweet

Originally Posted by edvedr

lmao. you do? johnny i have a hard time understanding you sometimes

I agreed with the part that they should back any religion. Here's where we are going to disagree. Letting a citizen express their religious freedom is not a sign that the government is backing anything.

Here's an example, if you work for the government you go to work with an eagles jersey on, does that mean the government is backing the eagles?

No, it's your personal backing, but somehow when it comes to religion the rational changes, why?

Lets look at the first amendment again.

Amendment I

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

I got this from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

By a person expressing thier religion in a government building, how is that congress making a law that shows repect to that religion?

Here's what happens the talking heads start saying "seperation of Church and state" it in the consitution. Do people check it out, no, they believe what they here. Once people are convinced, then comes the new spin, every government building can not have religious articles of any kind, including personal or there'll be breaking the law. Then every one get scared and don't want to take a chance that they could be breaking a law that doesn't exsist, when in reality they are breaking one on that does exsist.

Here's the best part, the same people that are so against religion are the same ones fight for a muslim women to be able to wear her vial covering her face for a photo ID. The whole montra of "seperation of Church and state" is aimed at one relgion only, the one with Churchs. When the first amendment says "religion", that's why you can go to a government building and see a women wearing her hear dress with no problem or a man wearing a relgious head dress.

We need to look out, who know what group they are going after next and you may be part of that group. Once you let them twice one part, they'll go after another. What did ****** say, "say a lie enough and people will believe it's true." Congress has made no law with respect to any religion and if they make one not allowing the freedon of expression of any religion, they have taken away the right of the people.

How this simple right got so twisted, is beyond me.

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I agreed with the part that they should back any religion. Here's where we are going to disagree. Letting a citizen express their religious freedom is not a sign that the government is backing anything.

Here's an example, if you work for the government you go to work with an eagles jersey on, does that mean the government is backing the eagles?

No, it's your personal backing, but somehow when it comes to religion the rational changes, why?

Lets look at the first amendment again.

Amendment I

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

I got this from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

By a person expressing thier religion in a government building, how is that congress making a law that shows repect to that religion?

Here's what happens the talking heads start saying "seperation of Church and state" it in the consitution. Do people check it out, no, they believe what they here. Once people are convinced, then comes the new spin, every government building can not have religious articles of any kind, including personal or there'll be breaking the law. Then every one get scared and don't want to take a chance that they could be breaking a law that doesn't exsist, when in reality they are breaking one on that does exsist.

Here's the best part, the same people that are so against religion are the same ones fight for a muslim women to be able to wear her vial covering her face for a photo ID. The whole montra of "seperation of Church and state" is aimed at one relgion only, the one with Churchs. When the first amendment says "religion", that's why you can go to a government building and see a women wearing her hear dress with no problem or a man wearing a relgious head dress.

We need to look out, who know what group they are going after next and you may be part of that group. Once you let them twice one part, they'll go after another. What did ****** say, "say a lie enough and people will believe it's true." Congress has made no law with respect to any religion and if they make one not allowing the freedon of expression of any religion, they have taken away the right of the people.

How this simple right got so twisted, is beyond me.

JohnnyB

actually johnny i had a change of heart after yesterday. like i said its not i big part of who i am...at least not what i choose to express about myself. however taking you for example and how it is a big part of you i see what you mean and i don't see the harm as long as its at a personal level of expresssion

TweetIt comes down to this, everybody has their own belief systems wheather it be religious, or non, ppl will believe and implement what they were brought up with and taught, and later inlife my either become conservative or liberal. I keep an open mind, and would like to see legislators be open enough to what is right for the whole not because they what to implement their belief systems on others to get laws changed or to suit themselves. This is true hypocrisy and happens often with our justice system. Many ppl are accused based on jurors beliefs overriding the truth and actual fact, in cases without preponderance of evidence, and this is only a small example.

Tweet

When he was president the establishment clause was binding only on the federal government. The states had much greater autonomy.

Aaah, but you miss the point. If Jefferson was so staunchly seperatist, as many liberals claim he was, then why would he not simply ALLOW, but require a Bible in every public school? (by the way, the other book was a hymnal).

You see, the framers of the constitution were not too far removed from a time when the Vatican wielded extreme political power throughout all of Europe. In fact, a king could be removed from his throne with a word from the pope(For a really good read on this, check out Martin Luther's "On the Power and Primacy of the Pope") . On the other hand, they also knew the damage done by a religious group that denied people access to God's word through banning the printing of Bibles, burning Bibles they found, and the martyring of men like William Tyndale, who dared translate it into English.
If you want to read a really good book on just how far the courts have veered from the constitution, look for "The Supremacists" by Phyllis Schlafly.

Tweet

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

No one is asking for there endorsement, only for the freedon of expression.

That's where this whole thing has gone wrong, it was written saying that the state wouldn't endorse or stop the expression of a religion.

Here's what Jefferson said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state".

The government is deffinitly making laws that prohibit the freedom of expression, when it comes to religion. The wall is for the protection of religious freedom and to stop the state from making laws that do away with that freedom, not to do away with it's expression.

Here 's the letter Jefferson where he used seperation between Church and the Stateand the letter that was written to him and the basis for his letter. https://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html

JohnnyB

So your not in disagreement with "seperation of church and state" but you think christians are being oppressed, in the name of this slogan.

I think christians are feeling the edge of their own sword. Christians have government funded faith based intiatives and programs, that I pay for and might I add, don't want to. I am being forced to support a religion. Eisenhower introduced "one nation, under god" into the pledge of allegiance, supporting religion. Christians fought tooth and nail to have the ten commandments displayed at a court house paid for by the citizens of alabama. Christians claim the government ownes a womans reproductive system in the name of protecting life.

Christians fight to give the government power to inforce their beliefs. What they are failing to see is, it is that very power the government can use to oppress them with - your own sword. If christians want freedom of expression, they should stop trying to use the government to impose their beliefs, in other words: you want freedom, you have to give it to your satanist neighbor too.

Tweet

Originally Posted by NewCreation

Aaah, but you miss the point. If Jefferson was so staunchly seperatist, as many liberals claim he was, then why would he not simply ALLOW, but require a Bible in every public school? (by the way, the other book was a hymnal).

NC,
I have read many of Jefferson's letters and this would be truly out of character for him. I am open to any scources you can cite but I think that this is untrue.

Tweet

Originally Posted by NewCreation

Aaah, but you miss the point. If Jefferson was so staunchly seperatist, as many liberals claim he was, then why would he not simply ALLOW, but require a Bible in every public school? (by the way, the other book was a hymnal).

You see, the framers of the constitution were not too far removed from a time when the Vatican wielded extreme political power throughout all of Europe. In fact, a king could be removed from his throne with a word from the pope(For a really good read on this, check out Martin Luther's "On the Power and Primacy of the Pope") . On the other hand, they also knew the damage done by a religious group that denied people access to God's word through banning the printing of Bibles, burning Bibles they found, and the martyring of men like William Tyndale, who dared translate it into English.
If you want to read a really good book on just how far the courts have veered from the constitution, look for "The Supremacists" by Phyllis Schlafly.

I didn't miss the point.

Tweetanyone who thinks that christians are oppressed in america is out of their minds

Tweet

Originally Posted by stiles

having "false gods before me" sure isn't against the law in the US. 8 of the 10 commandments are not against the law in the US. The "flase gods" commandment would no doubt be a violation of the establishment clause if posted publicly by the government. Unless it was posted with other religions' laws, and even then this is problematic because where does it end.

I've never seen a court use a bible to swear in someone, well except on TV.

You are probably right, I believe they just have you say so help me God, but it used for inauguration of the President.

JohnnyB

Tweet

Originally Posted by roark

anyone who thinks that christians are oppressed in america is out of their minds

No one said opressed unless I missed it.