Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Laughing Sam's Dice on May 29, 2007, 09:43:30 AM
-
What are they up to now:
Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice - June 26, 2007
This summer, the ACLU is calling on all its members and concerned citizens from across the country, to storm Washington, D.C. in a Day of Action, to tell Congress to restore habeas corpus and all our constitutional rights.
The Bush administration has trampled the Constitution and abandoned American values and the rule of law -- and so far Congress has failed to act. We're at a turning point, and Americans must take action to restore habeas, end government-sponsored torture, and uphold the fairness and freedom that define us.
On June 26, 2007 you can join thousands of activists for a rally, a public demonstration and an opportunity to meet face-to-face with lawmakers. With your help, we will send our message directly to Congress: We demand that they restore all the rights and freedoms lost over the last six years, particularly the due process rights stripped by the Military Commissions Act 2006.
In the words of ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, "We have always been proud that America stands for the values of due process and fairness, but those values were severely damaged when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act. Habeas must be restored and the ACLU will keep the pressure on Congress to remedy this injustice. Our nation's reputation and principles are on the line."
The ACLU is joining with Amnesty International, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and other groups in this historic Day of Action. Please add your presence and your voice to the effort, and urge friends, family and colleagues to do the same.
Find out how to get involved at www.juneaction.org. See you in D.C. this summer!
I bet all you pro-war conservatives hate this!
-
Down with Clinton!
-
What are they up to now:
Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice - June 26, 2007
This summer, the ACLU is calling on all its members and concerned citizens from across the country, to storm Washington, D.C. in a Day of Action, to tell Congress to restore habeas corpus and all our constitutional rights.
The Bush administration has trampled the Constitution and abandoned American values and the rule of law -- and so far Congress has failed to act. We're at a turning point, and Americans must take action to restore habeas, end government-sponsored torture, and uphold the fairness and freedom that define us.
On June 26, 2007 you can join thousands of activists for a rally, a public demonstration and an opportunity to meet face-to-face with lawmakers. With your help, we will send our message directly to Congress: We demand that they restore all the rights and freedoms lost over the last six years, particularly the due process rights stripped by the Military Commissions Act 2006.
In the words of ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, "We have always been proud that America stands for the values of due process and fairness, but those values were severely damaged when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act. Habeas must be restored and the ACLU will keep the pressure on Congress to remedy this injustice. Our nation's reputation and principles are on the line."
The ACLU is joining with Amnesty International, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and other groups in this historic Day of Action. Please add your presence and your voice to the effort, and urge friends, family and colleagues to do the same.
Find out how to get involved at www.juneaction.org. See you in D.C. this summer!
I bet all you pro-war conservatives hate this!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/Screwball2.jpg)'s
-
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/Screwball2.jpg)'s
Translation: Joe prefers Bush policy to traditional American values.
-
Translation: Joe prefers Bush policy to traditional American values.
Exactly. Joe reminds me of the Germans who just stood by as Hitler took absolute power.
Joe, is it that you don't believe Americans can be held for no reason or you just don't care?
-
I'm still completely bewildered that someone would trash the ACLU when their sole existence is based on protecting our rights under the constitution.
That's complete drone-like behavior.
-
;D
&mode=related&search=
-
ACLU are a stand-up organisation.
While I don't agree with the constitution in all aspects (like the guns), I think ACLU is great in the way it takes a stand for liberties.
I cannot understand how Republicans can possibly be against ACLU.
-Hedge
-
ACLU are a stand-up organisation.
While I don't agree with the constitution in all aspects (like the guns), I think ACLU is great in the way it takes a stand for liberties.
I cannot understand how Republicans can possibly be against ACLU.
-Hedge
See the youtube parody.
-
See the youtube parody.
If you are ever to read one book, just one book in your whole life man...
Read "1984", by George Orwell.
And no.
It's not some kind of left-wing propaganda pamphlett.
It's a classic, by Nobel Prize winner George Orwell.
-Hedge
-
I'm still completely bewildered that someone would trash the ACLU when their sole existence is based on protecting our rights under the constitution.
That's complete drone-like behavior.
Or not. They are anti-religious extremists, they support the right of pedophiles to have access to child porn, and they defend a criminal organization that advocates the rape of little boys. Other than that, they are a fine institution. :)
Seriously, they have done and continue to do some good things, but there is plenty of room for criticism.
-
;D
&mode=related&search=
Video 1- Should non-popular speech be allowed under the first amendment? In your thread on Chavez shutting down the TV station in Venezuela, I assume you see that limitation on free speech as a bad idea. Should Nazis be allowed to publicly state their views in the U.S, or should their first amendment rights be forfeited? The ACLU defends the constitutional right to free speech, even if its unpopular speech.
Video 2- Should doctors be allowed to report the results of your blood work, or any diagnosis you have to government agencies without your consent? Should doctors be agents of the government who report back their medical findings? The ACLU defends 4th amendment rights for illegal search and seizure. In this case, the American Medical Association agreed that this was a violation of patients' rights. And of course, the supreme court found it to be a violation.
Also consider what happens when drug-using pregnant women learn that doctors will report them. They don't go to doctors and receive pre-natal care. This becomes a risk to babies, and doctors don't have the opportunity to try to intervene and convince them to give up illicit drugs at least for the term of their pregnancy.
-
If you are ever to read one book, just one book in your whole life man...
Read "1984", by George Orwell.
And no.
It's not some kind of left-wing propaganda pamphlett.
It's a classic, by Nobel Prize winner George Orwell.
-Hedge
You should have said it was written by RUSH. Then he would have ran to the book store and bought it without looking at the author.
Now he'll find some stupid you tube parody to make a point he doesn't have to discredit it.
-
Or not. They are anti-religious extremists, they support the right of pedophiles to have access to child porn, and they defend a criminal organization that advocates the rape of little boys. Other than that, they are a fine institution. :)
Seriously, they have done and continue to do some good things, but there is plenty of room for criticism.
We had this discussion before. They are an un-bias tool protecting rights under the constitution. And yes there, of course, is with any organization like this, plenty or room for improvement.
-
Or not. They are anti-religious extremists, they support the right of pedophiles to have access to child porn, and they defend a criminal organization that advocates the rape of little boys. Other than that, they are a fine institution. :)
Seriously, they have done and continue to do some good things, but there is plenty of room for criticism.
I think they're doing a very good thing when they're making sure that the constitution is upheld in all instances, even for the most hideous criminals.
It means that the decency and morality of the society is upheld, and it, among other things, is what separates us from medieval dictatures.
Holding ourselves to a higher standard.
-Hedge
-
I think they're doing a very good thing when they're making sure that the constitution is upheld in all instances, even for the most hideous criminals.
It means that the decency and morality of the society is upheld, and it, among other things, is what separates us from medieval dictatures.
Holding ourselves to a higher standard.
-Hedge
They do good when they protect the rights of unpopular speech and expression. That's why we have the First Amendment--to protect things that are unpopular.
The problem with the ACLU is they don't know where to draw the line. They can be extremists. And some of the things they advocate are indefensible.
-
They do good when they protect the rights of unpopular speech and expression. That's why we have the First Amendment--to protect things that are unpopular.
The problem with the ACLU is they don't know where to draw the line. They can be extremists. And some of the things they advocate are indefensible.
A group that is extremist about defending civil liberties? Sounds like that's exactly what we need in this era of the Bush Administration's taking away civil liberties.
What have they advocated that is "indefensible?" They defend rights in courts of law.
-
A group that is extremist about defending civil liberties? Sounds like that's exactly what we need in this era of the Bush Administration's taking away civil liberties.
What have they advocated that is "indefensible?" They defend rights in courts of law.
Defending NAMBLA, the group that advocates the rape of little boys. We've debated that here before. I'd be happy to do it again. :)
-
Defending NAMBLA, the group that advocates the rape of little boys. We've debated that here before. I'd be happy to do it again. :)
The ACLU defended their right to free speech, not their practices.
-
I've never seen ACLU defend pedophilia.
They've defended pedophiles, because they should have the same kind of constitutional rights as everyone.
Just because they are horrible people doesn't take away their rights.
Our rights and freedoms in the Civil World is what makes us the Good Guys in my opinion.
-Hedge
edit: I sincerly hope nobody is going to try to make this into that I think pedophilia is ok, or that pedophiles shouldn't be prosecuted. Of course I do.
-
The ACLU defended their right to free speech, not their practices.
A distinction without a difference IMO. An organization that advocates the rape of little boys (Hedge, that's pedophilia), has no right to exist. This is what I mean when I say the ACLU has problems drawing the line. This isn't about unpopular speech. It's about defending the "free speech" rights of an organization that advocates exploiting the most vulnerable members of our society. It's despicable.
-
This isn't about unpopular speech. It's about defending the "free speech" rights of an organization that advocates exploiting the most vulnerable members of our society. It's despicable.
Clue- that is unpopular speech.
In the case, the ACLU stated that the person who commited the murder should be held responsible, not the organization that wrote information about "despicable" practices.
-
A distinction without a difference IMO. An organization that advocates the rape of little boys (Hedge, that's pedophilia), has no right to exist. This is what I mean when I say the ACLU has problems drawing the line. This isn't about unpopular speech. It's about defending the "free speech" rights of an organization that advocates exploiting the most vulnerable members of our society. It's despicable.
What's more, if the ACLU is defending groups like NAMBLA for their right to free speech, then why are they going after war memorials, constantly threatening to sue school districts where kids write papers about God, or wear t-shirts that display a belief in God, etc? ???
-
Exactly. Joe reminds me of the Germans who just stood by as Hitler took absolute power.
Joe, is it that you don't believe Americans can be held for no reason or you just don't care?
You''ll have to excuse Mr Hate........he's uneducated.
-
Clue- that is unpopular speech.
In the case, the ACLU stated that the person who commited the murder should be held responsible, not the organization that wrote information about "despicable" practices.
Unpopular? No kidding.
They shouldn't be doing anything to defend a criminal organization that advocates the rape of little boys. I don't know why the government hasn't shut that group down.
-
What's more, if the ACLU is defending groups like NAMBLA for their right to free speech, then why are they going after war memorials, constantly threatening to sue school districts where kids write papers about God, or wear t-shirts that display a belief in God, etc? ???
Because they can be anti-religious extremists. Easiest question of the day. :)
-
Because they can be anti-religious extremists.
The ACLU defends separation of church and state. That gets called being "anti-religious extremists" by people who like to mix their religion with their politics.
-
The ACLU defends separation of church and state. That gets called being "anti-religious extremists" by people who like to mix their religion with their politics.
They defend church-state separation, which I support, but they also advocate the cleansing of religion from all aspects of public life, which I oppose.
-
Unpopular? No kidding.
They shouldn't be doing anything to defend a criminal organization that advocates the rape of little boys. I don't know why the government hasn't shut that group down.
As long as they don't break the law, the government can't do anything about it.
However, I think, at least I hope, the FBI are screening the members of NAMBLA.
Also, I believe the government should be pro-active. Meaning it should discretely confront these NAMBLA members and offer help and therapy to keep their demons in check - lots of pedos are former victims themselves.
If it could prevent one boy from being molested, it would be worth it.
-Hedge
-
What's more, if the ACLU is defending groups like NAMBLA for their right to free speech, then why are they going after war memorials, constantly threatening to sue school districts where kids write papers about God, or wear t-shirts that display a belief in God, etc? ???
Federally funded schools cannot proselytize to its' student. Gov. funds cannot be used to fund religious expression in public areas.
Why is that so bad?
-
The ACLU defends separation of church and state. That gets called being "anti-religious extremists" by people who like to mix their religion with their politics.
Then why aren't they going after the Muslims for demanding wash-basins in airports? So, if Catholics now demand "confessional" booths in the lobbies, the ACLU wouldn't have a problem with it?
-
Federally funded schools cannot proselytize to its' student. Gov. funds cannot be used to fund religious expression in public areas.
Why is that so bad?
So a Wiccan kid can wear his t-shirt to school, but the Christian kid isn't allowed to. Or how about the Muslim women who must wear head gear? It's for religious purposes, and yet they are allow to do so in schools. This is why the Alliance Defense Fund is handily defeating the ACLU in their frivolous lawsuits against "religion". It's not religion the ACLU has a problem with, but more Christianity.
-
As long as they don't break the law, the government can't do anything about it.
However, I think, at least I hope, the FBI are screening the members of NAMBLA.
Also, I believe the government should be pro-active. Meaning it should discretely confront these NAMBLA members and offer help and therapy to keep their demons in check - lots of pedos are former victims themselves.
If it could prevent one boy from being molested, it would be worth it.
-Hedge
I agree. Except I'm not sure pedophiles can be rehabilitated. :-\
-
Then why aren't they going after the Muslims for demanding wash-basins in airports? So, if Catholics now demand "confessional" booths in the lobbies, the ACLU wouldn't have a problem with it?
I think the ACLU is just a bit slow.
They will probably start dealing with the Muslims soon enough.
-Hedge
-
I agree. Except I'm not sure pedophiles can be rehabilitated. :-\
I have doubts myself. Big doubts. To be honest, I don't think it can be "fixed". Just controlled.
But therapy could perhaps lead to them voluntarily getting sterilization, or getting into some kind of program where they were monitored.
We as a society needs to deal with it, instead of just waiting for kids to be raped, and then punish the pedos.
Because the victims are likely to grow up to become pedos themselves.
And if not pedos, they will definitely have disturbed self-images.
-Hedge
-
Here's why I have a problem with the ACLU when it comes to students' religious rights. Students are GUARANTEED these rights:
Student Rights Guaranteed Under the Constitution and Federal Law
Freedom to Meet with Other Students for Prayer, Bible Study, and Worship
Freedom to Wear Clothing Depicting Religious Messages and Symbols
Freedom to Express Religious Beliefs on Campus
Freedom to Share Religious Tracts on Campus
Freedom to Pray Voluntarily
Freedom to Carry a Bible or Other Religious Literature
Freedom to Prepare School Assignments and Projects From, and Expressing, a Religious Perspective
Freedom to Observe Religious Holidays on Campus
Freedom to Organize Religious Clubs
Freedom to Live According to Their Religious Beliefs While on Campus
-
So a Wiccan kid can wear his t-shirt to school, but the Christian kid isn't allowed to. Or how about the Muslim women who must wear head gear? It's for religious purposes, and yet they are allow to do so in schools. This is why the Alliance Defense Fund is handily defeating the ACLU in their frivolous lawsuits against "religion". It's not religion the ACLU has a problem with, but more Christianity.
I haven't seen those cases for preferential treatment. A jew can wear a yamulke, a christian can wear a cross and a Muslim can wear a burqa unless there's a compelling governmental interest to be served that says a person can't wear those things.
-
I haven't seen those cases for preferential treatment. A jew can wear a yamulke, a christian can wear a cross and a Muslim can wear a burqa unless there's a compelling governmental interest to be served that says a person can't wear those things.
So how is a t-shirt with a cross on it seen as proselytizing? ??? The ACLU is constantly drawing up lawsuits like this.
-
So how is a t-shirt with a cross on it seen as proselytizing? ??? The ACLU is constantly drawing up lawsuits like this.
I haven't seen that case. If you could link it that would be great. My point is is that there are some fairly well established rules for religious expression and federally funded schools.
-
I haven't seen that case. If you could link it that would be great.
Here's the decision on a lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin. You may have heard about this lawsuit:
U. of Wisc. agrees to recognize and fund Roman Catholic student group as it does other groups
Agreement settles case brought by ADF Center for Academic Freedom
ADF steps in after atheist entity challenges status of collegiate Catholic group
MADISON, Wis. — In response to a federal lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom, officials at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have agreed to grant official recognition and funding of the Roman Catholic Foundation that serves Catholic students and staff on the Madison campus. The university and the Roman Catholic Foundation have further agreed to steps that are designed to avoid future disputes and help end viewpoint discrimination against religious organizations.
“Catholics--and Christians of any faith--should not be treated as second-class citizens on campus, and this agreement provides the foundation with full legal equality,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French, director of CAF. “This settlement represents an extremely positive outcome for religious liberty and for the Roman Catholic Foundation’s long-term presence on campus. We’re glad that the foundation can now move forward with its ministry without fear of loss of recognition from university officials.”
The University of Wisconsin had refused to recognize the school’s Roman Catholic Foundation, the successor to a group that has served over 50,000 students at the university since its inception in 1883. The school contended that the foundation was in violation of the school’s “non-discrimination policy” (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3695 (http://www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3695)).
On March 8, a federal judge halted the unconstitutional enforcement of the policy while the lawsuit continued to move forward (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4035 (http://www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4035)). In the settlement, the foundation will receive $253,000 in student fee funding.
A copy of the settlement in University of Wisconsin-Madison Roman Catholic Foundation v. Walsh can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UWMadisonSettlement.pdf (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UWMadisonSettlement.pdf).
“Hopefully, this resolution will allow the Roman Catholic Foundation to enjoy the full range of its constitutional rights as it focuses on serving the students of the University of Wisconsin-Madison,” said French.
Check out websites for the ADF - www.alliancedefensefund.org (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org) or the ACLJ - www.aclj.org (http://www.aclj.org)
My point is is that there are some fairly well established rules for religious expression and federally funded schools.
True, but those established rules are often misinterpreted. That's why I posted those religious freedoms covered under federal law and in the constitution
-
I didn't find a t-shirt case but I did look at the disposition of the UWM case. I have no beef with the settlement.
-
The ACLU is the most dangerous single organization in this country..they are extreme leftists who stop at nothing to destroy any American institution they can in the name of fairness. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for God to be left out of eveything..they were much more interested in making sure people were free to worship..not ban it.
-
The ACLU is the most dangerous single organization in this country..they are extreme leftists who stop at nothing to destroy any American institution they can in the name of fairness. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for God to be left out of eveything..they were much more interested in making sure people were free to worship..not ban it.
It's not fairness that motivates the ACLU. It is the defense of civil liberties irrespective of who you are or what you believe.
People are free to worship.
In fact I think the ACLU would agree with Christ's admonition:
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:6 NIV)
Or how about these:
Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. (Mark 1:35 NIV)
But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. (Luke 5:16 NIV)
-
There area lot of things that start off as good idea..the ACLU was one, I guess. They stick their noses into everything, many were they are not wanted. They want to ban religious shrines at military memorials....sorry Decker..we will never agree on this. They are as anti-American as any group I can think of. This country was founded by god fearing men of the christian faith..they never intended to remove religion from the public square. I don't even go to church anymore...and i get queasy at the thought of christain fundemental crap being spewed by many of the Bush supporters..but a simple cross ata memorial site..doesn't bother men at all.
-
They defend church-state separation, which I support, but they also advocate the cleansing of religion from all aspects of public life, which I oppose.
Would you carry the same conviction if Muslim religion was advocated in public life on governmental property funded by your tax dollar?
What about having the Koran handed to you as you walk into a public library or a high school for a concert?
Would you bow your head at a high school football game or at a commencement while everyone prayed a public prayer to Allah and his true prophet Muhammed?
Would you walk to any public forum, building or property and be reminded that Muhammed is God's final messenger of the true faith?
Well, now you know how I feel about fundamentalist Christians proselytizing and trying to convert me.
-
There area lot of things that start off as good idea..the ACLU was one, I guess. They stick their noses into everything, many were they are not wanted. They want to ban religious shrines at military memorials....sorry Decker..we will never agree on this. They are as anti-American as any group I can think of. This country was founded by god fearing men of the christian faith..they never intended to remove religion from the public square. I don't even go to church anymore...and i get queasy at the thought of christain fundemental crap being spewed by many of the Bush supporters..but a simple cross ata memorial site..doesn't bother men at all.
Congress has an official priest. Crosses occupy many of our military cemeteries. Our Country was founded by Christians, Deists and Atheists.
If defense of civil liberties is anti-american, then what is pro-american?
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html
I'm not asking for your whole-hearted endorsement of the ACLU.
I'm just asking you to review the ACLU's side of the story.
Don't be shy about looking over its website or some case law.
-
They are bring cases now..to try and remove crosses from war memorials. I have never liked these guys.
-
Would you carry the same conviction if Muslim religion was advocated in public life on governmental property funded by your tax dollar?
What about having the Koran handed to you as you walk into a public library or a high school for a concert?
Would you bow your head at a high school football game or at a commencement while everyone prayed a public prayer to Allah and his true prophet Muhammed?
Would you walk to any public forum, building or property and be reminded that Muhammed is God's final messenger of the true faith?
Well, now you know how I feel about fundamentalist Christians proselytizing and trying to convert me.
Our country wasn't founded by Muslims. Our country was founded by Christians, which is evident by how deeply ingrained in our society the Christian God has been since our country's inception. You might have a valid point if our founding fathers and many of our historical documents referenced the Koran and Allah, but they don't.
I have people hand me stuff all the time on the street. Sometimes I accept it, sometimes I don't. It never bothers me.
I participated in a Buddhist prayer in my office a year or so ago. I went to a Mormon church a few weeks ago and took part in their communion. Didn't bother me one bit. I'm not threatened by other religions.
Now, what about the extremist positions taken by the ACLU that both Colossus and Headhunter have mentioned? :)
-
Where did we ever get everthing had to be fair...my relatives got very little breaks when they came from Sicily..most Irish or Italians had to work hard..no breaks or cries for fairness. They got screwed and manipulated on a daily basis. They worked hard and assimilated. They knew that hard work would equalize everything. Nothing had to be fair. The ACLU may do alot of day-to-day stuff which ensures our civil liberties but they also do way to many things that deal with hurting peoples feelings or intrude on their misplaced sense of fairness. I will look at the site but of all the topics on this board..I hate the ACLU per haps the most for their intrutions into treasured American icons and institutions. They always seem to take the side of the extreme minority against the common good because somebodies feelings got hurt.
-
Our country wasn't founded by Muslims. Our country was founded by Christians, which is evident by how deeply ingrained in our society the Christian God has been since our country's inception. You might have a valid point if our founding fathers and many of our historical documents referenced the Koran and Allah, but they don't.
I have people hand me stuff all the time on the street. Sometimes I accept it, sometimes I don't. It never bothers me.
I participated in a Buddhist prayer in my office a year or so ago. I went to a Mormon church a few weeks ago and took part in their communion. Didn't bother me one bit. I'm not threatened by other religions.
Now, what about the extremist positions taken by the ACLU that both Colossus and Headhunter have mentioned? :)
Are you sure our founding fathers reference Jesus or Christianity as a source for the establishment of our country--namely the constitution?
They surely did not.
The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document in that respect.
It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ.
In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion.
Many were believers themselves.
Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. Source: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation
They may have been christians, deists or atheists, but our government, our United States, is secular.
From that vantage point, the US is not a Christian nation. Never has been.
The goal for religion in this country has been to have a plurality. That is commensurate with the country's goal for race/ethnicity too.
Respect for religious pluralism. . .became the norm.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.
-
Are you sure our founding fathers reference Jesus or Christianity as a source for the establishment of our country--namely the constitution?
They surely did not.
The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document in that respect.
It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ.
In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion.
Many were believers themselves.
Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. Source: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation
They may have been christians, deists or atheists, but our government, our United States, is secular.
From that vantage point, the US is not a Christian nation. Never has been.
The goal for religion in this country has been to have a plurality. That is commensurate with the country's goal for race/ethnicity too.
Respect for religious pluralism. . .became the norm.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.
Are you kidding? Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers weren't referring to Islam or the Muslim God, or anything other than the Christian God when they mentioned "our Creator." Go back and read any number of posts by loco on this subject. God and religion are all over the place throughout our history. It's all over our documents.
We have a secular government, but not a secular society. The ACLU doesn't get this concept.
-
Are you kidding? Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers weren't referring to Islam or the Muslim God, or anything other than the Christian God when they mentioned "our Creator." Go back and read any number of posts by loco on this subject. God and religion are all over the place throughout our history. It's all over our documents.
I disagree with this statement.
I do however, think the ACLU has taken a good idea and given it to the worst people.
-
Are you kidding? Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers weren't referring to Islam or the Muslim God, or anything other than the Christian God when they mentioned "our Creator." Go back and read any number of posts by loco on this subject. God and religion are all over the place throughout our history. It's all over our documents.
We have a secular government, but not a secular society. The ACLU doesn't get this concept.
Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."
-
It's not fairness that motivates the ACLU. It is the defense of civil liberties irrespective of who you are or what you believe.
People are free to worship.
In fact I think the ACLU would agree with Christ's admonition:
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:6 NIV)
Or how about these:
Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. (Mark 1:35 NIV)
But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. (Luke 5:16 NIV)
Be careful that you don't just pick and choose your verses to make your point. It's better to use the 20/20 rule, where you read 20 verses prior to the verse you are highlighting and 20 verses after to get a broader understanding.
-
The founding fathers did not want a christian nation per se they wanted a pluralistic society.
-
Be careful that you don't just pick and choose your verses to make your point. It's better to use the 20/20 rule, where you read 20 verses prior to the verse you are highlighting and 20 verses after to get a broader understanding.
Excellent point.
-
Are you kidding? Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers weren't referring to Islam or the Muslim God, or anything other than the Christian God when they mentioned "our Creator." Go back and read any number of posts by loco on this subject. God and religion are all over the place throughout our history. It's all over our documents.
We have a secular government, but not a secular society. The ACLU doesn't get this concept.
I am talking about our Constitution.
Loco's recititation of letters is informative but legally inconclusive.
"our Creator" is not christianity.
-
Be careful that you don't just pick and choose your verses to make your point. It's better to use the 20/20 rule, where you read 20 verses prior to the verse you are highlighting and 20 verses after to get a broader understanding.
Good Point.
But I like strict construction. When I read, "...close the door and pray to your Father.." I tend believe it as such.
-
Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson is used often to argue that this country is not based on Judeo-Christian values, which assumes that he himself was not a Christian or did not belive in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the truth is Thomas Jefferson was a devout Christian. He supported the use of the Bible as reading material in schools (how far we've strayed from this notion :(). He personally prayed at public events. He attending services in the capital building (held in the Supreme Court of all places!). He exempted churches from being taxed. He was very much an advocate for the Church. Here's some quotes I've found as well:
In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”[Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]
-
I am talking about our Constitution.
Loco's recititation of letters is informative but legally inconclusive.
"our Creator" is not christianity.
I'm talking about the influence of God and Christianity in our society and how it has been intertwined in our society from its inception. Groups like the ACLU are trying to remove all of those influences from our society. It cannot and should not be done.
The phrase "our Creator" isn't referring to Allah or Buddha. It's referring to the Christian God.
-
The phrase "our Creator" isn't referring to Allah or Buddha. It's referring to the Christian God.
Disagree.
It was specifically designed to not say ANY particular "diety".
The founding fathers were smart cookies and knew what they were doing.
If they wanted to say "God", they would have said, "God".
-
Excellent point.
This a lesson I've personally had to experience. ;)
-
If they wanted to say "God", they would have said, "God".
They DID!!!
-
They DID!!!
Where?
Declaration of Independence?
Constitution?
Where did they say "God" on a legal document representing the government of the United States of America?
-
Our country wasn't founded by Muslims. Our country was founded by Christians, which is evident by how deeply ingrained in our society the Christian God has been since our country's inception.
You could also accurately say our country was founded by genocidal, sexist, slave owners. Those laws and practices had to change in order for the humanistic principles of this country to have a chance to manifest. The same is true with keeping church and state separate. The first amendment is about freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
-
Disagree.
It was specifically designed to not say ANY particular "diety".
The founding fathers were smart cookies and knew what they were doing.
If they wanted to say "God", they would have said, "God".
Tu I think you have to read the references to God and "our Creator" throughout our historical documents in the context of how religion was viewed by our founding fathers. Just look at what Colossus posted--quotes from Thomas Jefferson. Is there any doubt he is referring to the God Christians worship?
They never intended for America to be a religious-free society. They wanted religious freedom and not a theocracy, but they didn't intend for religion to have no influence on public life.
-
Tu I think you have to read the references to God and "our Creator" throughout our historical documents in the context of how religion was viewed by our founding fathers. Just look at what Colossus posted--quotes from Thomas Jefferson. Is there any doubt he is referring to the God Christians worship?
They never intended for America to be a religious-free society. They wanted religious freedom and not a theocracy, but they didn't intend for religion to have no influence on public life.
Food for thought then: Did they intend for women and blacks to have civil rights?
-Hedge
-
You could also accurately say our country was founded by genocidal, sexist, slave owners. Those laws and practices had to change in order for the humanistic principles of this country to have a chance to manifest. The same is true with keeping church and state separate. The first amendment is about freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
O.K. Our country was founded by genocidal, sexist, slave owners. Obviously, those practices and beliefs were immoral.
The First Amendment says nothing about our society being free from religion.
-
Food for thought then: Did they intend for women and blacks to have civil rights?
-Hedge
No.
-
Tu I think you have to read the references to God and "our Creator" throughout our historical documents in the context of how religion was viewed by our founding fathers. Just look at what Colossus posted--quotes from Thomas Jefferson. Is there any doubt he is referring to the God Christians worship?
They never intended for America to be a religious-free society. They wanted religious freedom and not a theocracy, but they didn't intend for religion to have no influence on public life.
Again, I disagree...
-
I'm talking about the influence of God and Christianity in our society and how it has been intertwined in our society from its inception. Groups like the ACLU are trying to remove all of those influences from our society. It cannot and should not be done.
The phrase "our Creator" isn't referring to Allah or Buddha. It's referring to the Christian God.
We do agree that gov. is secular and society is not. That's sort of easy. But I see no textual evidence for your ascribing creator with Jesus the Christian God.
-
They did not want to face a Puritanical religion hoisted on them such as those who fled England. They never intended to remove god from the public square. The framers were god fearing men in the christain sense.
-
We do agree that gov. is secular and society is not. That's sort of easy. But I see no textual evidence for your ascribing creator with Jesus the Christian God.
See the post by Colossus a few posts up. That's one of about 999 references to the Christianity and the Christian God by our founding fathers.
-
The First Amendment says nothing about our society being free from religion.
I guess you haven't heard of the Establishment Clause, more commonly known as separation of church and state. No government body can require religious observation of any type. That is freedom from religion.
-
Thomas Jefferson is used often to argue that this country is not based on Judeo-Christian values, which assumes that he himself was not a Christian or did not belive in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the truth is Thomas Jefferson was a devout Christian. He supported the use of the Bible as reading material in schools (how far we've strayed from this notion :(). He personally prayed at public events. He attending services in the capital building (held in the Supreme Court of all places!). He exempted churches from being taxed. He was very much an advocate for the Church. Here's some quotes I've found as well:
In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”[Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]
Thomas Jefferson also made several quotes against religion, especially christianity. And don't forget that everyone was expected to be religious back then. I'm not gonna go on a google rampage like you to prove my point.
If you think this nation was founded on christian values, then you couldn't be more wrong. This nation was founded on the philosophy of men like John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith. Go read up on these great men and you'll see.
-
See the post by Colossus a few posts up. That's one of about 999 references to the Christianity and the Christian God by our founding fathers.
Those references are not in the US Constitution.
-
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
-Hedge
-
As for the alleged destructive bent of the ACLU and innocent practicing Christians, how do opponents of the ACLU explain these cases?:
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson protecting the religious expression rights of students. The court held that a Frenchtown Elementary School student had the right to sing the song "Awesome God" at a school talent show. The ACLU-NJ submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the student. http://www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/aclunjdefendsreligiousexpr.htm
The ACLU has long argued that veterans and their families should be free to choose religious symbols on military headstones – whether Crosses, Stars of David, Pentacles, or other symbols – and that the government should not be permitted to restrict such religious expression in federal cemeteries. http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29459prs20070423.html
The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas. www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) joined forces with the American Family Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller's wife, Theresa. www.stcynic.com/blog/ archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php; www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit. www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/sep/09/517482854.html; www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit against the city of Scottsburg for their repeated threats of arrest and/or citation against members of the Old Paths Baptist Church for demonstrating regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs. www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978
-
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
-Hedge
Bump for a good link.
-
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
-Hedge
Thanks, Hedge.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson mades as many quotes against faith as they did for it.
And like I said, this nation was founded on the philosophy of men like Locke, Smith, Hume and was also influenced by ancient Greece and Rome.
-
Those references are not in the US Constitution.
So? Neither is the infamous "wall of separation between church and state" reference used by the courts.
-
As for the alleged destructive bent of the ACLU and innocent practicing Christians, how do opponents of the ACLU explain these cases?:
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson protecting the religious expression rights of students. The court held that a Frenchtown Elementary School student had the right to sing the song "Awesome God" at a school talent show. The ACLU-NJ submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the student. http://www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/aclunjdefendsreligiousexpr.htm
The ACLU has long argued that veterans and their families should be free to choose religious symbols on military headstones – whether Crosses, Stars of David, Pentacles, or other symbols – and that the government should not be permitted to restrict such religious expression in federal cemeteries. http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29459prs20070423.html
The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas. www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) joined forces with the American Family Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller's wife, Theresa. www.stcynic.com/blog/ archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php; www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit. www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/sep/09/517482854.html; www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit against the city of Scottsburg for their repeated threats of arrest and/or citation against members of the Old Paths Baptist Church for demonstrating regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs. www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978
What this tells me is the ACLU does some great things. I've acknowledged they have. They also take extremist positions, as Colossus pointed out in this thread.
-
I guess you haven't heard of the Establishment Clause, more commonly known as separation of church and state. No government body can require religious observation of any type. That is freedom from religion.
The Establishment Clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say society shall be free from religion and all religious influences.
-
So? Neither is the infamous "wall of separation between church and state" reference used by the courts.
I'm not saying that a "wall of separation between church and state" is written in the Constitution.
Although it is undeniable that subsequent Sup. Ct. Caselaw relies on that principle quite heavily in relation to the Establishment Clause.
-
I'm not saying that a "wall of separation between church and state" is written in the Constitution.
Although it is undeniable that subsequent Sup. Ct. Caselaw relies on that principle quite heavily in relation to the Establishment Clause.
But Decker you're saying the numerous references to God and Christianity are not in our Constitution to support the argument that "our Creator" isn't referring to the Christian God. Isn't that a little inconsistent?
-
But Decker you're saying the numerous references to God and Christianity are not in our Constitution to support the argument that "our Creator" isn't referring to the Christian God. Isn't that a little inconsistent?
A Christian god would be Jesus. Jesus is not mentioned in the Constitution.
As for a generic term 'creator', they do not refer to any denominational god. Creator does not = Christian god.
Could you point out in the Constitution where 'God' is written?
-
A Christian god would be Jesus. Jesus is not mentioned in the Constitution.
As for a generic term 'creator', they do not refer to any denominational god. Creator does not = Christian god.
Could you point out in the Constitution where 'God' is written?
We're kind of going in circles. The Constitution doesn't mention "God," just like it doesn't mention the "wall of separation between church and state." What the courts did was look at other historical documents to interpret the First Amendment. If you're being consistent, you should do the same when interpreting what "our Creator" is actually referring to.
-
What you idiots fail to see in the first amendment is where it says seperation of church and state...oh yeah it doesn't. It says the government will not prohibit free exercise of religion which is what the ACLU does on a daily basis. If my kid wants to pray in a public school, that is his 1st amendment right. The government can't make it mandatory but they can't stop it either.
-
What you idiots fail to see in the first amendment is where it says seperation of church and state...oh yeah it doesn't. It says the government will not prohibit free exercise of religion which is what the ACLU does on a daily basis. If my kid wants to pray in a public school, that is his 1st amendment right. The government can't make it mandatory but they can't stop it either.
If your kid wants to pray to himself in a public school he can. We are not mind readers. If he wants to pray with others he can as long as it doesn't interfere with school operations.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer.
"Nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.
Show me the caselaw where the ACLU violates any of the above rules.
-
If your kid wants to pray to himself in a public school he can. We are not mind readers. If he wants to pray with others he can as long as it doesn't interfere with school operations.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer.
"Nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.
Show me the caselaw where the ACLU violates any of the above rules.
You are telling me you know of no situations where the ACLU has tried to get prayer or christian symbols removed from a school?
-
You are telling me you know of no situations where the ACLU has tried to get prayer or christian symbols removed from a school?
Not private schools, only state-funded public schools. Remember, separation of church and state! Hurray!
-
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
-Hedge
Actually, I've run across nobeliefs.com (http://nobeliefs.com) when googling other Christian information (I think there's more information against Christianity than for it lol) . Now, I could take the cowardly route and flat out reject it just based on the source of information, like most folks do when I put up a link from Christian source. :P
-
Not private schools, only state-funded public schools. Remember, separation of church and state! Hurray!
Hurray!!! I mean our country was such a horrible place during the days when school began with the pledge of allegience and prayer! phew, glad that has given way to the shit heads we are producing in school now a days.
-
Hurray!!! I mean our country was such a horrible place during the days when school began with the pledge of allegience and prayer!
Nothing like training nationalism into them when they're young! Creates more soldiers willing to go kill people in foreign lands, naively believing they are "heroes."
-
You are telling me you know of no situations where the ACLU has tried to get prayer or christian symbols removed from a school?
I'm asking you. You made the allegation.
-
Nothing like training nationalism into them when they're young! Creates more soldiers willing to go kill people in foreign lands, naively believing they are "heroes."
how much did it hurt our country in the 40s 50s 60s?
-
Korean war, Vietnam war. More foreign invasions to kill others.
-
Actually, I've run across nobeliefs.com (http://nobeliefs.com) when googling other Christian information (I think there's more information against Christianity than for it lol) . Now, I could take the cowardly route and flat out reject it just based on the source of information, like most folks do when I put up a link from Christian source. :P
I see your point, and nobeliefs.com is definitely argumental.
However, the facts on the page I linked are what they are, and at least, they're fodder for discussion.
FWIW, I thought the page seemed to have most of it straight.
But I can, as always, be wrong.
-Hedge
-
Korean war, Vietnam war. More foreign invasions to kill others.
Yeah the south koreans really hate us!! lol, loser
and I am betting you won't hear many Vietnamese say they wish communism had succeeded
-
What you idiots fail to see in the first amendment is where it says seperation of church and state...oh yeah it doesn't. It says the government will not prohibit free exercise of religion which is what the ACLU does on a daily basis. If my kid wants to pray in a public school, that is his 1st amendment right. The government can't make it mandatory but they can't stop it either.
Haha... we're all idiots.
You're right... if your kid wants to pray... by himself... good for him.
What do I care?
Do I think the ACLU goes too far... sure sometimes, but it also does a lot of good to protect your right to freedom of religion.
The ACLU is here to protect the constitution... Do people not like the constitution all of a sudden?
We're kind of going in circles. The Constitution doesn't mention "God," just like it doesn't mention the "wall of separation between church and state." What the courts did was look at other historical documents to interpret the First Amendment. If you're being consistent, you should do the same when interpreting what "our Creator" is actually referring to.
I would disagree as that when you read Article 1:
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.
It makes NO LAW respecting it OR prohibiting it.
That seems pretty plain... Religion is not to be in government... If you go to government funded schools... Then guess what, that's in the government.
I don't see why people have a sticking point on this when the Constitution says it so plainly.
-
Haha... we're all idiots.
You're right... if your kid wants to pray... by himself... good for him.
What do I care?
Do I think the ACLU goes too far... sure sometimes, but it also does a lot of good to protect your right to freedom of religion.
The ACLU is here to protect the constitution... Do people not like the constitution all of a sudden?
I would disagree as that when you read Article 1:
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.
It makes NO LAW respecting it OR prohibiting it.
That seems pretty plain... Religion is not to be in government... If you go to government funded schools... Then guess what, that's in the government.
I don't see why people have a sticking point on this when the Constitution says it so plainly.
Tu you're overstating the Establishment Clause. It doesn't say "religion is not to be in government." Not only does the Constitution not say this, but that kind of interpretation is inconsistent with how we have operated as a society for hundreds of years. For example, look at our Thanksgiving holiday, our National Day of Prayer, the hiring of a pastor/priest in the Senate, the beginning of our legislative sessions with prayer, at the city, state, and federal levels, etc.
-
Tu you're overstating the Establishment Clause. It doesn't say "religion is not to be in government." Not only does the Constitution not say this, but that kind of interpretation is inconsistent with how we have operated as a society for hundreds of years. For example, look at our Thanksgiving holiday, our National Day of Prayer, the hiring of a pastor/priest in the Senate, the beginning of our legislative sessions with prayer, at the city, state, and federal levels, etc.
I don't think I'm overstating it... First off, the prayer, well, even during the first continental congress there was a disagreement about the prayer (I believe Benjamin Franklin's letters state as such) where some didn't think it was appropriate, but majority ruled.
As far as a priest in the Senate, well, being a Priest isn't his job anymore, so his religious beliefs SHOULD take a backseat to his role in the government.
Thanksgiving is not religious at all... it's giving thanks that people freaking survived... That's all.
When was the National Day of prayer instituted?
For that matter, when was "In God We Trust" put on Money? When was Christmas considered a holiday?
NONE of those things were done when the country was founded and as such, I find them to be directly opposite of what this country was intended to do.
Let me ask you all this question...
When a non christian religion becomes the majority in this country, and those religions beliefs change the way things are done in this country, how will you feel about religion in the government then?
-
It will never happen....never. There is only one religion that would be a problem anyway.
-
I don't think I'm overstating it... First off, the prayer, well, even during the first continental congress there was a disagreement about the prayer (I believe Benjamin Franklin's letters state as such) where some didn't think it was appropriate, but majority ruled.
As far as a priest in the Senate, well, being a Priest isn't his job anymore, so his religious beliefs SHOULD take a backseat to his role in the government.
Thanksgiving is not religious at all... it's giving thanks that people freaking survived... That's all.
When was the National Day of prayer instituted?
For that matter, when was "In God We Trust" put on Money? When was Christmas considered a holiday?
NONE of those things were done when the country was founded and as such, I find them to be directly opposite of what this country was intended to do.
Let me ask you all this question...
When a non christian religion becomes the majority in this country, and those religions beliefs change the way things are done in this country, how will you feel about religion in the government then?
Check out Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation from 1863: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm
I agree with Headhunter that we'll never have a non-Christian religion as the majority in this country.
I have a question for you: when in our country's history has our society, including our government, ever been free from all religious influences?
-
It will never happen....never. There is only one religion that would be a problem anyway.
Check out Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation from 1863: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm
I agree with Headhunter that we'll never have a non-Christian religion as the majority in this country.
I have a question for you: when in our country's history has our society, including our government, ever been free from all religious influences?
The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.
Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.
-
The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.
Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.
lol. O.K. Almost anything is possible. Let's just say it's highly unlikely. :)
-
The Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Titanic would never sink.
Two planes would never fly into skyscrapers on purpose.
Beach... I'm not saying it ever has been completely free of those religious influences, but it should be.
well mr smarty pants, two planes never did hit the towers...ask 240
-
Thanks, Hedge.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson mades as many quotes against faith as they did for it.
No, they made many quotes for faith.
They made many quotes against theocracies.
Thou shall not confuse the two. ;D
And like I said, this nation was founded on the philosophy of men like Locke, Smith, Hume and was also influenced by ancient Greece and Rome.
Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim? Thank you!
-
Food for thought then: Did they intend for women and blacks to have civil rights?
-Hedge
The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):
I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11
John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12
The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13
There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:
I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15
Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:
Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16
Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:
Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17
Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:
Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] — Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18
Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:
Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20
When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king's perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22
Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:
A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.. 23
The Founders took action against slavery.
The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24
Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25
As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:
When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master's heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26
The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.
Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.
The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.
Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.
While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:
Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,...courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28
The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29
Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.
References:
11. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786. In "The Founding Fathers and Slavery" by David Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5.
12. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.
13. Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 439. In "Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery," by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1.
14. Hart, p. 53.
15. Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319.
16. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3.
17. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.. In Barton, p. 4.
18. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4.
19. Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2.
20. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3.
21. "An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery" (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22. The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p. 25.
23. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
24. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps. 4-6. In West, p. 2.
25. Barton, p. 5.
26. N. Dwight, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr, 1860), p. 11.
27. West, p. 4.
28. Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818), in West, p. 4.
29. Mississippi v. Jones (1820), in West, p. 4.
-
No, they made many quotes for faith.
They made many quotes against theocracies.
Thou shall not confuse the two. ;D
Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim? Thank you!
No, you are weasling your way out of fact. It is very well known that Locke influenced the founding fathers.. I mean checks and balances was an idea of Locke's, as well as individual civil liberties. Keep googling nonsense about the founding fathers making references to faith.. You may think you are making your point, but ask any historian and they'll tell you where the ideals of this nation came from.
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_locke.html
His works on government and human understanding.
Summary of his of his points that influence the american revolution, as well as the ideals this nation was founded on.. Notice it's in contrast to Thomas Hobbes - who himself was an advocate of monarchy and reduced civil liberties, as he thought man was not fit to govern themselves..
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm#Social
From John Locke (1632-1704):
"The Philosopher of Freedom."
4(e). Separation of Powers:
The question of whether man would voluntarily put himself under government is but the first question: there then follows along the next, "What form of government is best." Hobbes, not surprisingly, given his view of the nature of man, preferred that there should be one supreme authority, a monarchy. While Hobbes could tolerate government by legislative assembly alone, as opposed to a monarch, he thought that power in the assembly should be absolute and not to be shared. Locke's view, more consistent with the social contract theory, was that there was no need for government to have great powers, which, in the final analysis, would only be needed to keep people down; at any rate, Locke recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that government's power was best limited by dividing government up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function.14
4(h). Revolution:
If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed." This was the philosophical stuff which sanctioned the rebellions of both the American colonialists in 1775, and the French in 1789.
4(b). Lockeian Pre-Social Man:
Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights.11 Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out "into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates," and did so as "a method of securing natural morality more efficiently." To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.
-
You're right loco.. Here's a quote from Jefferson regarding slavery:
Sir,--I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind to send me on the "Literature of Negroes". Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.
^ Letter of February 25, 1809 from Thomas Jefferson to French author Monsieur Gregoire, from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (H. A. Worthington, ed.), Volume V, p. 429. Citation and quote from Morris Kominsky, The Hoaxers, pp. 110-111.
-
No, you are weasling your way out of fact. It is very well known that Locke influenced the founding fathers..
Relax, Camel Jockey! Read my post again.
Camel Jockey,
I am not saying that this isn't true, but will you please post some references to your claim? Thank you!
I was only asking you for references, and you did provide them. So thank you! ;D
I know that the founding fathers were influenced, not only by their faith, but also by the Romans Republic and the Greek democracies. But it cannot be denied that they were influenced by their faith too.
If you noticed, I have said very little on the subject in my own words. I have mostly posted quotes by the founding fathers and I have let them speak for themselves.
-
You're right loco.. Here's a quote from Jefferson regarding slavery:
Thanks for the quote, Camel Jockey!
-
well mr smarty pants, two planes never did hit the towers...ask 240
No, no... I'm going with the planes on this one.