Separation of church and state

Yeah? Spot the odd one out. Note that the first two quotations do not include the words "except King George III". You don't need a "Christian doctrine" to tell you not to trust any one person with unrestrained power. I could tell you that. Nor to tell you that men are selfish. Did any of the authors of the Federalist Papers need to appeal to the Bible as authority for this rather obvious point?You might as well say that astronomy is "Biblically based" because the Bible mentions the existence of the Sun and the Moon.No, what you need a Christian doctrine for is to tell you that the king is the "supreme authority", that you should submit yourself to him "for the Lord's sake" and that "he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you don't understand why people have bothered to reply to you, let me explain. It's because you've been wrong about such a wonderful variety of things. The funny thing is that you probably believe what you're saying."Combination of atheism and state" ...* giggles * Your paranoia amuses me.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You've not shown this was the intent of the founders either... Most of what has been pointed out to you and backed by sources tell us the opposite. It appears they based it on neutral principles that could be agreed on by men of varying faiths.I would like to point out that "Christian Principles tend to vary between different sects. I do believe this would be one of the reasons for separation.

Beg your pardon?Of course Conservatives have a Freedom of Speech.I wonder if you can show where anyone has suggested limiting Conservative's speech.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you're talking about secular and Government taking neutral stance on religion then you'd be wrong. Atheism has not made it anywhere into the government. Atheists are still talked down to by both "Liberals" and "conservatives".A neutral stance on religions protects Muslims , Hindus , Jews , CHRISTIANS and everyone else. How do you not see that?Perhaps you'd like the teacher in a school to talk of the wonders of Allah and try to "save" your children? After all Christians often make the claim prayer to Jesus and teaching should be main stream as it violates 1st amendment rights (which it doesn't)Is it ok for a teacher to preach of Allah in an American school?. Yes or no please

This is a classic example of data-shaping & selective sampling - as used by Drosnin with his Bible Codes.Did you actually bother to read what Lutz and Hyneman say about the years 1787 and 1788 - when the constitution was written?

quote:

---

The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalists' inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.

---

Did you read what Lutz said about this 34% matchup?

quote:

---

From Table 1 we can see that the biblical tradition is most prominent among the citations. Anyone familiar with the literature will know that most of these citations come from sermons reprinted as pamphlets; hundreds of sermons were reprinted during the era, amounting to at least 10% of all pamphlets published. These reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations...

---

So 75% of your 34% is actually reprinted sermons....The claim that they examined 15000 documents is also bogus. They STARTED with 15,000 documents. They discarded all but 2,000 because the political content was too small. From that they finally chose "the most significant and coherent theoretical content" - a total of 916 documents, not 15,000.

Way the go to purposely misunderstand my point.Slavery, women's rights, and a host of other things are relevant today, too. But what the framers thought about these issues aren't relevant today at all. Or would you rather we enslave the niggers and try to exterminate the reds again?Because if that's what you're saying, that because the framers were christians therefore we have to be a christian nation today, then might as well go back to whipping those niggers.

I'm sorry? In what sense don't you have freedom of speech?

May I ask why the word conservative is intertwined with Christian?
Just because the Republicans tend to use it in politics doesn't in any way make Christian = conservative.I know many atheist libertariansI don't mean Glen Beck's false idea of what Libertarian is. I mean Libertarians who don't view religion , war as a vital conservative value (you know real conservatives). This idea is what made Ron Paul popular a few years back and the original tea party... but of course you wouldn't know that...I have respect for Libertarians but would argue all day over economics , taxes and capitalism... worthy rivals .... Republicans.... not so much....Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

In the religious-right sense that some people have had the temerity to disagree with him.

What don't you understand about the democratic process? The majority of people still wanted slavery, because it's all they knew. So for abolitionists, it was an uphill battle trying to convince the masses that it was a horror. Did you miss the conclusion of the Civil War where more Americans died than in any other time in history to make the abolition of slaves a reality? What? So you witnessed their actions??? Taz, you have no other option than to take a strict documentary approach, unless of course time travel is now possible. 1. It wasn't poetry
2. Are you calling them liars?
3. Are you saying they were insincere?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Marc, buddy, give the pity-party a rest. There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who do quite well for themselves. I am one of them. As much as it would fill you with joy to think that there is this evo-liberal conspiracy at work, it's nothing more than an overactive imagination.The objections people are having is because you are not being clear. You are taking disparate neo-conservative claims and jumbling them all up in to one gigantic bowl of stew. It's like you're taking a segment of Rush Limbaugh's show on Thursday and with a segment of Glenn Beck's Friday broadcast, jumbling it all up, and coming up with a thesis about how liberals are to blame for all the world's ills.It's not making any sense. Please focus on the topic at hand.You made the claim that the Framers never intended on the Separation of Church and State. The readers responded, providing historical facts to refute your claim.The question was asked to you, several times, in light of you thinking that the Separation of Church and State is invalid, what would you like to do about it?Would you like to repeal the Separation of Church and State, and if so, on what grounds?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Not really. This is a very misleading statement. Between the ratification and signing of the treaty in 1797 and the second treaty in 1805, the USA was at war with the Barbary Pirates. Of which one was Tripoli. In 1805 a new treaty was signed. The USA has had multiple treaties with many nations.The treaty was renegotiated and altered in 1805, after it was broken by the Pasha of Tripoli in 1801. The breaking of the treaty has no effect on what the wording of the treaty was. It established precedent. You would have a point if you could provide an official document that stated the USA was a christian nation or anything that states that the language in article 11 was incorrect. Until you provide that there is no argument for you to make against article 11. Not knowing about the four year life of the Treaty of Tripoli speaks volumes about your honesty and knowledge of the subject. You might want to try unbiased resources. The treaty was not renegotiated to strike out article 11. Once this line was in a ratified treaty it no longer had to be included in any other treaties. The USA had made its announcement to the world. To restate this in other treaties would be redundant. The treaty was showing the moslem rulers of the day that the USA would treat them on the basis of their relationship as nations not on the basis of religion. History, historians, americans. Honestly now, had you ever heard of king or sherman before you found that ridiculous website? So tell us what principles should be included in government.Lets get to the bare bones. Which you continue to evade. Show us biblical principles that have been enshrined in the Constitution. You keep claiming the founders wanted a christian nation. Show us where in the Constitution this desire for a christian nation is. Anything?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It never ceases to amaze me that fundies do not even understand the concept of free speech.If you are going to espouse a ridiculous or offensive position, it is not an attack on free speech if you are criticized or ostracized. The utterance of your opinion does not make it true and those who disagree have a right and duty to question your utterances.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Gee Marc misrepresented the facts? Whudda thunk?Actually I would venture to guess he didn't do it. I am sure he is getting his info from fundie websites. I wonder if he will ever learn that the fundie sites are biased and they lie. Good Christians have no problem with lying if it reinforces or advocates for their worldview. Then they wonder why more people are becoming non-religious.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts