Here are few reasons why I will NOT support the ACLU:
They was founded by a socialist, with communistic AND socialistic agenda's...
Founder Roger Baldwin is quoted as saying....I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
They have an ANTI-God agenda...seeking removal of anything with the words GOD on it, from our national monuments to our currency....
They clearly have an Anti-Christian agenda (http://aclu.procon.org/sourcefiles/ACLUReligionCases.pdf)......I see it as more of an Atheistic Agenda...
They are against parental consent of minors seeking abortion...
Just to name a few reasons why....
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/ACLU-1.jpg)
My guess is that most of the people who share your simplistic views also start sentences with, "They was..."
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/aclu-2.jpg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 11:58:13 AM
Here are few reasons why I will NOT support the ACLU:
They was founded by a socialist, with communistic AND socialistic agenda's...
"He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny". In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members." - Robert C. Cottrell "Roger Baldwin: Founder, American Civil Liberties Union 1884-1981. Notable American Unitarians.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 11:58:13 AM
Founder Roger Baldwin is quoted as saying....I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
They have an ANTI-God agenda...seeking removal of anything with the words GOD on it, from our national monuments to our currency....
They clearly have an Anti-Christian agenda (http://aclu.procon.org/sourcefiles/ACLUReligionCases.pdf)......I see it as more of an Atheistic Agenda...
They are against parental consent of minors seeking abortion...
Just to name a few reasons why....
Baldwin was a unitarian that despite what you may think of him, was recognized worldwide for his efforts on behalf of civil liberties.
MacArther asked him to help with Japan and he founded the JCLU, for which the Japanese government awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun. Germany and Austria also used him for the very same purposes.
President Carter awarded him the medal of Freedom in 1981.
He also said:
"So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy."
"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."
"To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Roger Baldwin, when reflecting on his life, said that in his early years he not only regularly attended the Unitarian Church in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts; he also helped to teach in the Sunday School and even listened to the preacher. He added, "I would say that social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people." -
by Robert C. Cottrell, Professor of History and American Studies at California State University
I've already stated my position surrounding the removal of any religious reference within government elsewhere. I agree with the ACLU.
Baldwin in my mind was among the first to realize and understand the American propaganda machine for what it was, and to his credit undertook actions to oppose it. Again among the first and only recently has the general American public come to understand the relevancy of Baldwins' efforts and statements.
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html (http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html)
He was not anti'Christian or Anti-God, nor is the ACLU. As an agnostic-unitarian Baldwins' beliefs were different than those of the main line Christians. He was castigated by Hoover and subjected to the allegations of being a communist, as was the ACLU, via Hoovers well documented dirty tricks mechanisms and propaganda machine.
Now that you know the truth, Henry, do you support the ACLU?
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/ACLU-3.jpg)
It was STILL founded with communist and socialist, agenda's....Roger, MAY have had good intentions...but they have become the BULLY pulpit....the ACLU has become an army of lawyers using the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally...
I am all for Civil Liberties....not for the ACLU...
I do NOT agree with many, many issues that the ACLU has defended or attacked...
AND I can give reasons WHY I do NOT support them:
against parental consent of minors seeking abortion...
against the Boy Scouts of America...
there obvious desire to secularize America...
trying to stifle the Minute Men Project...
I didn't figure you'd have any interest in dragging yourself from the mud-pit of ignorance which is precisely why I don't waste my time like PH does trying to educate those of you who refuse to learn.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 01:07:13 PM
I didn't figure you'd pull yourself from the mud-pit of ignorance which is precisely why I don't waste my time trying to educate those of you who refuse to learn like PH does.
For what it is worth EX, you HAVE caused me to at least rethink SEVERAL issues over the last few months...maybe not changing my mind, but you have forced me into looking at issues from another angle...in this case, I simply do not agree with the ACLU's agenda....not saying that they have not done good things, but overall, I simply disagree...and I have read even more on this, because of this forum....so I AM learning...not just the way YOU think I should on this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 01:10:49 PM
...in this case, I simply do not agree with the ACLU's agenda...
Here is their only agenda; tell us with which parts you disagree:
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
These rights include:
Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
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.
The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.
What they are is the last line of defense against the infringement of our rights. As has already been demonstrated in another thread, people have a tendency to misinterpret the agenda and purpose of any initiative undertaken by the ACLU; automatically assuming they support entities like the KKK when they defend the infringement of their rights.
Somebody has to do this and certainly when the rights of a socially unacceptable (according to popular belief) entity is being subjected to illegal infringement of their rights, most private representation will not undertake such an initiative because they themselves will be socially castigated and professionally ruined by the resulting propaganda generated by the opposition.
But for the ACLU, our individual rights would be vastly less than what they are today, based upon the legal precedents that would have been set and the resulting legislation that would have resulted from them.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 01:07:13 PM
I didn't figure you'd have any interest in dragging yourself from the mud-pit of ignorance which is precisely why I don't waste my time like PH does trying to educate those of you who refuse to learn.
I suppose you are correct. Perhaps it would be better if I just stfu and let them wallow in their sea of ignornace.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 01:16:49 PM
I suppose you are correct. Perhaps it would be better if I just stfu and let them wallow in their sea of ignornace.
They seem commited. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 01:19:25 PM
They seem commited. :rolleyes:
. . . or should be! :biggrin:
I think that goes without saying.
Indeed!
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 01:14:46 PM
Here is their only agenda; tell us with which parts you disagree:
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
These rights include:
Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
How about them suing the Pentagon for sponsoring the Boy Scouts of America?...mainly because of the Boy Scouts have religous beliefs.....I think THAT is crossing the line.....and going TOO far.
The Boy Scouts of America is being chastised because THEY are standing on their own religious convictions....are THEY really a threat to ANYONE?
I simply disagree with the ACLU on this 100%
ah screw ya... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 01:30:34 PM
ah screw ya... :rolleyes:
Watch out. They'll start associating you with NAMLA for such statements! :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 01:29:30 PM
How about them suing the Pentagon for sponsoring the Boy Scouts of America?...mainly because of the Boy Scouts have religous beliefs.....I think THAT is crossing the line.....and going TOO far.
The Boy Scouts of America is being chastised because THEY are standing on their own religious convictions....are THEY really a threat to ANYONE?
I simply disagree with the ACLU on this 100%
I know you hate the Constitution but which part of the government not sponsoring particular religious beliefs do you have difficulty understanding?
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 01:36:11 PM
Watch out. They'll start associating you with NAMLA for such statements! :razz:
I already do! :biggrin:
Because it's your birthday Hank, I'll attempt to show you one more time how wrong you are about them:
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102880 (http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102880)
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/NetherlandAmi... (http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/NetherlandAmi...)
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas(2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state's commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. Neither Texas law nor the U.S. Constitution allows the state to separate children and their parents based on purported cultural harm alone or on the state's disapproval of the families' religious beliefs. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35468prs2008... (http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35468prs2008...)
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35500prs2008... (http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35500prs2008...)
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf (http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf)
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
http://www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer... (http://www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer...)
http://www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lit_OSA... (http://www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lit_OSA...)
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/... (http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/...)
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
http://www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/rights_of_wo... (http://www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/rights_of_wo...)
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs... (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs...)
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/egypt... (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/egypt...)
The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs... (http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs...)
http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0707/chu... (http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0707/chu...)
So much for that anti-religion / anti-God falsehood. . .
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 01:51:53 PM
I know you hate the Constitution but which part of the government not sponsoring particular religious beliefs do you have difficulty understanding?
Let me ask you this...
Why did the Continental Congress in 1782, give money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bible...
In September 1789, the House of Representatives authorized the first official Thanksgiving. The resolution they passed called for "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....
in 1802, Congress framed an "enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a manner "not repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision. in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock'...
in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...
the bottom line is...did our forefathers not understand...or does the ACLU just understand it better than the guys who WROTE the Constitution? :rolleyes:
You're the one who doesn't understand. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 02:20:24 PM
You're the one who doesn't understand. :rolleyes:
Thanks for answering my question...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 01:29:30 PM
How about them suing the Pentagon for sponsoring the Boy Scouts of America?...mainly because of the Boy Scouts have religous beliefs.....I think THAT is crossing the line.....and going TOO far.
The Boy Scouts of America is being chastised because THEY are standing on their own religious convictions....are THEY really a threat to ANYONE?
I simply disagree with the ACLU on this 100%
In 1991, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully brought suit to reinstate the twin boys, then 9 years old, after they were dismissed from Scouting for refusing to take an oath to God. The boys, who do not consider themselves to be atheists, explain that they do not understand what the word God means to them and thus do not feel comfortable taking an oath. After a trial in 1992, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Orange County Council had discriminated against the boys on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of California's civil rights statute, known as the Unruh Act.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100083 (http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100083)
Nowhere within the ACLU database is there any case referring to them undertaking action(s) against the Pnetagon for sponsorship of Scouting. . . The closest thing I could find was the case above relating to twin boys being booted because they refused to say the word "God" because they did not understand what it meant. And that was against the Scouts for discrimination. Just one of several.
If you have a link to the information documenting the case please post it. I'd like to know what you're talking about. I am suspecting you've been fed bad information.
Hawk: They don't and won't get it because they don't want to. When the framers of the Constitution put in to keep state and church separate they meant to keep the government out of the church. But all non believers like to say that it is to keep church out of government. They came from countries that had been ruled by monarchs that ran their Church's before. This was something that was very precious to them. Otherwise they would not of been so prevalent with Gods name and prayer in their dealings. They wanted the freedom to express their beliefs without being tortured, jailed or killed. They made their wished known, it has just been subverted through out time.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 02:08:41 PM
Because it's your birthday Hank, I'll attempt to show you one more time how wrong you are about them:
[So much for that anti-religion / anti-God falsehood. . .
Even Satan is a religious being...simply because these guys defended a 'few' cases....I believe their overall agenda is....to push God out of Government, the classroom and the public square, via purely technical "legal" means....even though the Declaration Of Independence, says that our basic human rights are granted by our Creator (God) (and not men)
Thanks for your Birthday kindness...maybe I AM JUST being hard-headed...but it is clear to me, there is an agenda attached that I don't like.....period.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 02:55:21 PM
In 1991, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully brought suit to reinstate the twin boys, then 9 years old, after they were dismissed from Scouting for refusing to take an oath to God. The boys, who do not consider themselves to be atheists, explain that they do not understand what the word God means to them and thus do not feel comfortable taking an oath. After a trial in 1992, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Orange County Council had discriminated against the boys on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of California's civil rights statute, known as the Unruh Act.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100083 (http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100083)
Nowhere within the ACLU database is there any case referring to them undertaking action(s) against the Pnetagon for sponsorship of Scouting. . . The closest thing I could find was the case above relating to twin boys being booted because they refused to say the word "God" because they did not understand what it meant. And that was against the Scouts for discrimination. Just one of several.
If you have a link to the information documenting the case please post it. I'd like to know what you're talking about. I am suspecting you've been fed bad information.
The Pentagon issued its message to military bases as part of a legal settlement with the ACLU (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3195)
Quote from: mcgonser on April 14, 2009, 02:59:56 PM
. . .When the framers of the Constitution put in to keep state and church separate they meant to keep the government out of the church. But all non believers like to say that it is to keep church out of government. They came from countries that had been ruled by monarchs that ran their Church's before. This was something that was very precious to them. Otherwise they would not of been so prevalent with Gods name and prayer in their dealings. They wanted the freedom to express their beliefs without being tortured, jailed or killed. They made their wished known, it has just been subverted through out time.
Tell me where you went to school because whomever taught you history needs to be jailed! Are you dyslexic or something, because you've got it totally wrong!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 03:06:53 PM
The Pentagon issued its message to military bases as part of a legal settlement with the ACLU (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3195)
Sweet baby jeebus hangin on da cross! Do you not see the slant in that source Hank? Come on! If you're going to be swayed by such tripe I give up. . . You are beyond help!
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Sweet baby jeebus hangin on da cross! Do you not see the slant in that source Hank? Come on! If you're going to be swayed by such tripe I give up. . . You are beyond help!
Okay, then here (http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000220.shtml)..just google it..there are several links that confirms what I am saying.
bumb
QuoteEterminator made this statement: I know you hate the Constitution but which part of the government not sponsoring particular religious beliefs do you have difficulty understanding?
I think this is a valid point to bring up that is being igored....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 02:16:13 PM
Let me ask you this...
Why did the Continental Congress in 1782, give money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bible...
In September 1789, the House of Representatives authorized the first official Thanksgiving. The resolution they passed called for "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....
in 1802, Congress framed an "enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a manner "not repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock'...
in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...
the bottom line is...did our forefathers not understand...or does the ACLU just understand it better than the guys who WROTE the Constitution? :rolleyes:
and I got more:
Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible
Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof'
THIS IS CONGRESS SPONSERING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS...
From the ruling and official communication:
"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz of the ACLU of Illinois. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."
Previously, Defense Department units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs, which exclude youths who do not believe in God. Additionally, the Boy Scouts of America requires troop and pack leaders, in this case government employees, to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not wish to swear a religious oath, and that direct government sponsorship of such a program is religious discrimination.
. . .The Boy Scouts will still also have access to any military facilities that are currently made available to other non-governmental organizations.
"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity,". . .
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html (http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html)
"The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion."
Clearly this action was undertaken to uphold the basic tenants of our Constitution and rights, yet inflammatory articles such as the one you supplied serve only to undermine the very fabric of our nation and divide us.
The BSA has a clear and documented history of discrimination against boys that are of religions other than Christianity. They repeatedly have refused participation and membership to those individuals that maintain beliefs that are outside of traditional Christian beliefs, IE Muslim, etc., and this cannot be endorsed by government lest it be perceived as support for a particular religion.
sure there is tripe...on BOTH sides.... :rolleyes:
the bottom line is...it is an attack on the Boy Scouts of America.....again...I just find that crossing the line.....
I'm not being swayed by anybody but what I CLEARLY see....
Yikes. Tunnel vision. You are being blinded by religious fervor and conditioning.
I find it strange that one who so fervently supports and frequently quotes the Constitution and our founding fathers is so strenuously arguing against them in this situation.
Clearly, and I've provided documentation and sources to support this, the ACLU is nothing less than an advocate for the very same things you have often declared such strong support for; the Constitution and individual rights.
Only due to the cases wherein this support has engaged them with your chosen religion have you now changed direction.
We disagree. . . but I am right.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 14, 2009, 02:59:56 PM
Hawk: They don't and won't get it because they don't want to. When the framers of the Constitution put in to keep state and church separate they meant to keep the government out of the church. But all non believers like to say that it is to keep church out of government. They came from countries that had been ruled by monarchs that ran their Church's before. This was something that was very precious to them. Otherwise they would not of been so prevalent with Gods name and prayer in their dealings. They wanted the freedom to express their beliefs without being tortured, jailed or killed. They made their wished known, it has just been subverted through out time.
Your post illustrates your absolute and profound ignorance of the intent of the Constitution's language on religion. If you want to live in a thocracy, move to Iran (and good riddance).
I'm in good company...I'll take the Boy Scouts of America....and what they stand for.....and It's a shame, that the military cannot show public support for this FANTASTIC organization, because some lawyers is claiming it against the Constitution...
I think our forefathers would be proud to support the BOA....did you read any of my posts PH?
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 03:09:43 PM
Tell me where you went to school because whomever taught you history needs to be jailed! Are you dyslexic or something, because you've got it totally wrong!
Yep. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 03:28:09 PM
bumb
I think this is a valid point to bring up that is being igored....
THIS IS CONGRESS SPONSERING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 02:16:13 PM
Let me ask you this...
Why did the Continental Congress in 1782, give money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bible...
In September 1789, the House of Representatives authorized the first official Thanksgiving. The resolution they passed called for "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....
in 1802, Congress framed an "enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a manner "not repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock'...
in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...
the bottom line is...did our forefathers not understand...or does the ACLU just understand it better than the guys who WROTE the Constitution? :rolleyes:
It isn't being ignored, but what is being convieniently ignored are the mistakes of a young nation. So in your mind this country got it right , right out of the gate? Nothing could be further from the truth. Had we done so that stuff would never have happened.
Why did they do these things? Because the nation was young, it was growing, and it was (is ) learning. Mistakes are made, but the key is to learn from these mistakes and move forward. Individuals do it, groups do it, nations do it.
The fact is we're still trying to get it right and organizations like the ACLU are the watchdogs ensuring we do so, and remain faithful to the intentions of our foundational documents.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 03:46:13 PM
Only due to the cases wherein this support has engaged them with your chosen religion have you now changed direction.
Do you not see a pattern?
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 03:54:15 PM
It isn't being ignored, but what is being convieniently ignored are the mistakes of a young nation. So in your mind this country got it right , right out of the gate? Nothing could be further from the truth. Had we done so that stuff would never have happened.
Why did they do these things? Because the nation was young, it was growing, and it was (is ) learning. Mistakes are made, but the key is to learn from these mistakes and move forward. Individuals do it, groups do it, nations do it.
The fact is we're still trying to get it right and organizations like the ACLU are the watchdogs ensuring we do so, and remain faithful to the intentions of our foundational documents.
so our forefathers just got it wrong?....when THEY endorsed many, many religous beliefs?....I clearly believe, these guys had NO intention of what is going on today, with God being TRASHED the way He is...like it or not guys...and this IS a fact.....our forefathers revered the Bible and God..
I'm not saying at all...that this country was designed to be Christian Nation....but it WAS designed by a Nation of Christians...or at the least men who valued the Bible and their Creator...
I think, a few of you need to look in the mirror before they chastise others...
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Do you not see a pattern?
I do. I've had some historic successes in getting Henry to see things like this. . . Only thing keeping me trying to be honest about it. But once he makes statements like "nothing is going to sway me on this" I can pretty much throw in the towel. . . which I am now doing. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 04:06:16 PM
I do. I've had some historic successes in getting Henry to see things like this. . . Only thing keeping me trying to be honest about it. But once he makes statements like "nothing is going to sway me on this" I can pretty much throw in the towel. . . which I am now doing. . .
Thanks ;D
you have had SOME success in the past on a few issues....and I have EVEN given SOME credit to the ACLU today....but, as a whole, I think they are doing more bad than good.
with THAT said....I'm picking up the towel....and waving it.... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 04:03:37 PM
so our forefathers just got it wrong?....when THEY endorsed many, many religous beliefs?....I clearly believe, these guys had NO intention of what is going on today, with God being TRASHED the way He is...like it or not guys...and this IS a fact.....our forefathers revered the Bible and God..
I'm not saying at all...that this country was designed to be Christian Nation....but it WAS designed by a Nation of Christians...or at the least men who valued the Bible and their Creator...
I think, a few of you need to look in the mirror before they chastise others...
No. . . it was NOT founded on Christianity but the ideal of religious freedom.
Any religion or the individual choice of NO religion.
Secondly, the FF's
clearly state the need for separation of church and state. So what part of this is unclear to you?
You have enough to fully comprehend my position. I reject yours as unfounded, unsupported, and directly against that which our nation was founded upon.
Religion has no place in government. Government has no place in religion.
And while we're at it I think their tax exempt status is a crock of crap and should be removed tomorrow morning for
all of them!
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 04:13:42 PM
No. . . it was NOT founded on Christianity but the ideal of religious freedom. Any religion or the individual choice of NO religion.
Secondly, the FF's clearly state the need for separation of church and state. So what part of this is unclear to you?
You have enough to fully comprehend my position. I reject yours as unfounded, unsupported, and directly against that which our nation was founded upon.
Religion has no place in government. Government has no place in religion.
And while we're at it I think their tax exempt status is a crock of crap and should be removed tomorrow morning for all of them!
you have enough to fully comprehend my position too...but you WON'T accept my VERY supported position....
you are saying our forefathers was wrong in endorsing religon like they did...in the posts that I had earlier attached?
because they CLEARLY did....
read it again....
these guys felt the Bible WAS/IS important...
the Bible in school was/is important...
giving thanks to GOD was/is important....
public worship was/is important....
Divine service be performed for our Military was/is important...
appropriating money for missionaries was/is important....
that congress open with prayer was/is important...
I will attach this again, to make it easy for you to read....
Why did the Continental Congress in 1782, give money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bible...
In September 1789, the House of Representatives authorized the first official Thanksgiving. The resolution they passed called for "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....
in 1802, Congress framed an "enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a manner "not repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock'...
in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...
Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible
Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof'
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 14, 2009, 04:26:55 PM
you have enough to fully comprehend my position too...but you WON'T accept my VERY supported position....
you are saying our forefathers was wrong in endorsing religon like they did...in the posts that I had earlier attached?
because they CLEARLY did....
read it again....
these guys felt the Bible WAS/IS important...
the Bible in school was/is important...
giving thanks to GOD was/is important....
public worship was/is important....
Divine service be performed for our Military was/is important...
appropriating money for missionaries was/is important....
that congress open with prayer was/is important...
I will attach this again, to make it easy for you to read....
Why did the Continental Congress in 1782, give money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bible...
In September 1789, the House of Representatives authorized the first official Thanksgiving. The resolution they passed called for "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God....
in 1802, Congress framed an "enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a manner "not repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock'...
in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...
Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible
Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof'
Where's the beef? Prove it!
I'm done until you can provide proof that doesn't come from some slanted agenda driven source.
Y'all get totally bent out of shape over this religion hoopla. Coupla points here:
1. Christianity is not the most popular religion in the world.
2. Christianity itself is so divided into non-harmonious sects and schools of thought (tongue in cheek on the word "thought") that those who believe they are going to heaven expect it to be sparsely populated.
So, as it presents itself to me, organized religion is not a unifying factor, but a divisive one. Why not believe what you please, and grant the same courtesy to everyone else? In the only words from Karl Marx that most people know, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Personally I have always preferred my opiates in tangible form.
That said, I still hold my bi-weekly prayer breakfasts for every god who is pleased to attend. But ya wanna watch where you put the pancake syrup when Loki and Coyote are feeling frisky.
Meanwhile, I will look to the ACLU to safeguard my constitutionally granted (not god-given) rights in this go-round.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
Y'all get totally bent out of shape over this religion hoopla. Coupla points here:
Spend enough time here and they'll get around to you too eventually. Just remember, I told you so. . .
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
1. Christianity is not the most popular religion in the world.
Rot roh. . . thems fighten words to the sheeple! :biggrin:
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
2. Christianity itself is so divided into non-harmonious sects and schools of thought (tongue in cheek on the word "thought") that those who believe they are going to heaven expect it to be sparsely populated.
Exactly. However in my case it isn't just the xtians I have a problem with but all organized religions.
You can bone up on my position here: http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13389.0
(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13389.0) A work in progress and a bit wordy though. . .
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
So, as it presents itself to me, organized religion is not a unifying factor, but a divisive one. Why not believe what you please, and grant the same courtesy to everyone else? In the only words from Karl Marx that most people know, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Personally I have always preferred my opiates in tangible form.
Agreed. . . and I'm certainly more than willing to live and let live; except when it is jammed down my throat. . . I take exception to that.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
That said, I still hold my bi-weekly prayer breakfasts for every god who is pleased to attend. But ya wanna watch where you put the pancake syrup when Loki and Coyote are feeling frisky.
How's that working for yah? :wink: :biggrin:
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 06:42:32 PM
Meanwhile, I will look to the ACLU to safeguard my constitutionally granted (not god-given) rights in this go-round.
Rot roh. . . more fighten words. . . :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 08:19:11 PM
How's that working for yah?
Not bad. As a rule they bring their own sacramental comestibles. And beverages. And inhalants. (Woo-hoo!)
Quote from: LOsborne on April 14, 2009, 08:30:11 PM
Not bad. As a rule they bring their own sacramental comestibles. And beverages. And inhalants. (Woo-hoo!)
And hopefully they bring money for the offering plate! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 08:19:11 PM
You can bone up on my position here:
Took me a little while to page back to the meat. Damned well told, sir. (Am I allowed to say "damned" here?)
Quote from: Locutus on April 14, 2009, 08:41:03 PM
And hopefully they bring money for the offering plate! :biggrin:
I have taken offense. :angry: My ecumenical prayer breakfasts are not a "for profit" enterprise. We don't even sell the leftovers. :shots: As a rule, there aren't many.
:biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 04:29:50 PM
Where's the beef? Prove it!
I'm done until you can provide proof that doesn't come from some slanted agenda driven source.
You want me to PROVE that the Continental Congress in 1782, gave money to the mass printing and distribution (http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/didyouknow.html) of the Bibles?...
That congress and President Washington requested.... "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html) to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God"
Just go here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:) ....
Is THIS enough proof?...The Thomas - Library of Congress is NOT a slanted agenda driven source....
my point is, all this happened during our forefathers tenure...but by God, the ACLU is fixed on the military NOT supporting a Boy Scouts of America event!...THAT is a bunch of crap! and going TOO far....THAT is what I am driving at.
Henry, I wasn't aware that we had the burden of proof on our side. This is an opinion thread, right? Mostly it does not matter who or what you use for facts they will put it down and you for using it. I will make my point and then move on, they get toooo much fun in arguing. In Oklahoma we would say that they are so contrary they would argue with a fence post swaying in the wind. LOL
Quote from: Palehorse on April 14, 2009, 04:13:42 PM
Secondly, the FF's clearly state the need for separation of church and state. So what part of this is unclear to you?
Show me where THEY clearly state.....the need for separation of church and state?...It's NOT in the Constitution....
Oh for christ's sake, if you can't understand the intent of the language of the Constitution (and it was well elaborated on afterward by the signers so that even dimwits like you couldn't get it wrong) then you're a buffoon. If religion is such a part of that document, why isn't your god and the baby geebuz mentioned anywhere in it even once?
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 08:53:52 AM
Oh for christ's sake, if you can't understand the intent of the language of the Constitution (and it was well elaborated on afterward by the signers so that even dimwits like you couldn't get it wrong) then you're a buffoon. If religion is such a part of that document, why isn't your god and the baby geebuz mentioned anywhere in it even once?
what's a mater, you getting pissed?...I asked a question....the First Amendment does NOT say ANYTHING about separation of Church and state....I never said religion is part of the document....I said, our forefathers DID include religion in their governing affairs....why did they buy the bibles then?...whey did they proclaim Thanksgiving?..just to name a few. Religion WAS important to our forefathers....this is very evident.
Ex: I fully agree with you on this: the language of the Constitution is fairly explicit, and only buffoons have trouble intrepreting it. Problem is we've had way too many buffoons on the Supreme Court over the last 50 years or so! JMHO.
Quote from: Ma and Pa on April 15, 2009, 09:43:52 AM
Ex: I fully agree with you on this: the language of the Constitution is fairly explicit, and only buffoons have trouble intrepreting it. Problem is we've had way too many buffoons on the Supreme Court over the last 50 years or so! JMHO.
Pa, then WHY did our forefathers WANT religous activities involved in government affairs?...
before everybody jumps on me....I"m NOT saying that I think that we should be forcing ANY religion upon the people...that is NOT the argument here...I am just asking a question....this is a newly found argument for me...after doing some reading on this...it seems like these guys preferred religion as part of their governing duties..
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
what's a mater, you getting pissed?...
Ignorance and those who would try to twist our Constitution into something it is not annoys me.
QuoteI asked a question....the First Amendment does NOT say ANYTHING about separation of Church and state....I never said religion is part of the document...
It does not use those exact words, no, but, as I have mentioned before and you would know if you cared to
learn, the signers made it very clear thereafter what they meant and yes, those exact words were used. To say otherwise is either ignorance or an outright lie.
QuoteI said, our forefathers DID include religion in their governing affairs....
Bullshit.
Quotewhy did they buy the bibles then?...
Because they recognized that many of the citizens were Christian and were unable to import English language bibles because of the war. It was clearly meant as a conciliation rather than an endorsement.
Quotewhey did they proclaim Thanksgiving?..just to name a few.
Their use of the word 'god' in that declaration doesn't refer to
your god but any god or even nature itself much in the same way the word 'creator' was bandied about at the time. Your grasping onto it as having any real meaning as it relates to your beliefs is assinine.
QuoteReligion WAS important to some of our forefathers....this is very evident.
And it wasn't necessarily the Christian religion either which many clearly viewed with absolute contempt. Still others thought religion is total crap.
very weak... :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 09:53:41 AM
....this is a newly found argument for me...after doing some reading on this...
The only reading you've been doing is on sites you visit for the sole purpose of proving the U.S. is as much a theocracy as, say, Iraq and then you come here and regurgitate the same crap. Heaven forbid you do some actual research and apply critical thinking skills to the question.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
very weak... :no:
Yes, you are...weak minded and easily led.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 09:59:31 AM
The only reading you've been doing is on sites you visit for the sole purpose of proving the U.S. is as much a theocracy as, say, Iraq and then you come here and regurgitate the same crap. Heaven forbid you do some actual research and apply critical thinking skills to the question.
I think the library of congress is a great site to do research on...and I HAVE BEEN doing some very critical thinking on this...maybe it is YOU that should take of your tunnel vision glasses and read this...
in 1782, Congress adopted (and has reaffirmed on numerous subsequent occasions) the National Seal with its Latin motto `Annuit Coeptis,' meaning `God has favored our undertakings,' along with the eye of Providence in a triangle over a pyramid, the eye and the motto `allude to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
I think the library of congress is a great site to do research on...and I HAVE BEEN doing some very critical thinking on this...maybe it is YOU that should take of your tunnel vision glasses and read this...
How can you claim to be thinking critically when you see everything through the prism of your bible? You really don't get it; do you?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
I think the library of congress is a great site to do research on...and I HAVE BEEN doing some very critical thinking on this...maybe it is YOU that should take of your tunnel vision glasses and read this...
Bravo Hawk: Well said ;D :biggrin: :yes:
In 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching education, declaring that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged'...
I get it....even more so NOW, than EVER....it is people like you who is 'duping' your errant thoughts as facts...when, I have in the last hour read...from the library of congress....facts to support my train of thought.
where are is PROOF... that what I am saying is wrong?..... :confused:
Yea! right on!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 10:08:53 AM
in 1782, Congress adopted (and has reaffirmed on numerous subsequent occasions) the National Seal with its Latin motto `Annuit Coeptis,' meaning `God has favored our undertakings,' along with the eye of Providence in a triangle over a pyramid, the eye and the motto `allude to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause...
Which part of
THEIR USE OF 'GOD' WAS A GENERIC TERM THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PARTICULAR GOD AND COULD VERY WELL BE REPLACED WITH 'NATURE' IF THAT'S WHAT SOMEONE'S BELIEFS WERE is difficult for you to grasp.
BTW, your arrogant attitude that the whole country is based on and here to serve Christians is exactly the problem that people like me have with your religious beliefs. That you simultaneously attempt to prove that our rule of law is based on your bible and say you're not trying to shove your beliefs down the rest of our throats is bullshit.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 15, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
Yea! right on!
You could have just said, "Yee haw!" It's all the same.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 10:15:10 AM
BTW, your arrogant attitude that the whole country is based on and here to serve Christians is exactly the problem that people like me have with your religious beliefs. That you simultaneously attempt to prove that our rule of law is based on your bible and say you're not trying to shove your beliefs down the rest of our throats is bullshit.
Exterminator...if I am coming across as arrogant, then i honestly do apologize....and it is NOT my motivation to prove that the whole country is based on and here to serve Christians...because I do NOT believe that myself for one minute....I am being defensive, because I am tired of everyone saying that God was NOT an important aspect in our forefathers daily lives....and it is tit for tat on WHOSE GOD we are talking about..that can be argued a different day...I'm saying that these guys believed that religion WAS very important in their governing affairs and in peoples daily lives....and I have proved that....
again IF, you honestly feel I am trying to shove Christianity down your throat or anyone Else's here....I will gladly STOP!
Why don't you just replace the word "god" with "allah" in this thread moving forward? (just for giggles.) See how that sits. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on April 15, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Why don't you just replace the word "god" with "allah" in this thread moving forward? (just for giggles.) See how that sits. . .
if that is what it takes...okay
:confused:
Isn't it about time for you to head downtown so you and your fellow neocon sheep can teabag each other? :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 12:13:17 PM
Isn't it about time for you to head downtown so you and your fellow neocon sheep can teabag each other? :biggrin:
naw, that is not until 4:30.....a great day in American history!!!!... :yes: ;D
so are you going to reply to my last post?....I honestly think I have made valid points.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 12:15:48 PM
naw, that is not until 4:30.....a great day in American history!!!!... :yes: ;D
It's a laughable day in American history but just goes to show how easily led gullible people are by a rant from some numb-nuts loud-mouth like Rush Limbaugh or Rick Santelli (from CNBC...isn't that part of the 'liberal' media you're always going on about?).
At least you don't dispute that the purpose of the event is teabagging. :razz:
Quoteso are you going to reply to my last post?....I honestly think I have made valid points.
There were no inquiries in your last post.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
It's a laughable day in American history but just goes to show how easily led gullible people are by a rant from some numb-nuts loud-mouth like Ruch Limbaugh or Rick Santelli (from CNBC...isn't that part of the 'liberal' media you're always going on about?).
At least you don't dispute that the purpose of the event is teabagging. :razz:
There were no inquiries in your last post.
this is a grassroots campaign...and it is NOT just a right-wing ordeal....it is for ANYBODY tired of the wreckless spending in Washington....and I assure you....there will be NO TEABAGGING going on... ;) ;D (
a very sick mind you have)...
and I was referring to my last post..to you!... ;)
btw...it's Rush...not Ruch.. :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 12:47:14 PM
this is a grassroots campaign...and it is NOT just a right-wing ordeal....it is for ANYBODY tired of the wreckless spending in Washington...
Bullshit. And I'm right across the street from there and think it's hysterical to see how much money they're spending to protest how much money is being spent.
Quote...and I assure you....there will be NO TEABAGGING going on... ;) ;D (a very sick mind you have)...
Are you sure because I'm pretty sure I just saw Larry Craig over there.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 01:27:41 PM
Bullshit. And I'm right across the street from there and think it's hysterical to see how much money they're spending to protest how much money is being spent.
Are you sure because I'm pretty sure I just saw Larry Craig over there.
but it is NOT the TAXPAYERS dollars being spent!!!...and THIS is about as grassroots as it gets...and they are expecting about 8,000 people to attend.
and I think you need to get a hold of Barney Frank for the kind of teabag that you seem so interested about... ;) :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 01:32:29 PM
but it is NOT the TAXPAYERS dollars being spent!!!...and THIS is about as grassroots as it gets...and they are expecting about 8,000 people to attend.
Grassroots, hayseed...it's all the same. :rolleyes:
so i ask...it seems nobody can answer my question....but in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...it think that this very congress, who was very in tune to how our Constitution works....would find it okay IF the military wanted to sponser a Boy Scout event, without disrupting 'religious freedom or infrindging upon our constitution..'... :no:
Continue to take things out of context and spin them to mean whatever you'd like, Henry. And BTW, you keep telling us how your source is the Library of Congress but your 'proof' can be found all over the internet on right-wing sites, almost verbatim and presented in exactly the same order as you present it. Coincidence? Do you really think we're all that freakin' stupid?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 01:37:42 PM
so i ask...it seems nobody can answer my question....but in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday...it think that this very congress, who was very in tune to how our Constitution works....would find it okay IF the military wanted to sponser a Boy Scout event, without disrupting 'religious freedom or infrindging upon our constitution..'... :no:
And they still employ nonsecular Chaplin's in most branches of the military as a "service" to the military membership; much as I am sure these "iconic and precedent setting" moments in history were meant throughout history. (Toward the citizens of this new country back then).
Why did they include "In God We Trust" on currency when our founding fathers targeted the ideal of total separation of church and state?
ANSWER: In earlier times when society was more gullible and innocent, as was the government, it was never thought of as being against the Constitution. Back in those days we didn't have a virtual cornucopia of religions to deal with in this country either, and the population was not as diverse. (For a very long time the only people voting were white males, including at the start so factor that into your logic as well.)
Times change, society changes, and with it the importance of adhering to those attributes as they were set back then. With the growth of religions, cultures, and society in general, came the magnification of conflicts within current practices and the intent of the founding documentation; and religion is a big one these days bucko.
Our money doesn't say in Muhammad we trust or In Allah we trust, or in the bleeding chicken we trust, so it has to come off of there.
Any endorsement, display, or action that can be interpreted as supportive of one religion over another is discriminatory in nature and libels the government. You're so hot to stop the financial bleeding, how yah going to feel when followers of the grunting pig religion successfully sue the government for a cool billion over religious discrimination because we displayed the sweet baby jeebus nativity on the capital grounds and not the wallowing pig?
And the BSA
cannot be sponsored because THEY exercise religious and racial discrimination on a regular basis! How you gonna feel when the Abdul ah and Abdel successfully sue the government to the tune of a cool billion over the fact that they financially sponsored an entity that repeatedly infringed upon their right to religious freedom?
Now get the BSA to drop the religious dogma and all that goes away. Simple really.
The law is the law, and it must be followed.
There is one problem with your examples PH that I can see. God is all inclusive and we are talking USA and citizens not immigrants or illegals rights. No other country gives up their heritage for another countries or do they give a rats ass about it. When you are in their country you adapt to their ways or don't stay if you don't like it they don't change to suit you.
Quote from: me on April 15, 2009, 02:12:49 PM
There is one problem with your examples PH that I can see. God is all inclusive and we are talking USA and citizens not immigrants or illegals rights. No other country gives up their heritage for another countries or do they give a rats ass about it. When you are in their country you adapt to their ways or don't stay if you don't like it they don't change to suit you.
WTF? Are you implying that there aren't large groups of U.S. born citizens who belong to those other religions?
BTW, most of the immigrants to the U.S. are hispanics and most hispanics are Christians. Aren't your Christian brethren important? I mean, we're talking about god's family; aren't we?
Quote from: me on April 15, 2009, 02:12:49 PM
There is one problem with your examples PH that I can see. God is all inclusive and we are talking USA and citizens not immigrants or illegals rights. No other country gives up their heritage for another countries or do they give a rats ass about it. When you are in their country you adapt to their ways or don't stay if you don't like it they don't change to suit you.
BUT, a statue at one of our main ports of entry says,
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. doesn't it?
If we don't mean it then we need to take that bitch down too.
The whole basic premise of this country is freedom; religious, individual, speech, et al. And religious freedom doesn't just mean the right to practice your chosen faith, but also the right NOT to practice any faith or belief in a higher being at all. Freedom OF religion.
This nation's heritage is comprised of
every culture of the world, and the right to practice that culture within the laws of the land.
If you are going to deny that, then what is this country's heritage? That it came to this land, slaughtered it's native peoples, forced organized religion upon those that remained, and raped the resources?
No one is saying they shouldn't have a right to their beliefs but we should not have to change our heritage to comply they are supposed to adapt which means they should accept our differences too not the other way around. If you come to live in my home I will respect your ways but will not adapt or change mine to suit yours too I will instead expect you to also respect mine.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 01:46:25 PM
Continue to take things out of context and spin them to mean whatever you'd like, Henry. And BTW, you keep telling us how your source is the Library of Congress but your 'proof' can be found all over the internet on right-wing sites, almost verbatim and presented in exactly the same order as you present it. Coincidence? Do you really think we're all that freakin' stupid?
THERE is NO spin ... it is all on the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:)..big f'ind deal if others are also using it as a source...it is STILL a valid source with NO SPIN...I am beginning to think that you may very well be that stupid....(
you asked for that one.. ;))
Quote from: Palehorse on April 15, 2009, 02:02:34 PM
Times change, society changes, and with it the importance of adhering to those attributes as they were set back then. With the growth of religions, cultures, and society in general, came the magnification of conflicts within current practices and the intent of the founding documentation; and religion is a big one these days bucko.
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko!
[/quote]
Quote from: me on April 15, 2009, 02:32:28 PM
No one is saying they shouldn't have a right to their beliefs but we should not have to change our heritage to comply they are supposed to adapt which means they should accept our differences too not the other way around. If you come to live in my home I will respect your ways but will not adapt or change mine to suit yours too I will instead expect you to also respect mine.
Running to and fro bowing, praying, squealing, and collecting money on behalf of some higher being is NOT our heritage! Freedom IS. Freedom from it, freedom of it, as well as the freedom to do so if it is what you want to do.
You know, now that I've thought of it perhaps we ought to use Hanks little laundry list as a to do list. Take every single item on that list that still exists and eliminate them. Then, pass a resolution that admits to the error of our earlier administrations and apologizing for them to the entire nation.
Public displays within government of a religious nature, sponsorship of any religious group or a group that practices religious discrimination, etc. are against the law constitutionally. How is that so hard to understand for anyone? (Because their religious fervor blinds them to the truth).
I'll just bet you that if displaying the cross were suddenly deemed against the law the xtians would run squalling to the ACLU for help with that discrimination.And just watch when we remove their meal ticket, (tax exempt status).
Quote from: Palehorse on April 15, 2009, 02:45:10 PM
Public displays within government of a religious nature, sponsorship of any religious group or a group that practices religious discrimination, etc. are against the law constitutionally. How is that so hard to understand for anyone? (Because their religious fervor blinds them to the truth).
Patronize me and show me where in the Constitution, does it say what you say it does....
"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."
Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square....
I have read the true intention of the religion clause in the First Amendment: it goes like this,
"Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:41:44 PM
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko!
Wrong again. They may have endorsed the ideal and freedom of/ from religion but in
no case was it to be a
part of government. Ouakers, Protestants, Jews, Pig Suckers, whatever. Don't matter. They don't lead.
Get a group of these braying jackasses together today and you won't find them any more able to agree upon anything than they were 233 years ago. They know it now and they knew it back then; which is why they wanted it kept separate from the government.
Our "heritage" is a fuggen joke. We came to a foreign land and killed its native peoples, raping the land and enslaving people of other races. Then we killed each other over it for a few years, then ignored the results for a lot more years.
We created documents and a constitution to free us of the yoke of religion and 233 years later bible thumpers try to twist its meanings just as they twist the source and intent of their religion's own icon and text, and for the very same motivation; wealth and power over the masses.
Christianity has slaughtered billions in the name of "God" over history, so it's "heritage" is just as tainted as that of this nation.
You ain't fooling me, you zealots are just as much a threat as 25 middle eastern terrorists with a bus load of nukes. The founding fathers knew it too, even back then. And you can't change the language on the paper.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:36:55 PM
THERE is NO spin ... it is all on the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:)..big f'ind deal if others are also using it as a source...it is STILL a valid source with NO SPIN...I am beginning to think that you may very well be that stupid....(you asked for that one.. ;))
Yes, but the sources you got it from take it out of context and spin it to mean what they want it to say and you are gullible enough to believe them, ergo, my presumption that you are not reading all of the information and forming your own opinion is absolutely correct.
And I ain't stupid, yer stupid!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:53:19 PM
Patronize me and show me where in the Constitution, does it say what you say it does....
"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."
Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square....
I have read the true intention of the religion clause in the First Amendment: it goes like this,
"Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."
You answer one of your own questions. (see bold) And yes that include Christianity!
Now who in hell's half acre said you can't stand in the middle of the square in a loincloth and spew your religious propaganda until you expire? I never did. Have at it kiddo, I couldn't care less.
But you
cannot display upon a government building anything connected to religion. Now, point out some of that for me on governmental property and I'll start the lawsuit to have it taken down as soon as I can afford to do so.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 08:32:06 AM
You want me to PROVE that the Continental Congress in 1782, gave money to the mass printing and distribution of the Bibles?...
Oh wow. This just occurred to me. Ben Franklin was a printer. If the Continental Congress actually paid for the "mass printing and distribution of the Bibles," is this evidence that pork barrel spending was the norm even before this country won independence?
Quote from: LOsborne on April 15, 2009, 07:51:44 PM
Oh wow. This just occurred to me. Ben Franklin was a printer. If the Continental Congress actually paid for the "mass printing and distribution of the Bibles," is this evidence that pork barrel spending was the norm even before this country won independence?
:food5: :rotfl:
LMFAO! Good one! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:41:44 PM
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko!
They may have done exactly as you say, but it was in private or at a church, where it belongs. Provide a single quote from the Constitution (the construct from which our entire government AND legal heritage comes from) that supports the gov't to be involved with such endorsements.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:41:44 PM
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko!
Ahhh. I don't think Jefferson did. Was Jefferson a Founder?
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
[Thomas Jefferson, to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370]
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
[Thomas Jefferson, to Carey, 1816]
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:36:55 PM
THERE is NO spin ... it is all on the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:)so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko![/i].. ;))
Ahhh. Thomas Paine didn't think so. Is Thomas Paine a Founder?
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-- Thomas Paine, (1737-1809), The Age of Reason, pt. 1, "The Author's Profession of Faith" (1794), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations
Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
Everything wonderful in appearance has been ascribed to angels, to devils, or to saints. Everything ancient has some legendary tale annexed to it. The common operations of nature have not escaped their practice of corrupting everything.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:36:55 PM
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question....did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko![/i].. ;))
Ahhh. James Madison didn't think so. Was James Madison a Founder?
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
Quote from: Exterminator on April 15, 2009, 01:36:30 PM
Grassroots, hayseed...it's all the same. :rolleyes:
ASTROTURF in this case..
Quote from: dan foster on April 15, 2009, 11:05:41 PM
Ahhh. James Madison didn't think so. Was James Madison a Founder?
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
Quote from: dan foster on April 15, 2009, 10:50:09 PM
Ahhh. Thomas Paine didn't think so. Is Thomas Paine a Founder?
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-- Thomas Paine, (1737-1809), The Age of Reason, pt. 1, "The Author's Profession of Faith" (1794), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations
Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
Everything wonderful in appearance has been ascribed to angels, to devils, or to saints. Everything ancient has some legendary tale annexed to it. The common operations of nature have not escaped their practice of corrupting everything.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
Quote from: dan foster on April 15, 2009, 10:46:34 PM
Ahhh. I don't think Jefferson did. Was Jefferson a Founder?
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
[Thomas Jefferson, to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370]
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
[Thomas Jefferson, to Carey, 1816]
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Quote from: dan foster on April 15, 2009, 10:39:40 PM
They may have done exactly as you say, but it was in private or at a church, where it belongs. Provide a single quote from the Constitution (the construct from which our entire government AND legal heritage comes from) that supports the gov't to be involved with such endorsements.
As it would seem we took a months long break from this subject, anyone care to take up the gauntlet again and respond to Dan's postings???
Naw, I am 100% convinced that I am correct on this stance.....and I have seen all of the spins trying to degrade it... :yes:
I'm good!!.. ;D
but by all means feel free to jump in.... ;)
Denial...not a river in Egypt. :rolleyes:
De-iamright...........also not a river in Egypt
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 16, 2009, 04:02:15 PM
Naw, I am 100% convinced that I am correct on this stance.....and I have seen all of the spins trying to degrade it... :yes:
I'm good!!.. ;D
but by all means feel free to jump in.... ;)
Just for completeness, here is a reminder of your stance;
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 15, 2009, 02:36:55 PM
so screw our heritage...and you are getting sidetracked from my question...
.did our FF's endorse religion for the common good of the people...the answer is YES they did.........bucko![/i].. ;))
I would like to know how you can be 100% convinced you are right, when so many of our FF's, as you put it, say you are wrong. Do their words mean nothing to you, or are you only capable of believing the word of god, put down by men on paper, of dubious origin and flawed logic and morality? Your blind faith, in faith itself is amusing. No matter of reality or facts can sway your delusion; proving the power of brainwashing, yet again.
If nothing else, please describe who, or what, convinced you 100% of your stance, if you don't mind. I am guessing either it was the dead clown in Coral Gables, or some crackpot like Dobson.
Quote from: dan foster on December 16, 2009, 10:27:38 PM
Do their words mean nothing to you
I can give you hundreds of quotes by our FF that CLEARLY state their strong beliefs in GOD and how they CHERISH the BIBLE....and the individual State Constituions CLEARLY acknowledge God....that is just a simple FACT...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 17, 2009, 08:25:47 AM
I can give you hundreds of quotes by our FF that CLEARLY state their strong beliefs in GOD and how they CHERISH the BIBLE....and the individual State Constituions CLEARLY acknowledge God....that is just a simple FACT...
Yep, Jefferson so cherished the bible that he ripped the story of jesus out of it and turned him into a Buddha vice a god, with his own bible. Now that is cherishing, or cherry picking? I will leave that for you to decide. He certainly left out all that killing innocent children and witches shit out.
Whatever, he DID say the following: "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
I think THAT says enough of what he thought about the Bible...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 18, 2009, 08:11:06 AM
Whatever, he DID say the following: "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
I think THAT says enough of what he thought about the Bible...
There are lies, and then there are god damned lies! Your quote is a lie and faked by David Barton, the asshole you got it from.