Separation of Church and State

[rip]

Does anyone really believe that our country isn't run on a Christian philosophy and that many of our laws are not based on Christian ideals?

[jcarm22]

There's a line between basing the rule of law in a country on Judeo-Christian ethics and following the the laws of Deuteronomy.

Certainly, there is a rather heavy Christian influence, which would be expected based on who founded our country. However, there's a difference between setting your ethics and following a certain sect as the "official" religion of a country.

[rip]

Do you think of it more as the majority of the population is Christina, or that guys like Bush push it too far?

I was looking up some atheist shit the other day because you guys were talking about it and saw some interesting things. 7 states make it illegal to hold a public office if you are an Atheist. Old Bush has been quoted as saying that atheists are not patriots and are not real Americans.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

[jcarm22]

Do you think of it more as the majority of the population is Christina, or that guys like Bush push it too far?

I was looking up some atheist shit the other day because you guys were talking about it and saw some interesting things. 7 states make it illegal to hold a public office if you are an Atheist. Old Bush has been quoted as saying that atheists are not patriots and are not real Americans.
Well, the majority of the population is some sort of Christian, so I'd have to say that plays into it, for the most part.

George Bush shitting on the Constitution, which patriots and real Americans fought and died to give us and protect for us, doesn't speak with authority, IMO, on who is or isn't a patriot and a real American.

[rip]

Old Bush Quote:

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

[Hotpapa666]

Does anyone really believe that our country isn't run on a Christian philosophy and that many of our laws are not based on Christian ideals?

Yes, I do. The founding fathers were clearly, demonstrably, overwhelmingly against a church influencing government. The first time in American history that we start to see a real push for Christianity in national government being acceptable was in the 50s at the beginning of the cold war. It set up a good-Christian-free-America as opposed to a Evil-atheist-communist-USSR.

I don't see much carry over from the Bible to our modern system of justice. Our system of justice is derived from British Common Law, which was derived from the French Tradition that began around the time of Charlemagne. There may be some overlapping but the Founding Fathers were not pouring over the Bible to build our system of laws.

[pnkpanther]

accordign to some we needed bible to determine murder and stealing is wrong

[KinjaKahn]

Yes, I do. The founding fathers were clearly, demonstrably, overwhelmingly against a church influencing government. The first time in American history that we start to see a real push for Christianity in national government being acceptable was in the 50s at the beginning of the cold war. It set up a good-Christian-free-America as opposed to a Evil-atheist-communist-USSR.
The Founding fathers specifically structured the constitution not to give any endorsement to any specific religion, however this was done to allow each state its freedom of religion. Religions influence in government was tolerated. Look back and examine each states constitution and you will see that most states do recognize God in the state constitution.

Michigan's Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.



Ohio's Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.



Hawaii's Preamble:
We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono."

We reserve the right to control our destiny, to nurture the integrity of our people and culture, and to preserve the quality of life that we desire.

We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth, do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.



Massachusetts Preamble:
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Would you like more examples... none of these would be possible if the founding fathers had designs on a godless society.



I don't see much carry over from the Bible to our modern system of justice. Our system of justice is derived from British Common Law, which was derived from the French Tradition that began around the time of Charlemagne. There may be some overlapping but the Founding Fathers were not pouring over the Bible to build our system of laws.
Charlemagne, and Society with all its traditions, for that matter, were under the Pope's rule. None of the laws created could go against the Pope. Thus none could go against God.

[Ed Who?]

For the sake of argument, let's take the real crux of what (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists) gives secular government advocates their ammunition:

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...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 & State."

OK, so here's my question. Did Thomas Jefferson imagine a situation where someone did not believe in God? Were there atheists in the government of those times? Were Jefferson's statements (which reflected much of what the Founders had in mind) referring more towards persecution of an individual exercising their right, or was the intention that God should never be referred to in a session of the government?

My beliefs are that the Founders intended to create a government where there was a recognition of an Almighty God, but that would be the end of where religion would enter the discussion. No laws would be adopted that would restrict the rights of individuals to worship their god (or perhaps lack thereof).

I'll end with this. I feel God recognized in government is a necessity. Why? It's the recognition of justice, of fairness, and of judgment. A person who believes in a higher being who will mete out his punishment on them if they deviate is more likely to act rightfully than someone who feels that consequences for unjust actions doesn't exist.

[BoredWithNoSB]

I'll end with this. I feel God recognized in government is a necessity. Why? It's the recognition of justice, of fairness, and of judgment. A person who believes in a higher being who will mete out his punishment on them if they deviate is more likely to act rightfully than someone who feels that consequences for unjust actions doesn't exist.


Yep, I go out and rape and murder daily since I don't feel God exists. I'm all for the abolishment of any law against murder, theft, adultery etc too since I'm a godless heathen. :rolleyes: . Since I don't follow god's laws I'd like guns for everyone and enough ammo to make sure anybody who crosses me will be dealt with. I also enjoy lying to whoever whenever possible to try to defraud them out of their money. If I had my ways, people wouldn't be able to sue if I provided them a life threatening service too. After all, god will punish me, we don't need lawyers getting in the way trying to protect and respect neighbors at the expense of the free market.

That death penatly thing really shows how those following the 'thou shalt not kill' have an upper hand on the moral high ground over me too.

[Nixon's Head]

E pluribus unum somehow transformed into one nation under God...or something like that.

[Ed Who?]

Yep, I go out and rape and murder daily since I don't feel God exists. I'm all for the abolishment of any law against murder, theft, adultery etc too since I'm a godless heathen. :rolleyes:

That death penatly thing really shows how those following the 'thou shalt not kill' have an upper hand on the moral high ground over me too.

Ahh, our daily strawman. Awesome.

Then I don't know why you don't got out and do all those things. There's no eternal consequence, you're going to be maggot meat anyway, your soul is as good as non-existent if you're atheist, you'd might as well knock a couple of notches in the handle and have some fun. I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Ahh, our daily strawman. Awesome.

Then I don't know why you don't got out and do all those things. There's no eternal consequence, you're going to be maggot meat anyway, your soul is as good as non-existent if you're atheist, you'd might as well knock a couple of notches in the holster and have some fun. I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.

I don't go out and do those things because I believe an organized society is a much better place to live than anarchy. Pretty simple. I enjoy protection form things that are unpleasant. I don't need God to tell me I'd liek to be protected from being murdered and that to expect that protection I need to offer others the same right.

[KinjaKahn]

I don't need God to tell me I'd liek to be protected from being murdered and that to expect that protection I need to offer others the same right.

You are not everyone. I wonder if the Canadian pig farmer who fed 49 hookers to his pigs was worried about what God might have to say about his actions.

[KinjaKahn]

E pluribus unum somehow transformed into one nation under God...or something like that.

Slogans are not laws.

[BoredWithNoSB]

You are not everyone. I wonder if the Canadian pig farmer who fed 49 hookers to his pigs was worried about what God might have to say about his actions.

Was he worried about that law against murder, either?

My point is that most folks who don't belive in god have a reasonable sense of good vs bad.

Also, that although their reason for wanting a society with laws crafted to create order and safety are different from those who beleive in God, that in the absence of a bible would they come up with a system of law that would look similar to what we have now.

Basically, laws don't have to be based on religion to make sense and to be agreed upon by a rational public.

[BoredWithNoSB]

I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.

Also, just so you know where i"m coming from, I am actively looking for a religion I beleive in. Its suck believing in death as you noted above and I've spent entire weeks almost non-functional trying to justify my existance in the billion year scheme of things. It'd be much nicer to know that 'everything will be OK when I die and go to heaven. I simply haven't found a church I can buy into. I don't beleive any man is born holy and can't buy into the fact that some dude came 2000 years ago for 30 years, had some people document his life without some proper editorial control, and said he'd be back. Especially when so many people have bastardized his original message and have no idea what is true. Stuff gets twisted over 2000 years. I would think God would have checked in and provided a little devine push on what exactly he meant instead of letting people drift through unsure.

[Nixon's Head]

Slogans are not laws.Very well. Why was 'under God' not originally included in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Nixon's Head]

Ahh, our daily strawman. Awesome.

Then I don't know why you don't got out and do all those things. There's no eternal consequence, you're going to be maggot meat anyway, your soul is as good as non-existent if you're atheist, you'd might as well knock a couple of notches in the handle and have some fun. I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.I hope that I am reincarnated as a dog so I can be the one pissing on tombstones.

[KinjaKahn]

Also, just so you know where i"m coming from, I am actively looking for a religion I beleive in. Its suck believing in death as you noted above and I've spent entire weeks almost non-functional trying to justify my existance in the billion year scheme of things. It'd be much nicer to know that 'everything will be OK when I die and go to heaven. I simply haven't found a church I can buy into. I don't beleive any man is born holy and can't buy into the fact that some dude came 2000 years ago for 30 years, had some people document his life without some proper editorial control, and said he'd be back. Especially when so many people have bastardized his original message and have no idea what is true. Stuff gets twisted over 2000 years. I would think God would have checked in and provided a little devine push on what exactly he meant instead of letting people drift through unsure.

I doubt you will find a religion to conform to your beliefs. Unless you pronounce yourself God and start your own. Religion is not there to conform to you... it is you who are to conform to religion. Hope that helps.

[Nixon's Head]

Also, just so you know where i"m coming from, I am actively looking for a religion I beleive in. Its suck believing in death as you noted above and I've spent entire weeks almost non-functional trying to justify my existance in the billion year scheme of things. It'd be much nicer to know that 'everything will be OK when I die and go to heaven. I simply haven't found a church I can buy into. I don't beleive any man is born holy and can't buy into the fact that some dude came 2000 years ago for 30 years, had some people document his life without some proper editorial control, and said he'd be back. Especially when so many people have bastardized his original message and have no idea what is true. Stuff gets twisted over 2000 years. I would think God would have checked in and provided a little devine push on what exactly he meant instead of letting people drift through unsure.I have the answer for you...

http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster-tm.jpg

[KinjaKahn]

Very well. Why was 'under God' not originally included in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge of allegiance is not a law.

[BoredWithNoSB]

I have the answer for you...

http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster-tm.jpg

Yeah, but nobody has even seen FSM. At least people saw Jesus. I'm thinking more along the lines of something Asian/circle of life/cherry blossom scene at the end of Last Samari-esque. Too lazy at the moment to read, but next time I go into a panic attack, I may do some research.

[IBC]

Ahh, our daily strawman. Awesome.

Then I don't know why you don't got out and do all those things. There's no eternal consequence, you're going to be maggot meat anyway, your soul is as good as non-existent if you're atheist, you'd might as well knock a couple of notches in the handle and have some fun. I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.

It seems like that obviously scared you enough to believe.

[IBC]

Ahh, our daily strawman. Awesome.

Then I don't know why you don't got out and do all those things. There's no eternal consequence, you're going to be maggot meat anyway, your soul is as good as non-existent if you're atheist, you'd might as well knock a couple of notches in the handle and have some fun. I mean, if you really don't believe in a God, because that means there's no afterlife, just rotting in a coffin while dogs piss on your tombstone.

Says the king of the strawman.

[Ed Who?]

Says the king of the strawman.

Thank you, I am the king, now bow down.

[Hotpapa666]

The Founding fathers specifically structured the constitution not to give any endorsement to any specific religion, however this was done to allow each state its freedom of religion. Religions influence in government was tolerated. Look back and examine each states constitution and you will see that most states do recognize God in the state constitution.








Would you like more examples... none of these would be possible if the founding fathers had designs on a godless society.




Charlemagne, and Society with all its traditions, for that matter, were under the Pope's rule. None of the laws created could go against the Pope. Thus none could go against God.


Well, only one of the states' whose constitution you quote was around during the time of the Founding Fathers so the others are all moot.

You want to confuse the issue. The FACT that the Founding Fathers created a government without the influence of religion isn't in opposition to the notion of a faithful populace. God, or Jesus, or Allah, or Buddah or whoever people want to worship was, to the Founding Fathers, a private matter. Remember, these are men who are fighting against the British Royalty whose entire stake to power is based on primogeniture, i.e. God made them the ruler. They wanted NOTHING to do with church in government. Our current government is much much much more religious than the Founding Father intended.

Charlemagne didn't get any REAL power from the Pope. The Pope remained a political and religious entity because Charlemagne LET him. The Pope at the time (his name escapes me) made a deal with Charlemagne to crown him "Holy Roman Emperor" to prevent Charlemagne from taking over the Papal States. The Legal system developed by Charlemagne and his court was independant and radically different from that practiced in other parts of the Christian world. Charlemagne wasn't under the Pope's Rule, The Pope was allowed to serve because Charlemagne let him.

[Hotpapa666]

Very well. Why was 'under God' not originally included in the Pledge of Allegiance?


Read my post in this thread, look at the history of The Pledge. Look at the date that "under God" was added and, Bingo you have your answer. To save you some time, the date with in the 50s, under Truman....

Another interesting thing to look at is our money. Look at when "In God We Trust" was added to our money. It happened a Looong time after Hamilton.

[KinjaKahn]

Well, only one of the states' whose constitution you quote was around during the time of the Founding Fathers so the others are all moot.


You want to confuse the issue. The FACT that the Founding Fathers created a government without the influence of religion isn't in opposition to the notion of a faithful populace. God, or Jesus, or Allah, or Buddah or whoever people want to worship was, to the Founding Fathers, a private matter. Remember, these are men who are fighting against the British Royalty whose entire stake to power is based on primogeniture, i.e. God made them the ruler. They wanted NOTHING to do with church in government. Our current government is much much much more religious than the Founding Father intended.

The fact that these latter formed states had the ability, while conforming to Federal Law, to reference God is backing my point.

Charlemagne didn't get any REAL power from the Pope. The Pope remained a political and religious entity because Charlemagne LET him. The Pope at the time (his name escapes me) made a deal with Charlemagne to crown him "Holy Roman Emperor" to prevent Charlemagne from taking over the Papal States. The Legal system developed by Charlemagne and his court was independant and radically different from that practiced in other parts of the Christian world. Charlemagne wasn't under the Pope's Rule, The Pope was allowed to serve because Charlemagne let him.
Charlemagne was a devout Catholic and being such he was submissive to God and the Church.

[Hotpapa666]

Charlemagne was a devout Catholic and being such he was submissive to God and the Church.

Your understanding of mideveal history is severely lacking if you think that Charlemagne was devout. It is quiet clear that he did worship the Christian God and Jesus but he also worshiped the old, traditional gods of the Germanic peoples. It is also clear that the Church was submissive to HIM and not him to the Church. He was marching on Rome and was set to sack the city when a deal was struck, ostensiably making him the ruler of the Western world in order to save the Pope's rule over the Papal State (the southern half of Italy).

[KinjaKahn]

Your understanding of mideveal history is severely lacking if you think that Charlemagne was devout. It is quiet clear that he did worship the Christian God and Jesus but he also worshiped the old, traditional gods of the Germanic peoples. It is also clear that the Church was submissive to HIM and not him to the Church. He was marching on Rome and was set to sack the city when a deal was struck, ostensiably making him the ruler of the Western world in order to save the Pope's rule over the Papal State (the southern half of Italy).

At the succession of Pope Hadrian I in 772, he demanded the return of certain cities in the former exarchate of Ravenna as in accordance with a promise of Desiderius' succession. Desiderius instead took over certain papal cities and invaded the Pentapolis, heading for Rome. Hadrian sent embassies to Charlemagne in autumn requesting he enforce the policies of his father, Pippin. Desiderius sent his own embassies denying the pope's charges. The embassies both met at Thionville and Charlemagne upheld the pope's side. Charlemagne promptly demanded what the pope had demanded and Desiderius promptly swore never to comply. The invasion was not short in coming. Charlemagne and his uncle Bernard crossed the Alps in 773 and chased the Lombards back to Pavia, which they then besieged. Charlemagne temporarily left the siege to deal with Adelchis, son of Desiderius, who was raising an army at Verona. The young prince was chased to the Adriatic littoral and he fled to Constantinople to plead for assistance from Constantine V Copronymus, who was waging war with the Bulgars.

The siege lasted until the spring of 774, when Charlemagne visited the pope in Rome. There he confirmed his father's grants of land, with some later chronicles claiming—falsely—that he also expanded them, granting Tuscany, Emilia, Venice, and Corsica. The pope granted him the title patrician. He then returned to Pavia, where the Lombards were on the verge of surrendering.

In return for their lives, the Lombards surrendered and opened the gates in early summer. Desiderius was sent to the abbey of Corbie and his son Adelchis died in Constantinople a patrician. Charles, unusually, had himself crowned with the Iron Crown and made the magnates of Lombardy do homage to him at Pavia. Only Duke Arechis II of Benevento refused to submit and proclaimed independence. Charlemagne was now master of Italy as king of the Lombards. He left Italy with a garrison in Pavia and few Frankish counts in place that very year.

There was still instability, however, in Italy. In 776, Dukes Hrodgaud of Friuli and Hildeprand of Spoleto rebelled. Charlemagne whisked back from Saxony and defeated the duke of Friuli in battle. The duke was slain. The duke of Spoleto signed a treaty. Their co-conspirator, Arechis, was not subdued and Adelchis, their candidate in Byzantium, never left that city. Northern Italy was now faithfully his.

In 787, Charlemagne directed his attention towards Benevento, where Arechis was reigning independently. He besieged Salerno and Arechis submitted to vassalage. However, with his death in 792, Benevento again proclaimed independence under his son Grimoald III. Grimoald was attacked by armies of Charles' or his sons' many times, but Charlemagne himself never returned to the Mezzogiorno and Grimoald never was forced to surrender to Frankish suzerainty.

How about you login to Wiki and fix the history.

[Nixon's Head]

Pledge of allegiance is not a law.What does religion have to do with law?

[Nixon's Head]

Read my post in this thread, look at the history of The Pledge. Look at the date that "under God" was added and, Bingo you have your answer. To save you some time, the date with in the 50s, under Truman....

Another interesting thing to look at is our money. Look at when "In God We Trust" was added to our money. It happened a Looong time after Hamilton.So it's really all the Commies' fault?

[hannitykillspuppies]

separation of church and state was put in place in order keep the gov't from forcing citizens to practice one(a national) particualr form of religion and to keep the gov't from dictating which religions may or may not be practiced by it's citizens.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I'll end with this. I feel God recognized in government is a necessity. Why? It's the recognition of justice, of fairness, and of judgment. A person who believes in a higher being who will mete out his punishment on them if they deviate is more likely to act rightfully than someone who feels that consequences for unjust actions doesn't exist.
not all citizens worship the same god, so who's god do we recognize?

[Nixon's Head]

not all citizens worship the same god, so who's god do we recognize?The one that matters and is forced down your throat.

[KinjaKahn]

The one that matters and is forced down your throat.

If God is being forced on you I implore you to bring litigation against those with the power to force you to comply.

[hannitykillspuppies]

The one that matters and is forced down your throat.

precisely the problem.

[Nixon's Head]

If God is being forced on you I implore you to bring litigation against those with the power to force you to comply.I see all types of pamphlets that show up on my door. His name appears on any currency I carry. His name is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, which I was made to recite every day of elementary school.

Pretty hard to go against something when it has become the basis for most of what the government has become today.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Pretty hard to go against something when it has become the basis for most of what the government has become today.

If you did, you'd be being unpatriotic. Afterall, as somebody already mentioned, our basis of government is based on God's law.

Commie.

[Nixon's Head]

If you did, you'd be being unpatriotic. Afterall, as somebody already mentioned, our basis of government is based on God's law.

Commie.Well if that's the case...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1638263/2/istockphoto_1638263_ussr_flag_vector.jpg

[BoredWithNoSB]

Well if that's the case...

More like the attached kind of commie.

[KinjaKahn]

I see all types of pamphlets that show up on my door.
Repeal the 1st amendment. See how well that goes.

His name appears on any currency I carry.
Don't use it. Digital money is your future.

His name is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, which I was made to recite every day of elementary school.
This "problem" has been solved.

Pretty hard to go against something when it has become the basis for most of what the government has become today.
Drama queen. Contact your local ACLU, I am sure they would be willing to hear your perspective for at least 30 seconds.

[Nixon's Head]

Repeal the 1st amendment. See how well that goes.I could just take a dump on the Constitution/Bill of Rights like our leaders have.

Don't use it. Digital money is your future. Some folks take cash only.


This "problem" has been solved. Not the case here in Indiana.


Drama queen. Contact your local ACLU, I am sure they would be willing to hear your perspective for at least 30 seconds.I'll do that, meanwhile you keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[rip]

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
-- Thomas Jefferson

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

You can read the rest. There are plenty. A 10 second Google search shows you quite a bit about the founding fathers your Christian leaders must have never bothered to read.

I started this thread with more in mind than just separation of church and state. I wanted to point out some of the things I had found that even today mark atheists as heathens, and commies. Non-Americans. Those links I put in the first couple of posts show that there are several states in which you could not hold public office if you did not believe in an Almighty Creator.

As for laws being based on "religion". Laws that would have been set by logic, which this country was truly founded on, are just as "morale" as any book would be able to describe. The founding fathers were not heathens, but they sure as hell put all that stuff in the Constitution about religion because they in fact were not believers themselves in many cases.

[Hotpapa666]

How about you login to Wiki and fix the history.

Your qoute from Wiki basically confirms what I posted with a few details left out and few others included. My wife studied Mideavel and Rennaissance history on college so she would give me her books to read all of the time. I'm not making any of this up and I don't have an agenda. The fact that American Law comes from English Common law and not from any church is enough to prove my point. The bit about Charlemagne is just fun.

[Hotpapa666]

You can read the rest. There are plenty. A 10 second Google search shows you quite a bit about the founding fathers your Christian leaders must have never bothered to read.

I started this thread with more in mind than just separation of church and state. I wanted to point out some of the things I had found that even today mark atheists as heathens, and commies. Non-Americans. Those links I put in the first couple of posts show that there are several states in which you could not hold public office if you did not believe in an Almighty Creator.

As for laws being based on "religion". Laws that would have been set by logic, which this country was truly founded on, are just as "morale" as any book would be able to describe. The founding fathers were not heathens, but they sure as hell put all that stuff in the Constitution about religion because they in fact were not believers themselves in many cases.

Indeed.

[Ed Who?]

Well if that's the case...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1638263/2/istockphoto_1638263_ussr_flag_vector.jpg

You wouldn't last 20 minutes in the Soviet Union.

[Ed Who?]

I could just take a dump on the Constitution/Bill of Rights like our leaders have.


OK, cite what you consider to be dumping on the Bill Of Rights. Thomas Jefferson would put a bullet in the head of any traitorous prick who was conspiring against this country, no matter what it took.

[IBC]

OK, cite what you consider to be dumping on the Bill Of Rights. Thomas Jefferson would put a bullet in the head of any traitorous prick who was conspiring against this country, no matter what it took.

Ok, I am not sure what this post is all about....

the destruction of the separation of powers by mixing executive with the other branches
the strengthening of the power of the executive branch
the warrantless wiretapping program
the new Iraq and Lebanon acts
torture
detention without trials
military tribunals
secret CIA prisons
"free speech zones" at the RNC
purging black voters in Flordia and Ohio

That list is not complete, there are plenty more. Here is your Bill of Rights:
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

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

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Ed Who?]

the destruction of the separation of powers by mixing executive with the other branches

First of all, the Vice President is the President of the Senate, so in what way is there not already a mixing of the executive and legislative branches? Give specific examples and I'll try to elaborate.

the strengthening of the power of the executive branch

Executive orders have been around for years. With how liberals claim that Bush is an idiot, I find it hard to believe that they can also claim that he's been so instrumental in making his position more powerful.

the warrantless wiretapping program

Does the Constitution apply to phone calls originating from other countries?

the new Iraq and Lebanon acts

Please elaborate.

torture

Because the Bush administration went over to Iraq and personally engaged in torturing prisoners. Right.

detention without trials
military tribunals
secret CIA prisons

In cases where US citizens are found to be consorting with the enemy, maybe it would be easier to convict them of treason and hang them, but it helps our war to be able to find out information on the networks they have established. Unless you'd rather not allow the US to adequately protect themselves from terrorists, which might not be far from the truth.

As far as non-citizens, they are enemy combatants, and do not require trial. The Asshat's Communist Lickcrotch Union would certainly love to see all the enemy combatants handed weapons and be allowed to return to the front line, but most people actually value our military efforts.

"free speech zones" at the RNC

Always helps when Republicans actually have jobs and can't go protest the DNC, whereas the Dems have their own roving posse. And no, I don't think it's in the best interest of our country to have a bunch of tiedyed hippies getting their asses kicked by a bunch of Republican backers.

purging black voters in Flordia and Ohio

More horseshit that's not even true, just made up shit because the Dems are sore for losing an election. I guess it's much more Constitutionally valid to hand out packs of cigarettes to homeless people to get them to vote for you.

[Nixon's Head]

You wouldn't last 20 minutes in the Soviet Union.
In Soviet Russia car drives you.

[IBC]

First of all, the Vice President is the President of the Senate, so in what way is there not already a mixing of the executive and legislative branches? Give specific examples and I'll try to elaborate.-----
Uhhuh, good reasoning there. SEPARATION OF POWERS!



Executive orders have been around for years. With how liberals claim that Bush is an idiot, I find it hard to believe that they can also claim that he's been so instrumental in making his position more powerful.----
Not an argument at all against what I was saying.



Does the Constitution apply to phone calls originating from other countries?----
It applies to US citizens, so yes.


Please elaborate.----
You look it up. All your friends at freerepublic hate it. It is your job to be informed about something besides baby-killing. I posted it here.



Because the Bush administration went over to Iraq and personally engaged in torturing prisoners. Right.----
No, they fuckin made it legal. They are culpable.



In cases where US citizens are found to be consorting with the enemy, maybe it would be easier to convict them of treason and hang them, but it helps our war to be able to find out information on the networks they have established. Unless you'd rather not allow the US to adequately protect themselves from terrorists, which might not be far from the truth.----
strawman, strawman, where did you get that strawman. You are for killing kids in Iraq.

As far as non-citizens, they are enemy combatants, and do not require trial. The Asshat's Communist Lickcrotch Union would certainly love to see all the enemy combatants handed weapons and be allowed to return to the front line, but most people actually value our military efforts.---
strawman, strawman, where did you get that strawman. This one is even dumber.



Always helps when Republicans actually have jobs and can't go protest the DNC, whereas the Dems have their own roving posse. And no, I don't think it's in the best interest of our country to have a bunch of tiedyed hippies getting their asses kicked by a bunch of Republican backers.----
Wow, just wow. Good reasoning here man. You need a civics lesson, and actually should read the Bill of Rights I posted.


More horseshit that's not even true, just made up shit because the Dems are sore for losing an election. I guess it's much more Constitutionally valid to hand out packs of cigarettes to homeless people to get them to vote for you.---
Nope, its true. It can be proven. I would go ahead and do it for you , but I don't think it would matter.

Ed, you are a fascist man. It used to be that people were proud to call themselves that, it's ok.

[KinjaKahn]

the destruction of the separation of powers by mixing executive with the other branches
Democrite hysteria.
the strengthening of the power of the executive branch
Every president tries.
the warrantless wiretapping program
This was done because the current aws were outdated.
the new Iraq and Lebanon acts
If Israel approves, they must be fair.
torture
Just dont use a bandsaw on them.
detention without trials
Anyone captured on the battlefield should be happy they are alive and shut the fuck up. I favor a take no prisoners approach to war.
military tribunals
Legit.
secret CIA prisons
I see no reason for there to be secret prisons.
"free speech zones" at the RNC
Indefensible.
purging black voters in Flordia and Ohio
Lazy Government database maintenance created the conditions that allowed this.