I am not the State or an employee of the State discharging official duties, as such I can quote the Bible any time I wish. Do you truly believe that anybody who accepts separation of Church and State should never be able to quote the Bible without displaying hypocrisy - or are you just being ignorant?
As for Newton and Faraday - can you name a single contribution they made to science that included ascribing supernatural causation to explain natural phenomena? Where did they work God into their equations?
Science wins in the real world of ideas. Creationism is useless. Only other creationists will pay you to be a creationist - nobody else is interested because it has ZERO practical applications.
As to Madison and Jefferson - your ignorance of their views no doubt will reflect your ignorance of the decision of Dover - even when shown you are wrong - you will insist you are right.
Here is what Madison said about the insidious nature of religious involvement with the State and their tendency to encroach upon the government (the second side of the wall - it wasn't a one way wall - it was, according to Madison, to be a PERFECT separation) ......
“An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]
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. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 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, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [ttempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]
Nope, the judge displayed no evidence to back up his statements. Stating three sentences that it is not science without facts or evidence does not make it non-scientific.
I can quote the Bible any time I wish.
Amazing, Evos hate when the Bible is quoted but like to quote it themselves. That is the personification of hypocrisy.
Science wins in the real world of ideas. Creationism is useless.
Yeppers, just like global warming. for the last time: The only way Evos win is by way of the court and the communist law of separation of church and state on Americans that goes one way; that government can influence and not the church.
As for Newton and Faraday, everything they discovered was for the greater knowledge of God's hand. No greater ascribing can be stated than this.
And where did you get your "American History" quotes, the Michael Nudow web site? Or maybe Madison's "Detached Memoranda?" Or both? You want quotes of Madison? I can copy and paste too.
Madison in his own words:
“I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. “
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
Throughout his Presidency Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
Also, "Detached Memoranda" was "discovered" in 1946 SureMadison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices, a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the "Detached Memoranda," and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is ludicrous to argue that it reflects the Founders' intent toward religion.
Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, but the other Virginians at the Convention - including James Madison - opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added.
When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, GeorgeMason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison's opposition.
Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.
The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.
Your use and Newdow's use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If you want to take the position that the "Founding Fathers" opposed the right of religion in any segment of our society, then you must provide evidence from more than one Founder; you must show that the majority of the Founders opposed this.
Your hatred of religion and God is all to telling of one that hates or country. If we do not receive our rights from Him than we receive them from man; and We The People are not slaves to your way yet. So go back to the Huffington Post, or get your mind right with God and Free Republic.