To Restore Religious Freedoms.

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet ^ | 8/21/03 | Wayne Allard(R-CO)

[NutCrackerBoy]

How could the truth not move the debate forward?

My mistake. Carry on.

[antiRepublicrat]

The actions of men and the laws of men are thought of as being below the Creator.

And that's what we're afraid of. A judge has a lot of latitude within the laws of man to make someone pay for not obeying the laws of your god.

[ForGod'sSake]

I just read this reply and it could almost have been posted by yours truly, it being so close to my own thoughts. Well done. IMHO of course.

FGS

[NutCrackerBoy]

Thank you for the kind words.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The actions of men and the laws of men are thought of as being below the Creator. -NutCrackerBoy

And that's what we're afraid of. A judge has a lot of latitude within the laws of man to make someone pay for not obeying the laws of your god. -antiRepublicrat

I will concede the following points:
1. The 10 commandments are not the law of the land
2. Prominent 10 commandments monuments in courthouses could give someone the impression that they will be judged by these rules
3. Judges have latitude
4. Some judges earn reputations for being harsh or arbitrary, whatever their ideology.

But let's remember it is a display. It is reasonable to expect people to understand this is not a posting that officially proscribes certain behaviors.

Getting back to the original subject: reining in the judiciary. Those of us who complain that they've overstepped their bounds are asked to provide specific justifications for this claim. Fair enough. Also fair is to ask the same of those who stand with the judiciary in their application of the Establishment clause. Where are the specific cases or documented trends in where jurisprudence is overly influenced by the 10 commandments? Are there religious judges who throw the book at "fornicators" because of the commandment not to covet your neighbor's wife but are lenient on crimes orthogonal to all 10 commandments?

[antiRepublicrat]

Where are the specific cases or documented trends in where jurisprudence is overly influenced by the 10 commandments? Are there religious judges who throw the book at "fornicators" because of the commandment not to covet your neighbor's wife but are lenient on crimes orthogonal to all 10 commandments?

First, I have learned that in many areas of life, especially in places I've worked, that even the semblance of impropriety is the same as impropriety. If people could think that, that is as much as if it were true.

I really wish I could remember the name of that judge who was always making rulings while quoting the Bible, admonishing those who have not followed the commandments, and sentencing people to religious-based punishment of his choosing. One simple example occurring all over the country is that those with DUIs can go to AA instead of jail, but AA is religious-based. Actually, it won't work unless you believe in God. It has been an uphill battle to allow atheists to have the same opportunities.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yeah well, at least I had the courtesy to extract what I felt were relevant points of an otherwise long piece."

Funny.

You are responding to my post #236, and that's exactly what I did.

"I waded through about half of it before realizing I could be chasing my tail."

In other words, you were not willing to read something that challenged your claim.

"I have no intention of translating the Latin..."

Had you taken the time to actually glance over Jefferson's letter, you would have seen that he had translated the Latin.

"...nor following links ‘til I can find the part you thought relevant."

There were no "links" to follow, and the relevant part was already highlighted on my #236.

Your quote from the Avalon Project was in answer to my claim that Christianity was not around during the enactment of British Common Law, nor the Magna Carta, and that there was at least a two hundred year gap between the introduction of Christianity, and the aforementioned events. In response, and in a way of challenging Thomas Jefferson's research, you also provided the approximate dates of travel for some Christian missionaries into what would eventually become Great Britain.

A couple of things:

Kings wrote laws, and contact between Christians and common folk could not possibly impact the decisions of the rulers, and two, the Charter OF Canute was dated several hundred years after what Jefferson identified as the conversion between English law, and Christianity. In other words, your post helped prove my point.

"Tacky Luis."

I'll tell you what's truly tacky.

Tacky is a person using the word "God" as an identity, then behaving as you behaved here. Arrogant, proud, and close-minded.

Try this, for God's sake, read John 8:32.

[ForGod'sSake]

There were no "links" to follow, and the relevant part was already highlighted on my #236.

Brain fart; sorry.

Kings wrote laws, and contact between Christians and common folk could not possibly impact the decisions of the ruler...

I can't accept that as a given. Furthermore, could the good missionaries of the day operate in the kingdom without at least the king's tacit consent? And consider also, as far as I know, all I was working with is the written Anglo/Saxon account of this time period. Would another account of the period, say, the Roman Church yield additional information. Since its far afield from the original post it's really academic anyway. I'm just not that curious about it.

...the Charter OF Canute was dated several hundred years after what Jefferson identified as the conversion between English law, and Christianity.

Yes it was, and I should have been clear on my intentions, which was only to show with that particular piece the extent of Christian influence in the very early going. Obviously the dates in this piece weren't early enough to counter your, er, Jefferson's claim.

As for the rest of your reply, well, I'll just leave it be.

FGS

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I can't accept that as a given."

So you question the reason for the American revolution?

"Furthermore, could the good missionaries of the day operate in the kingdom without at least the king's tacit consent?"

In today's day and age, living in the most technologically advanced country in the world, we have ten million illegal immigrants that we can't seem to find. Yet, you think that a thousand six hundred plus years ago, Kings not only had an idea of what their borders were, but they knew what every person walking around in their domain was doing?

Yeah, right.

”Obviously the dates in this piece weren't early enough to counter your, er, Jefferson's claim.”

That's right, showing me what was going on four to six hundred years AFTER the period of time that Jefferson was discussing was not only NOT enough to refute his timeline, but it proved just how disingenuous of a debater you are turning out to be.

The point is that since I backed up my statements, and refuted yours, you have done nothing but attack me and ignore the issue.

Telling.

[ForGod'sSake]

Doink.

FGS

[Gargantua]

"Which of the many Christian sects is the real one?"

All who believe in the Salvation found in the Blood of, and follow the Holy Word of, the risen Jesus Christ are saved. This is not what I say, this is what Jesus Himself says. If you've read the bible as you say you have, you already know this. It doesn't matter what denomination you call yourself by, it is stictly a matter of your personal faith.

As I said many times on this thread already, I know that there are many Christian Catholics. I must have said that because I hate them so, huh?

"This "Everybody but me is going to hell" doctrine is not very loving..."

No, it isn't. So why do you keep saying it? You are the only poster on this thread who keeps saying that. That must be some kind of atheist mantra, repeated over and over to convince yourself of how hateful us horrible Christians are. I pity you.

You try to put words into my mouth, you try to put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths, and you speak the words of Satan. Where are your own words? The day is coming when you'll need to know them, and answer some important questions. Your very existence will hang in the balance of the answers you give then.

"I understand the awkward logic that turns hate into love."

I know you do. You employ the awkward logic that turns love into hate, so why not the converse? Jesus died for your sins. He must really have hated you, huh?

[antiRepublicrat]

All who believe in the Salvation found in the Blood of, and follow the Holy Word of, the risen Jesus Christ are saved.

Therein lies the problem. The Word is subject to interpretation, and over 2,000 years the interpretations have grown pretty far apart. I'm not wanting to get into any more hot water, but I have to say that I personally agree with you on most aspects of the Catholic Church's straying from simple Christianity, throwing too much made-up doctrine and ritual onto it. But at the other end of the spectrum lies Messianic Judaism, which is following pretty much original Christianity without much of the added ritual that you probably observe today.

As I said many times on this thread already, I know that there are many Christian Catholics. I must have said that because I hate them so, huh?

Then why did a Catholic here have to get defensive about your remarks? I'll leave it up to you two to battle it out.

you try to put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths

Only real quotes, unlike that Christian quote from Washington's farewell address that doesn't exist. I posted a link to the original, so read it yourself to see the fraud.

Jesus died for your sins. He must really have hated you, huh?

If I believed that, I would see it as the ultimate expression of love. Actually I do see it that way, but only in the context of a fiction.

[Gargantua]

"Then why did a Catholic here have to get defensive about your remarks?"

I don't believe he "had to"... that's another assumption made in the absence of any facts supporting it. Why he did get defensive is another matter, which you have again interjected yourself into the middle of by posing the mis-stated question to me instead of him.

"I'll leave it up to you two to battle it out."

As you've probably noticed, he and I are not battling here, and haven't been for some time. You are fighting God's Holy Spirit, and taking it out on me. That's okay. I do love you. I hope you find Jesus before you die. He loves you, too.

[ladyinred]

Everyone please read David Limbaugh's new blockbuster book, Persecution. It is a MUST READ. I cannot stress enough how important this book is to anyone who is concerned about religious freedom, the constitution, and our American heritage.

[ForGod'sSake]

Everyone please read David Limbaugh's new blockbuster book, Persecution.

Sounds like an interesting read, but I wonder how enlightening it might be for many of us that already perceive the works of the evil one himself via the liberal AntiChristian mantra? It may serve to add arrows to the quiver, however. Found this at humaneventsonline :

Warring With Christianity

by David Limbaugh
Posted Sep 30, 2003

	Text Size: S M L
	printer-friendly
	email to a friend

Domestic Violence Awareness Meets Marriage Protection

Anti-Americanism: Opiate of the Left

Congress Should Probe and Defund the Kinseyites

Limiting Certain Types of Speech on Campus

Cloning Ban Stalls in Senate

When I was on "Hannity and Colmes" recently promoting my book, Persecution, (Regnery) Alan Colmes took me to task for its subtitle: "How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity." "Are you saying liberals can't be Christians?" he asked.

I want to expand on my comments. I am not saying that liberals can't be Christians, nor is the purpose of my book to demonize liberals.

In the book I document in painstaking detail with abundant evidence how secularists and strict separationists work at cross purposes with Christianity and Christian religious liberty. And it is undeniable that secularists and strict separationists are, by and large, political liberals.

Does that mean that liberals cannot be Christians? Of course not. I have many liberal friends who are Christians. But it does mean that political liberalism, in my view, is at war with Christianity in the sense I describe in my book. Why Christians would want to participate in that war is beyond me, but it is not my place to challenge the authenticity of anyone's profession of Christianity, irrespective of their political ideology.

But before leaving this particular point, I should call your attention to a column I read last week in the Religion Section of the Los Angeles Times by John H. Bunzel, a former member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and presently at the Hoover Institution.

My friend Alan Colmes might want to check out this article, because Mr. Bunzel said, "Millions of Americans do not believe in God. They do not invest moral authority in a transcendent source such as the Bible, or deal in absolutes of right and wrong, or divide the world into simplistic categories of good and evil. Such people, and I include myself among them, have tended to find themselves more comfortable in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, where a marked strain of Christian fundamentalism runs strong."

Indeed, most liberals I know support the extreme separationist principle. They seem to believe that there should be no mixture whatsoever of church and government, and even that Christians ought not to be so public with their faith. They are constantly berating conservative Christian politicians for openly professing their faith.

Generally speaking, political liberals also often support values that I believe are incompatible with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Their intense commitment to the separationist idea has the effect of suppressing Christian religious freedom.

The secularists or separationists (and you liberals know whether the shoe fits here), maintain that they advocate strict separation between church and state first because the Framers designed our system that way, and second because it promotes our liberties. They are demonstrably wrong on both counts.

The Framers did not craft a constitutional system separating church and state. They prohibited Congress from establishing a national church, such as the Church of England. They clearly did not forbid the government from all involvement with religion and particularly the Christian religion. On the very next day after the first Congress passed the First Amendment they set aside a national day of prayer and Thanksgiving.

Is it not safe for us to infer from those juxtaposed actions that they did not subscribe to the strict separationist principle? There are scores of other examples detailed in my book.

The predominantly liberal separationists are equally wrong in asserting that the separationist principle -- to the extent they would strictly apply it -- promotes religious liberty. For in case after case, their expansive and dishonest reading of the Establishment Clause to enforce a strict separation has the effect of suppressing religious liberties.

When school administrators tell little 5-year-old Kayla that she can't join hands with her classmates to thank Jesus over their snacks, they are not protecting us from religious tyranny by preventing the establishment of a state church; they are suppressing religious liberties. When they tell a high school gospel choir that it cannot sing at a church memorial event to honor the victims of 9-11, they are not safeguarding our religious liberties but smothering them.

If our self-professed separationists are truly motivated by the separationist principle, why don't they object when the government endorses values that are hostile to Christianity? Could it be their true motivation is a bias against Christian values?

So you liberals out there who say you champion religious freedom, please get a copy of my book and find out just how wrong you are. And those of you who are Christians, we'll graciously welcome you anytime to the "right" political side.

--------------------

FGS

[NutCrackerBoy]

that judge who was always making rulings while quoting the Bible, admonishing those who have not followed the commandments, and sentencing people to religious-based punishment of his choosing

That sounds like a judge ineffective at his job. There is corruption and incompetence in every sector of society whether public, private, or spiritual. There is a special danger when there is an abuse of power simultaneously church and state; First Amendment establishment clause in my opinion is intended to protect against this sort of thing. But the extremism of the separation doctrine we are suffering with serves only to create factions, not legitimate protections.

those with DUIs can go to AA instead of jail, but AA is religious-based. Actually, it won't work unless you believe in God. It has been an uphill battle to allow atheists to have the same opportunities.

Atheists with DUIs court-ordered to AA have exactly the same chance of recovery in AA as, uh, non-atheists. If they want it, they can have it. There are plenty of atheists sober in AA.

I have learned that in many areas of life, especially in places I've worked, that even the semblance of impropriety is the same as impropriety. If people could think that, that is as much as if it were true.

I guess your implication is that it is unacceptable to have a judge that appears to violate secular principles. The fear of unfair treatment becomes reasonable enough that we should err on the side of caution.

This is a slippery slope argument applied to the establishment clause. I am not enamored of slippery slope arguments. Every argument should live and die on its own individual merits.

[antiRepublicrat]

Atheists with DUIs court-ordered to AA have exactly the same chance of recovery in AA as, uh, non-atheists

The very basis of AA is belief in a higher power. An atheist would be missing this important part of the treatment.

The fear of unfair treatment becomes reasonable enough that we should err on the side of caution.

That's my point. Peoples' belief in our justice system is somewhat shaky as it is (O.J., etc.), so why put another variable in there?

[NutCrackerBoy]

The very basis of AA is belief in a higher power. An atheist would be missing this important part of the treatment.

I understand what you are saying, but it truly is not a problem. The agnostic or atheist in AA will work with a belief in a higher power of his understanding. The higher power could be the group, or a light bulb, or an abstraction like the possibility of good. This type of thing is described in the big book of AA and is well-known to members.

[antiRepublicrat]

In any case, it is still a faith-based program. Many atheists have had to fight uphill to get the court to allow them to go to non-faith-based programs. Not that I have much sympathy for them driving while intoxicated, but equal rights is equal rights.

[ForGod'sSake]

that judge who was always making rulings while quoting the Bible, admonishing those who have not followed the commandments, and sentencing people to religious-based punishment of his choosing

That sounds like a judge ineffective at his job.

A second opinion from THE HONORS OF CHRIST DEMANDED OF THE MAGISTRATE.

((excerpt))

In civil causes, let there be shown the most steady impartiality and irreproachable integrity. The charge which King Jehosaphat gave to his judges is the charge of the King of Heaven to you: "Take heed what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment: Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you, take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts" (2 Chronicles 19:6, 7). And in criminal cases, let the edge of the law be sharpened in proportion to the nature of the crime and the boldness of the transgressor. While you sit on the seat of judgment, sinners should behold your face as the face of God which is set against them that do wickedly. And the day of Assize [court day] should be a little image of that day when the Lord will come "to judge the world in righteousness and the people with His truth,"and shall "render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, to every soul of man that doth evil." The judge on the bench should be worthy of that commendation which Christ gave to the angel of the church of Ephesus: "I know thy works:...how thou canst not bear them which are evil" (Revelation 2:2).

IOW, the way it used to be...

Another excerpt from the same site that could also shed some light:

In a word, let us beware lest we provoke a holy and jealous God to anger so as to give us men of another spirit to rule over us, or to withdraw His Spirit from them that do, and leave them to do things inconvenient.

Evil doers, and the mal-administrations of good ones, are punishments which GOD does inflict on a people that have provoked Him to anger against them. God gave Saul to Israel in His wrath, and he left David to number the people because His anger was kindled against Israel.

So, we as a nation have brought it upon ourselves???

FGS