Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is America a Christian Nation?
Catholic Educator's Resource ^ | 2001 | Carl Pearlston

Posted on 08/16/2004 3:15:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-237 next last
To: Navydog

Maybe you should learn how to spell. After that, you might work on thinking.


141 posted on 08/17/2004 4:57:59 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Kackikat
"So legally and constitutionally, no...but spiritually, yes."

Which is what I have been saying. However, that apparently makes one a "communist", and a "comrad".

Amazing how just citing the Constitution does that to a person.

142 posted on 08/17/2004 4:59:43 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

>>How has the right to practice one's religion changed in any way since 1947?

You are living a very sheltered life, "Modernman".


143 posted on 08/17/2004 5:15:31 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

>>What religious freedoms did your grandfathers enjoy, that you do not?

The most important, IMO, would be having your children see the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule (e.g., "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you") every single day they attend public school.

BTW, I am old enough to have enjoyed those liberties in the 50's and 60's.


144 posted on 08/17/2004 5:20:45 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau; tpaine; Modernman
Your children can see those things any time you wish to show them, or whenever you take them to church. If they take your lessons to heart, they'll think of them each day outside your purview.

What you're REALLY saying is, you want everyone ELSE's kids to see them.

"BTW, I am old enough to have enjoyed those liberties in the 50's and 60's."

It's not a "liberty" when it's there by someone else's decree. it's also not an individual liberty to force someone else to see them, if they do not wish to.

It would seem, therefore, that the only "liberty" you think you've lost is the "liberty" to control what others do and see. To which I say, "Good Thing".

Also, it's HARDLY the "crime" you so complained about.

145 posted on 08/17/2004 5:26:51 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Historically speaking, with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the enlightenment philosophers, wouldn't we be more of a "deist nation"?


146 posted on 08/17/2004 5:28:36 PM PDT by Tuba-Dude (Beer: breakfast of champions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

>> It's not a "liberty" when it's there by someone else's decree. it's also not an individual liberty to force someone else to see them, if they do not wish to.

What you are describing is "freedom", not liberty. Freedom can exist only in the absence of a society (e.g., societies always have rules). Liberty can exist only in a moral society. If you and other atheists and marxists continue to push for "freedom" at the expense of morality you will end up in bondage to an all-powerful government.


147 posted on 08/17/2004 5:39:33 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Paine, we have had this discussion before. You are being disingenious by pretending I have not read the available transcripts of the debates.
126 PF

I'm not 'pretending' anything, phil. Nor am I disingenuous.
You ignore what you've read, and prattle on, and on, about 'losing rights' in the 20th century to the USSC.
What religious rights have you lost?
Each time we have this discussion, you avoid that subject. What religious freedoms did your grandfathers enjoy, that you do not?

The most important, IMO, would be having your children see the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule (e.g., "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you") every single day they attend public school.

Strange, I attended Minnesota public schools from 1942 till '54, and don't recall seeing any religious postings in my classrooms.
In fact I doubt whether the parents back then would have stood for it. Lots of 'free-thinkers' in Minn. in those days. Religion was not discussed in polite company.

BTW, I am old enough to have enjoyed those liberties in the 50's and 60's.

And your children today can enjoy them. -- Do them a favor, and keep them out of public schools.

148 posted on 08/17/2004 5:40:17 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Ooooh....aren't we so intellectual.

Unlike you I do think.....and I am smart enough to realize that without Separation of Church and State; Legalized abortion, and Gay marriage would not be possible. If you cannot call yourself a Conservative Republican and not care about these issues. If you don't care.....then you may as well vote Democrat.

If you sacrifice morality for Civil Liberties sooner or later morality will decline to the point where Civil Liberties will be taken away to control the population.

Today it is Gay Marrage and Legalized abortion. Tommorrow it will be lowering the age of concent to the so called Denmark standard of 12 years old.

If you had a 12 year old daughter would you want here having sex with her 40 year old Sex Education teacher? Who by the way, happens to be a female also and teaching her that Gay sex is normal and healthy!

Hell no!!


149 posted on 08/17/2004 5:42:05 PM PDT by Navydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Navydog
"If you cannot call yourself a Conservative Republican and not care about these issues. If you don't care.....then you may as well vote Democrat."

I think I'll vote Republican anyway. Despite what you say, they might want the votes. And I agree with them far more than I do the Democrats. Unlike you, to most Republicans, there are far more issues than those which excite you so. Taxes, the war, government largesse, etc.

As for the rest of your incoherent paranoia, to coin a phrase, "blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda..."

150 posted on 08/17/2004 5:47:58 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
"If you and other atheists and marxists continue to push for "freedom" at the expense of morality you will end up in bondage to an all-powerful government."

In the first place, I am neither athiest nor Marxist.

In the second, if you continue to push for the regulation of "morality" as defined by one religion, you will ALSO end up in bondage to an all-powerful government. There are ample examples.

You have cited only one possible definition of "freedom" and "liberty", as well. Here's a clue...it's not "liberty" if it is subject to control by a government at its whim, which it would be, either in a theocracy based on the "morals" of one religion, or on socialism. Both are totalitarianism wearing different masks.

151 posted on 08/17/2004 5:52:34 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Ok....since you are so worried about taxes....where in the constitution does it call for a heavy graduated income tax?


152 posted on 08/17/2004 5:59:24 PM PDT by Navydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Navydog
The 16th Amendment imposes an income tax, as you must know. Its repeal MUST be one of the components of any useful tax reform, which is why I support, fully, the FairTax plan.

You see, the Constitution provides ample mechanisms to change things in it that the people deem bad. It's the Amendment process. Further, one can vote for politicians who will confirm to the bench justices in line with your thinking.

Both require, however, time, patience, and work.

Ignoring or "spinning" the document, however, is easy, so I guess that's why you seem to prefer to.

153 posted on 08/17/2004 6:15:09 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Most people who have attended church in America for past 100 yrs have heard it said "America is a Christian Nation", not realizing the premise behind the statement. It does not mean we have an overwhelming christian population, but that the founders were Christians...the documents prove it.

The constitution is for everyone, saved or unsaved, immigrant, or athiest...and the laws apply to all, so you are right there. The spiritual side I explained, and when that side is gone I fear for all no matter what they believe.


154 posted on 08/17/2004 6:19:50 PM PDT by Kackikat (,Kerry=the counterfeit, GWBush is the real deal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; PhilipFreneau
Long Cut wrote:

It's not a "liberty" when it's there by someone else's decree. it's also not an individual liberty to force someone else to see them, if they do not wish to.

It would seem, therefore, that the only "liberty" you think you've lost is the "liberty" to control what others do and see. To which I say, "Good Thing".

Also, it's HARDLY the "crime" you so complained about.

______________________________________


Good point LC.. --- Phil started out his rant here with the claim that his rights have been criminally infringed, - at #63:


Phil wrote;
"The religious police are called the Supreme Court which, beginning in 1947, usurped power from the states and the people and made it a crime to practice religion in traditional manners."

When called to show what crimes have been committed, what rights have been lost, --- the best he can come up with is a pitiful clintonian type assertion about "the children" being unable to see religion in school..

Case closed, phil.
155 posted on 08/17/2004 6:32:48 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I guess, to a "quiet" totalitarian, the loss of the ability to control the lives of others might be considered a "crime".

Interesting that that's what he chose as an illustration. It reveals a lot.

156 posted on 08/17/2004 7:30:03 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I am well aware of the 16th amendment. I am also aware of the dates in which it was passed. 1909-1913 In that same time period, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve System was created.

The 16th Amendment was contradictory to the Constitution because of Article I, Section 8

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates just what federal functions Congress has taxing and spending authority. Among them are national defense, post offices and post roads, courts and a few other activities. Or, as James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

“Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."

"You see, the Constitution provides ample mechanisms to change things in it that the people deem bad. It's the Amendment process. Further, one can vote for politicians who will confirm to the bench justices in line with your thinking."

On this I agree with you....but getting back to the separation of church and state issue. The first amendment does not provide for it.....there are "numerous" Supreme court rulings to support that. There was simply a policy shift on the part of Supreme Court Justices that were appointed to support that line of thinking as you put it.

To my knowledge, Congress has made no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
157 posted on 08/18/2004 2:57:49 AM PDT by Navydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Navydog; tpaine
Here's the problem, though...while I obviously agree with you that the 16th Amendment is about as onerous as one can get, it IS an Amendment, not just a "law", and therefore is not, by definition, unConstitutional, as it is now a PART of that document. If you mean that a "graduated" or "progressive" income tax is Constitutionally unsound, you may have a better point, but to date courts have not agreed. It'd be much better, in any case, to repeal the whole thing and be done with it.

To the best of my knowledge, and Tpaine, correct me if I am wrong, an Amendment can be proposed and ratified doing virtually anything, EXCEPT countering the first ten Amendments, the Bill Of Rights. The 16th did not, on its surface, do that, and so it was ratified. Some debate still goes on over its ratification process' legality, but these are a sideshow...the courts do not take them seriously, and they are no threat to the Amendment itself.

" To my knowledge, Congress has made no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

See, you keep leaving out words! It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

That means it cannot designate a "national" religion, or "respect" one, that is, acknowledge one designated by the states. It is also held to mean that it cannot elevate one religion above all others in any way, nor use tax dollars to promote any ONE religion. You have to use ALL the words.

158 posted on 08/18/2004 4:08:34 AM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I'm not 'pretending' anything, phil. Nor am I disingenuous.

Then you are arrogant. You really should read the Elliot Debates and other records and letters of the convention with an open mind, rather than as an anti-Christian bigot. You don't have to go to the library anymore. You can read most of them them online at the Library of Congress.

What religious rights have you lost? Each time we have this discussion, you avoid that subject.

Unless you have been living in a cave, you would not even have to ask that question. For the others, the first religious right we have lost is the right to the truth. The nation has lost its spiritual history, which has been replaced by an Orwellian revisionist history (much the same one you propangandize). The remainder of those rights lost include our right to raise our children in a moral society, the right to pray in public buildings and in public places, the right of our children to pray in school, and the right of our children to see constant instruction on how to be a good citizen. And I want even go into the Nazi-like practice that has led to the brutal slaughter of over 40 million unborn children in this nation, denying them the most cherish right: the right to life.

Strange, I attended Minnesota public schools from 1942 till '54, and don't recall seeing any religious postings in my classrooms. In fact I doubt whether the parents back then would have stood for it.

I am sorry you were raised in such a sheltered environment. That might explain your anti-Christian bigotry. Now you write like a card-carrying member of the ACLU, so it is our nations loss that you were raised that way. But the point is that your community and schools had every right act to be secular, as communities in other parts of the nation had the right to cherish and nurture Christianity. That right was taken away by the usurpation of power by a bigoted Supreme Court under the influence of a communist-front organization called the A.C.L.U.

Do them a favor, and keep them out of public schools.

Pathetic. You act as if my agenda is selfish (when, in fact, it is your agenda that is selfish). If I had children or grandchildren in public schools, I would most certainly keep them out; but not all parents have the means to do that (do you care about their rights?). For the record, my wife is a public school teacher who tells anyone who will listen that they should home-school. Why not change the public schools so they teach morality to the children rather than perversion? why not teach them to honor their parents, and not to kill, or steal, or bear false witness, or commit adultery? Or, is that too "moral" for you?

159 posted on 08/18/2004 6:25:01 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
How has the right to practice one's religion changed in any way since 1947?

You are living a very sheltered life, "Modernman".

How about giving an example of how your right to practice your religion has been reduced in the last 50 or so years.

160 posted on 08/18/2004 6:27:18 AM PDT by Modernman (Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-237 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson