Posted on 08/29/2004 10:42:44 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
You can degrade and malign the religious philosophical roots of our nations founding, but in doing so you are on the side of tyrannical repression and stand in opposition to American values and traditions.
Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional too, along with Thanksgiving, Christmas, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and every State Constitution?
Your outright rejection of the principles this nation was founded upon show that either you are completely ignorant of what these principles were, or you misrepresent yourself as a champion of liberty when in fact you are an enemy of religious freedom, and therefore an enemy of the Republic.
Omitting posts of mine that MIGHT be called "personal attacks" by someone hypersensitive (although I found only three that referred directly to other posters at all), my posts # 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 53, 85, 123, 134, and #137 had nothing of the kind. You are, to be VERY kind, exxagerating severely, in the face of easily available facts. You're also quite sensitive to disagreement, aren't you? DISAGREEMENT, Joe, and a statement of it, does not constitute an "attack", nor does pointed questioning or analysis. In actuality, only one post I can find came anywhere near an attack. You just killed your credibility there.
" Your's sure weren't."
I'll let others decide that...the others who read this thread. You are hardly unbiased.
" Not by you."
I just asked questions. Others DID, so that comment was irrelevant. Besides, the things I did post were accurate.
"You see, I don't have to refute your posts with facts because you don't present facts. All you do is insult and smear so all you are worth is insults in return."
Let's get this straight...you first lie about my posts being "attacks and smears", when you have been doing just that for the past fifty posts at least, then you claim no need to refute with facts? Incredible.
To all: anyone wishing to verify Joe's contentions is advised to read the whole thread. It's illuminating.
I guess once you're through pasting the latest pamphlets, attacks and slander are all one has after people respond with logic, reason, and Constitutional cites.
And you wonder why I so profoundly mistrust those, like you Joe, who insist that "just this little bit" of tyranny is O-K?
Yes, it certainly does. And the phrase was written by the Deist, Thomas Jefferson.
He also reported to us that the attempt was made to insert the words "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the work "Creator" in the Declaration, and that the founders voted it down.
The fact that the founders were religious men, even deeply religious men, does not support your contention that they intended to found a "Christian" theocracy. Indeed, given their votes like the above, and the absence of any stated intent to found a "Christian" theocracy, makes it clear you're all wet on this contention.
Maybe one day you'll understand why our President's words of personal faith instil comfort and unity, while yours raise my hackles.
Yes, it does. -- And that "Natures God entitles us" to do anything is a personal opinion of the men that wrote the Declaration.
-- I have no problem with that opinion as written.
-- I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorise our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.
Your outright rejection of the principles this nation was founded upon
Idiotic, unfounded claim, joe. -- I've supported our Constitution on FR for six years. I swore an oath to support & defend it almost 50 years ago, one I've honored.
show that either you are completely ignorant of what these principles were, or you misrepresent yourself as a champion of liberty when in fact you are an enemy of religious freedom, and therefore an enemy of the Republic.
Babble on joe. You're making a fool of yourself with these unfounded accusations.
Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government.
No, this thread is about your fanatical insistence that there is no need for a separation of church & state. The establishment clause says otherwise.
People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.
Sheer bull, joe. I, nor anyone here have ~ever~ said ANYthing about keeping anyone out of office that is prepared to swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Can you swear such an oath Joe? Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?
>> You're conveniently ignoring my first point - when it was moved to insert the words "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the word "Creator" in the Declaration, the founding fathers voted it down.
Cite your references and let us debate them.
Joe, - read this article, and weep for your apostacy.
Caught Up in The Rapture
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1204002/posts?page=1
"The Founding Fathers—most of them deist in their religious orientation—understood the supreme importance of the separation of church and state, even if they sought the entitlements of rights and revolution on the basis of the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
For those of us who understand the equally important separation of economy and state, it is clear that the erosion of these principles has led to the erosion of the very rights for which the Founders fought."
"It will take nothing less than an intellectual and cultural revolution to rediscover—and implement—these sacred political principles that stand at the core of the distinctly American imagination."
Lets cut to the chase Phil..
Can you swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?
Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you, -- without reservations?
Like I said, I don't bother to respond to your posts with evidence because your posts are worthless ignorance. I'm sure my "quote salads" won't make any sense to you anyway. Just stick to personal attacks wihich is what you know best.
Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and a Theist as I have shown on this very thread.
The fact that the founders were religious men, even deeply religious men, does not support your contention that they intended to found a "Christian" theocracy. Indeed, given their votes like the above, and the absence of any stated intent to found a "Christian" theocracy, makes it clear you're all wet on this contention.
I have not made this contention regardless of how much you and your friends have tried to ascribe it to me.
I'd suggest that your negative opinion about certain strains of Christianity that has led you to believe that we cannot be a Christian Nation without being a Taliban-like Theocracy.
Equating the Christian Right with the Taliban reveals a great ignorance of the essence of the terrorist threat this nation faces.
We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church. I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to, the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.
Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?
I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God. A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.
Yes, it does.
-- And saying that "Natures God entitles us" to do anything is a personal opinion of the men that wrote the Declaration.
-- I have no problem with that opinion as written.
-- I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorize our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.
We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church.
Your "definition" is based on unfounded speculation, joe. Respecting ANY of the establishments of religion is not allowed to any level of government.
I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to,
I am not "ambivalent" to freedom of religion, joe. That's a flat out fabrication.
the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.
-- Why do you think I want public worship forbidden?
Another idiotic, unfounded claim, joe. -- I've supported our Constitution on FR for six years. I swore an oath to support & defend it almost 50 years ago, one I've honored.
Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government.
No, joe, -- this thread is about your fanatical insistence that there is no need for a separation of church & state. The establishment clause says otherwise.
People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.
Sheer bull, joe. I, nor anyone here have ~ever~ said ANYthing about keeping anyone out of office that is prepared to swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Can you swear such an oath Joe? Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?
I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God.
I see; - you have reservations.. -- Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Thanks joe... Just as I thought.
A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.
A man who cannot swear an unreserved oath to support the principles of our Constitution is ~worse~ than untrustworthy joe..
You are the one who has reservations. You cannot swear an oath to accept our Constitution as the supreme law of the land because it presupposes that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.
You are the one who has reservations. You cannot swear an oath to accept our Constitution as the supreme law of the land because it presupposes that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.
I swore that oath in Jan of '55, joe. I still honor it.
Our Constitution does not presuppose that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.
That wording is used in our Declaration, and I have no problem at all in its use as written.
You are using that wording as a reservation to avoid supporting the Constitutions principles as written, joe. Admit it.
I will not admit your slander. Begone, louse.
Thank you joe. -- Your own words prove me correct.
BTTT
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.