Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."
The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."
And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.
After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Your acid test is that the money MIGHT not end up being used for its stated purpose. That is true of every government program.
Your argument is absurd and you see that it is when its applied to other areas where the bigotry against muslims isn't clouding the issue.
No, I'm still trying to say goodnight to you :)
Let's debate again another time.
Thats why revolution was invented..
You get what you are willing to º•.º•.BLEED.•º.•º for..
The ones on this extreme are so far beneath the league in which our founding fathers were that it's just silly to suggest that a revolution led by either one of them could help America.
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; othewise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm
If Organization X, W or V does Y activity, then organizations X, W, and V should receive Y dollars. If that's not the case then you should document it.
Organization X is getting money. That strengthens it. Organization X can shuffle money it used to spend on activity Y to other activities.
If organization X does Y activity and receives Z dollars then so does every other charity organization. If organization X can "shuffle" money -- whatever that means -- then so could every other charity organization including every other religious, nonreligious and communist organization from sea to shinning sea.
People are free to draw their own conclusions.
Gee thanks. (I think the verdict is already in.)
Nowhere in any of our state constitutions or our federal constitution does it declare that we are a Judeo-Christian nation,
Your statement is flat out wrong.
They also required members not to be Catholic. Proud of that?
Cite one that is in effect today.
Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.
CHAPTER V.--THE UNIVERSITY AT CAMBRIDGE, AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE, ETC.
Section 1.--The University
Article I. Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year [1636], laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great prominence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences which qualified them for the public employments, both in church and State; and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion,
Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."
Changing the subject when you are proved wrong is a poor way to admit errors.
I'm proud I didn't make the ignorant statement that you made.
Yes, I was wrong and I'm sorry. But I don't think you're paying attention to Jefferson and Madison's comments about Virginia being the model. You're also ignoring the fact that these "Christian" colonies usually precluded Catholics, proving the injustice of their bylaws. Remember, there were states at this time that supported slavery, as well. That didn't make either established state religions or slavery a good idea.
But you're content to defend the establishment of state religion. That's fine, go right ahead.
In addition, many states required tests to keep non-Christians or in some cases Catholics out of public office:
* The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
* The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
* The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
* The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
* The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
* The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.
* The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
* The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.
* The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
* Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
You didn't argue it was or wasn't a good idea. You argued that it didn't exist in the state constutions,
SO.... then revolution would cost you a lot.?.
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.