Posted on 09/06/2001 8:11:05 AM PDT by ClancyJ
First the early history of our nation when the first amendment authors were still alive, this country was very much a Christian nation. It seems clear that their intent was to prevent a state run denomination like was in England at the time. To say that the first amendment was about freedom from religion is contrary understanding of the amendment by the athors.
Second, to remove all religion from public life is impossible. Atheism is a religion, as is naturalism and humanism. So when they remove all Christian and Jewish tenants the government is endorsing a religion of Godlessness. Atheism becomes the established religion of the state, and those opposed are in fact discriminated against.
>>It seems clear that their intent was to prevent a state run denomination like was in England at the time<<
More reason to not allow federal funding towards religious artifacts on federal/state grounds, no?
>>To say that the first amendment was about freedom from religion is contrary understanding of the amendment by the athors.<<
Not at all - the first settlers fled an oppressive state run religion. This is why it is the FIRST amedment, not a later one.
Wow. That is a pretty handy way to dismiss the clear historical evidence that posting the TC is consitutional.
Atheism is not a religion by definition. Buy a dictionary.
>>Atheism is a religion<<
I don't think it is. There is no central figure to worship, no holy book, no churches, no sacrifices, no rituals and no mythology - why would you say it is?
>>So when they remove all Christian and Jewish tenants the government is endorsing a religion of Godlessness. Atheism becomes the established religion of the state, and those opposed are in fact discriminated against<<
No it means they are not endorsing any belief system. For them to promote atheism, they'd have to put up quotes from O'Haire or Ingersoll. Absence of chritianity does not equal atheism.
Uh, you wanna explain that? Atheism is the rejection of all religion - it is, by definition, the absence of religion. You suggest that, logically, A = !A?
If you get an answer to that question, let me know.
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context.
It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity.
In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
Adams’own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.
Quote from David Barton's Original intent
a: disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
1 a : the state of a religious
1b: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (b) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I guess even the dictionary would classify atheism as a religion. It is after all a set of beliefs about god. But of course your godless purposes are more easily accomplished if you yell no religion allowed and then deny your faith as a religion. Corruption by classification.
It is a move toward that state though. It also means we choose to claim we don't need God's help to keep this country strong.
How come all forms of socialism, communism etc. first have to remove God, then they proceed to outlaw allowing God, then they move full force in their agenda to set themselves up as gods and with the total control of their subjects?
You are pushing for the first step aren't you?
What about my rights to leave these references to God where they are? Why do my rights take a backseat to the rights of those wanting them gone?
Why do we have to deny our children the name of God in school? Why can they not give Bibles to their friends in school? Why can evolution be brought in and taught but Biblical teachings of creation thrown out? Why are our children being taught that religion is shameful and cannot be brought into a public building or a school? The message becomes that the "state" thinks less of them because they believe in a religion or God.
This is a movement against Christianity hiding behind the separation of state and religion - but it is a movement against Christianity same as the evironmental goals and the Endangered Species Act are efforts to control Americans and take lands under the cover of protecting a "species".
It then becomes worth the time of these posters to argue about our rights for God to be left where he is. They seek to talk us out of our efforts to further their agendas whatever they are. However, they do have an agenda make no mistake.
It does not. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it's absense of particular set of beliefs (religion). If you don't believe in Yeti or Loch-ness monster you are not holding a set of beliefs about those objects!!! What would be the contents of those beliefs???
It is after all a set of beliefs about god.
No, it's not. If you don't believe in existence of something you can't have a set of beliefs about it.
But of course your godless purposes are more easily accomplished if you yell no religion allowed and then deny your faith as a religion.
Oh, please. Atheists on these threads would never yell "no religion is allowed". What we do advocate is that you don't do it on public properties and on public tax $$. Of course 99% of atheists on FR also advocate immediate prohibition of public ownership of schools, stadiums, etc. Regards.
No, it means we don't need GOVERNMENT to promote God to help keep this country strong. Religion has no place in government. Government has no place in religion. Faith is strictly a matter between a man's conscience and his Creator. If he wants to involve his family and the church, that's his prerogative. Government is nowhere in the equation.
According to you, we're supposed to want religion banned. Not so. I feel very, very strongly about religious liberty. And I know for a fact once a government has strayed from neutrality towards religion, religious freedom will quickly disappear.
Government's neutrality towards religion does not equate to institutionalized atheism. It means that government has no legitimate role in matters of faith, for that is a matter solely for a man's conscience, his family and his church.
Wrong. This implies that religion is the equivalent of an open container of alcohol - to be consumed in private or not at all.
This is not the case. Private citizens are free to practice religion anywhere they like. If you stand on the street corner praising the Lord, are you in private? No. If you broadcast church services over the air, are you in private? No.
It is an often propagated lie that government neutrality towards religion means that religion is banned from the public. This wrongly assumes that anything that is not in a person's private home is part of the government. It wrongly assumes that if a man proclaims love for God in public, he must be part of government. It wrongly assumes that anything mentioned in a public place has the backing of government, or needs its consent or permission.
Go ahead and be just as religious as you like anywhere you want. Preach to people until your voice gives out, give them Bibles until every person has one. We don't want to change that, for that is religious liberty. We merely want government to remain neutral in matters of faith.
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.