Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Are you saying you think they shouldn’t have the right to sue? Or just that you disagree with them?

Dave,

I think everyone does have a right to sue, however, there needs to be another law that states…

“If you sue me, and you lose, you pay my expenses immediately.”

That would greatly reduce the stupid lawsuits that abound in this country.

As far as the crosses are concerned. Whatever happened to long-standing precedents? Traditions and history are being obliterated.

The bigger issue is this…Do we as a country allow minority groups (I use minority in the broadest sense of the word) to change the social and moral landscape of the country to suit them?

The crosses are 12 feet tall and placed there by the state. Anyone not a christian would think they were in Klan territory and be waiting for the flames. So, it sounds pretty much against the establishment clause to me.

Also, are you saying that everyone who loses a suit was “stupid”? There are already nuisance suit laws on the books in many states. I don’t think this makes the criteria.

I have seen these crosses and have no real problem with them. Some however are marking the burial sites of dogs, cats and possibly even other pets. These, IMO should not be permitted.

Also, many of these crosses are located in easements for electric companies, highway department, phone and so on. This could be a serious problem in extreme weather or other dire circumstance.

Look at this as the win-win situation it is:

A group of instigators stirs the pot and gets a lot of publicity for an outrageous cause; and the christians can get angry and act persecuted because society is trying to outlaw their religion yet again.

It’s the others that get to watch the drama that aren’t so lucky.

Also, the atheists are being ridiculous. What about vegetarians, should there be no McDonalds, Burger King, Hardees, etc. signs so as not to offend them.

What if the trooper was Jewish or Muslim or Bhuddist? Would there be a star or crescent or whatever? Also, some people love their dogs more than people, so why not for dogs? They’re loved too dontchya’ know.

As a driver from another state, I would construe the cross as an endorsement of Christianity and not as a memorial to fallen Troopers. It would seem more fitting and less offensive to use a symbol that would be recognised as a memorial to State Troopers— like a badge, or a “Smokie” hat. But I really don’t think memorials have a place on the public roads. Drivers don’t need more distractions. Memorials belong in the graveyard, or in this case, perhaps on State Capitol grounds.

Wouldn’t be ironic if someone ran off the road and was killed running into the Cross?

Dave,

Also, are you saying that everyone who loses a suit was “stupid� There are already nuisance suit laws on the books in many states. I don’t think this makes the criteria.

I don’t think they are “stupid”, however, an anti-suit type law should be imposed that protects people (especially private citizens) from lawsuits, without having to sue. In otherwords, if someone is sued and they win, they are compensated for the expense they incurred to protect themselves.

I have a good personal friend who was sued recently by a guy that he sold a house to 5 years ago. He sued because the house supposedly wasn’t what he bought 5 years ago. The suit was thrown out, but my friend had to spend $2,500 in legal fees to do it. I believe that a court imposed instant restitution should take place on his behalf for actual expenses incurred.

Back on topic…
I’m not against the crosses but 12 feet seems a bit much.

On a county route near my home, there is a small cross (3-4’ high) that has flowers routinely placed around it. It signifies the location where a young mother was killed by a drunk driver, and there is a small sign naming the lady and that how she died. The family places the flowers there on a regular basis as a memorial to her.

It’s not a distraction, and is actually fairly easy to miss, if you don’t know its there. But it serves as a nice reminder of this woman’s life, and also as a reminder of how her life was cut short by someone making a horrible decision.

I don’t know her religion, nor do I particularly care. It helps her family deal with their loss, and it reminds others of the importance of our decisions.

I don’t mind the crosses, and wouldnt mind other symbols either. I can see how it might get out of hand if too many of them go up, or if they are too big, since it could be distracting. Otherwise, I don’t see it as anything more than someone creating an argument where there should be none.

“Their families should be able to choose the memorial that honors their hero”

This is all its about, nothing more, nothing less.
These groups have a political agenda and are acting like scared, immature children.
Their fabrications of some evil Christian takeover are getting tiresome.

Everyone that is not a Christian thinks they were put there by the Klan?!!! Come on that is stretching it a bit. The cross as been around a long time and most people know it has been used as a memorial or a grave marker. If anyone is offended by a cross as a memorial marker—you need to get a life. Law enforcement officers protect everyone—they give up family time and they put up with the pits of humanity and they will protect you even if you don’t deserve it—give the people in Utah a break and by the way—Merry Christmas.

Can’t the Utah State offer a space for memorials to their fallen state troopers???
Whatever the shape, drivers will hardly notice the name of fallen ones written on road sides memorials anyway… And what’s the link between the location and the place where the trooper actually died?

In France we eventually have these black human shaped panels, one per road victim, placed on road sides. One by one, the emotional effect is less than when I see a group of 2, 3 or more are on the same place side by side.
I always though that if these memorials were grouped in the same place, our 5000 deaths per year on the roads will be very more heartfull to see. And effective: Spreading them is less.

Lee,

Wouldn’t be ironic if someone ran off the road and was killed running into the Cross?

In such case, how one could figure out who died because he was driving badly from the one who died because he was fighting a wrong war?

Your frenchly,

This is a local issue until someone pushes the “it’s unconstitutional” argument. Then the stakes become much higher and it draws national attention (I’ve only been to Utah once in my life and I’ve never seen one of these crosses). Unfortunately, that is the real motivation (along with money) behind these types of suits, and it is sad that a trooper’s death and a State’s tribute to his/her life are used as political fodder.

Of course, that political fodder comes from both sides (remember the judge in Alabama).

As to the question of constitutionality, based on the last ruling of the Supreme Court, “it depends…..” That solves it I’m sure!

My bad, I confuse state troopers with state soldiers. I should have check before (aka actually follow the link).
I stand corrected.

Sorry if my mistake offense any of you.

Sincerelly,

The original intent of the Constitution was freedon OF religion, ie. one particular belief was not to be held above another BY the Government. But as in all liberal interpretations this is now to be taken as freedom FROM religion. It is being pursued by those whose religion is no religion allowed. Which if allowed to continue results in nothing more than religious persecution. The left discovered a magic bullet in their ‘victory’ against the tobacco industry. They can now sue all their ‘enemies’ out of existence.

Philippe:
Amen, and tres bien! You’re preaching to the choir there, mon ami.

Would’nt it be ironic if the family of a person killed on the road was wiped out as they placed fresh flowers on the roadside memorial!

While I am shocked by the lawsuit and don’t support it in any way. I wonder if the people who take such indignation at the suit would still do so if they wanted to put up Stars of David and Muslim Crescents only.

Philippe:

Your mistakes never offend. After all, you are French and therefore require a little more leeway.

I’m only kidding!! You may take the obligatory swipe at me for being an American just to even the score.

Dave,
“The crosses are 12 feet tall and placed there by the state. …”

So if they were smaller you would not have a problem with them?

Lee,
“Wouldn’t be ironic if someone ran off the road and was killed running into the Cross?”
“Would’nt it be ironic if the family of a person killed on the road was wiped out as they placed fresh flowers on the roadside memorial!”

You use the word ‘ironic’. I’m assuming then that you are joking?
You couldn’t be hoping for these accidents to have reason to remove the memorials - could you?

Don’t most people see crosses as a sign of death and not religion or the KKK- unless they are at the top of a church steeple?

To me the issue is not whether it is a cross, a sign, a wreath or whatever along the highway is inappropriate!
ANYTHING along the side of the road is distracting to drivers and increases the risk to EVERYONE on the highway, either as a passenger or driver.

Here in WV, we have I-64. Locals refer to it as the “Highway of Death” or the “Memorial Highway.”
There is currently a spot where a driver fell asleep at the wwheel, crossed the median and crashed into an oncoming vehicle killing all 4 passengers instantly. (19yr old Mom, 21yr old dad, 43 yr old Grandmother and an 8yr old boy) The surviving family members place 4 wreaths at the site of the accident. They keep them clean and groom the ground around them. They change them seasonally, sometimes they place 4 crosses (aprox. 3 feet tall) with a wreath draaped over them. I drive by them at least twice a day. I admit it does male me think of the tragedy everyday and I am reminded of the pain experienced by this family and their on-going grief over such a loss. It also distracts me from attention to the highway and other drivers on this particularly dangerous stretch of highway.
I personally have no problem with these memorials being crosses, wreaths or whatever, but to say they serve a purpose other than for the families of the victims is to ignore the danger it places on others.

If we continue to place these memorials along our highways, after time there will be one every foot or so…who will really be remembered then?

The AAI may be fighting specifically because they are crosses, but I ask everyone in defense of this to think, and to ask yourselves, “Would you be so appalled at their removal if they were, say marble tombstones as opposed to crosses?”

One more question: I(f they are allowed to stay and the “tradition” of honoring fallen patrolmen continues, how long do you think it will be before they decide to add firemen, paramedics, state highway crewmen, or any other catagory of people? Are their deaths any less tragic or less important? Where are their roadside memorials?

sassyliberal

This is just silly. If the troopers are Christian, let them be remembered by a cross; if they were of another faith, let them be remembered by whatever symbol for that faith. The point isn’t the religious symbol; the point is that these troopers die doing their jobs and so properly need to be remembered. Any public servant who risks their life in such a way deserves remembrance. Further, I don’t see it as violating the Church/State seperation if the the State is willing to pay for any symbol reflecting the trooper’s particular faith (now, I know, practically speaking, they are prob all Christian, but since we are talking constitutional law here, we are also talking only principles).

Instead of crosses by the side of the road, I think American’s should start putting up blood splattered Santa’s holding severed heads.

Just kidding!

BTW, I find it strange that when Cindy Sheehan went to Bush’s ranch and put up a cross to represent every U.S. soldier who had died in Iraq, nobody in this column liked that very much, yet now you’re defending it because people you consider “good christians” want to do the same by the side of other roads.

I love seeing things along the road. It reminds me of a ‘FREE’ country. Free to practice my reliiong, which is getting harder to do every day. I, myself am a Christian. My family are Catholic. It doesn’t matter what you are as long as you have Faith in what you beleive in! My brother dies in a car crash-it was suicide! There is a 3-4 ’ cross up on the hill where he dies. many of his family & friends still visit on special occasions. Yes, it has gotten out of hand when liqour or other parafanalia are left there. But that is why I visit - to clean it up & make sure it doesn’t get out of hand. It is a daily reminder to those that know him of the hardships he went through.

Across the street there is a JESUS sign in big white letters about 4 feet high for the holidays. The people that have a problem with it live up the street. They have their religious symbols in their yard! What makes them allowed to have their religion but not others to display how they beleive.

This country was founded on strong Biblical principals. That was when our Cuntry & People were strong. Since the bible is being take away- there is discord among it’s own people. There is fighting over religion, over what political party you are in.everything you can imagine. I am sure there are other things to focus our energies on. I am no saying that I beleive Oure Country is Perfect-We are from it. But having a divided country leaves us wide open to be hit again by others who hate us. Also, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!! (Every religion, ever person!)

While I am shocked by the lawsuit and don’t support it in any way. I wonder if the people who take such indignation at the suit would still do so if they wanted to put up Stars of David and Muslim Crescents only.

Posted by: chantico at December 14, 2005 11:45 AM

I think the suit is stupid and hope that the judge thinks so too.
I really don’t care if they put up crescents ,stars, crosses, badges, or anything else. All the state is doing in this case is remembering the Troopers that have died in the line of duty. Some states put crosses up where someone has died in a wreck. This is to remind drivers to be careful.
If you go to a National Cemetary you’ll see the symbol of the persons religion on the grave stones. As far as I’m concerned they could do that along the roads too.
Anyone that wants to get any religious items out of public display is trying to push their religion of Secularism on everyone else. They are also violateing the 1st Admendment. Something that they want to blame other religions of doing. So they don’t have much room to talk.
Why don’t yaall Secularist come up with a symbol for your religion? I wouldn’t have any problem with it being displayed on the court house lawn or any other public place. Along with the symbols of the other religions.

BTW, I find it strange that when Cindy Sheehan went to Bush’s ranch and put up a cross to represent every U.S. soldier who had died in Iraq, nobody in this column liked that very much, yet now you’re defending it because people you consider “good christians†want to do the same by the side of other roads.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 14, 2005 01:07 PM

It wasn’t her putting up crosses that I objected to. Or her being against the war. It was her insistance that Bush meet with her again after he had already taken the time to meet with her. Why diddn’t she say what was on her mind then?

Xaris~Tamara Santagato

Well said.
And Merry Christmas to you too.

And Merry Christmas to the rest of yaall.

I have no problem with a memorial to people falling in the service of the public, but these troopers were serving the entire state, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, not just Christians. A memorial with their badge or badge number would be more approbiate. Using 12 foot high crosses was a way to interject religion to men who died in service of a secular government funded and supported by all. There is all this talk of Christians being oppressed which some conservatives use to take the mantle of victimhood, a charge usually leveled at liberals. But how are Christians being opprosed they can go to any number of churches, look at Christian broadcasts, open Christian schools, etc. as of course they should and yes many of them are liberals. God is not a registered Republican or Democrat. All that is being asked is restrict displays on public property, schools, courthouses, etc and or using public funds. If it is so important that crosses be used a private site cemetary or a state troopers association would be better. If they truly would want to memorialize these troopers perhaps erecting a professional billboard saying Trooper John Doe killed by reckless driver on such and such a date. Please slow down. Or Don’t Drink and drive. That would memorialize them and profide for the public safety which is the cause they died for. (If the family wanted a picture of the deceased it could be though I could see not wanting to see a loved one looking on me everyday).
Freedom to practice YOUR religion is the right to practice YOUR religion not to make me participate in it or fund it.
ps I have no problem with roadside crosses put up by families. If that helps them great. The founding fathers had every opportunity to make this a Christian state they choose not to. Christ has no need to brow beat others in others. Those who claim to follow Jesus would forgive those that “sin” against them by disagreeing. I have no need to remove religion from public life but I would hate to see Christianity which comes in many flavors reduced to some bland civic religion thrusted on every one. Let religion be a matter of sincere personal belief not submission to the majority.
Franco

Xaris~Tamara Santagato

Across the street there is a JESUS sign in big white letters about 4 feet high for the holidays. The people that have a problem with it live up the street. They have their religious symbols in their yard! What makes them allowed to have their religion but not others to display how they beleive.

Nothing! You, I and everyone of us are free to display ANY reilgious displays we choose IN OUR OWN YARDS! and it makes no difference whether the people “up the street” like it or not. The argument comes from religious displays in government buildings or government owned roads and highways, or even being purchased by the government for public display. That’s when some of us and I am one of them draw the line. It is not that I object to the display itself, but of the implication that our government is sanctioning one religion over another.

Since the bible is being take away…

I can’t stress this enough: The Bible is NOT being taken away!!!IT IS THE SAME THING! Otherwise you would be forced to hang a star of David or a copy of the Quran or the Jewish Torah right beside your bible. It IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN one’s personal choice, and has been since the founding of our country!

This specific issue is the display of a cross (IMO cross or anything else) along the state owned highways designated for the use of ALL of US.

Ron Brown:

It wasn’t her putting up crosses that I objected to. Or her being against the war. It was her insistance that Bush meet with her again after he had already taken the time to meet with her. Why diddn’t she say what was on her mind then?

Because at the time he first met with him, she (and millions of other Americans too) TRUSTED HIM! only to realize (too late) that he had lied about the War!

Why don’t yaall Secularist come up with a symbol for your religion?

well, if I MUST call it a religion:

We already have one…several actually: “Old Glory”, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

sassyliberal

Hey….

Somehow I lost part of my message in the post

(must be another one of those LIBERAL tricks)

What WAS posted:

I can’t stress this enough: The Bible is NOT being taken away!!!IT IS THE SAME THING! Otherwise you would be forced to hang a star of David or a copy of the Quran or the Jewish Torah right beside your bible. It IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN one’s personal choice, and has been since the founding of our country!

This should read:
I can’t stress this enough: The Bible is NOT being taken away!!! You are free to read the Bible, study the bible, Follow the Bible, attend the church of your choice etc, etc, etc. and NO one is trying to prevent this. Someone from another thread wrote, Freedom OF religion is not the same as Freedom FROM religion. I submit: IT IS THE SAME THING! Otherwise you would be forced to hang a star of David or a copy of the Quran or the Jewish Torah right beside your bible. It IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN one’s personal choice, and has been since the founding of our country!

Philippe-

You forgot to add the red blood tire marks that are on the heads of the little black figures! I’ve always thought that was a nice touch!

dear Sassy~ I never meant to insult you or anyone. You are right. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. I just do not want to be punished because I carry my bible with me evrywhere I go because I read it alot.

I was in court once & when the judge asked me to ‘swear on the bible’…I asked him if he had one-he did not!

No, I don’t believe government offices should be one-religion. However, I do beleive that they should show some sign of their founding fathers & what they beleived in. they beleived in the bible. It just shows where we had come from. I do not see it a crime to show where the birth of our country was from. It was from the freedom to beleive in what religion we so do wish.

I understand every person has their own opinion. People must realize that their opinions are just that~OPINIONS.

We must show that we are strong by being able to share our opinions, even differences, without anger.

The fighting amongst the people in our own country over religion, politics, and other stuff need to realize that their opinions are valid. Just others may not agree with them. Also, because others do not agree doen not mean that there should be fighting over it.

Many feel that their opinions are the correct ones. Everyone feels they are right. The difference is in how we handle ourselves as human beings & Citizens. Other countries look at us and see fighting amongst ourselves over opinions.

We need to show other countries that even though we may not agree, that we are all of One Country! There is strength here in the United States. As long as we can get along with each other & put all this petty fighting aside.

Everyone must share their opinions. that is what makes this country great! but fighting over things that need not be fought over is a waste of time. There are many other issues out there that do need our attention & our focus.

May God Bless the USA & All who live here (legally!)

The legality of these, and any other roadside displays are probably regulated under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The HBA regulates the location and frequency of billboards and other eyesores. Non-complying structures (like shrines in the right-of-way) should be removed for the safety and unobstructed enjoyment of the road.

I think that the shrines only serve the vanity of the surviving family at the expense and safety of the motoring public. They gotta go.

I do like the bloody Santa and servered head idea from Adrienne though— If I die on the road, that’s EXACTLY what I want!

Adrienne
Just read your link. My wife says I’m jealous because I didn’t think of it. yeah right. Well maybe just a little teny tiny bit.
Christmas is getting too commerical these days. When stores are putting Christmas items out and decorations up in October it’s getting out of hand.
However if the State of Georgia decides to put anything along the roads to mark where people have died in wrecks I’m going to recommend the bloody Santas. They may be tacky but no one will sue on religous grounds.
Oooooo. Wait a minute, I forgot about the Jehovah Whitnesses. Well there goes another good idea down the tubes.

I am getting sick and tired of people who obviously don’t know the constitution mis-representing it. Seperation of Church and State was never intended to protect the State from the Church but rather the other way around. However, our for fathers didn’t count on 10% of the populous having enough power to out law Christianity. Today the single most discriminated group in America is the Christian Church. Next thing you know these relitively small groups of anti-God liberals will be demanding that we take the crosses off of the tombstones at Arlington and other National cemetaries. Try taking it off of my Grandpa’s, but come armed or don’t come.

Joe:

Thanks for saying what I was trying to!
Amen to that!

My son was told by his school that he couldn’t take his bible to school even though he reads it every day. It violated their school constitution. Yet my son said that books on abortion & other religions were easily available in an elementary & middle-school library.

I wonder how many people that are born here actually know the Constitution and how many are willing to say that it was based on Christianity!

Xaris~Tamara,
You didn’t offend me. I didn’t mean to make you feel as though you did. Your son has every right to bring his bible to school and read quietly to himself. I understand the school is freaking out, but perhaps you could speak to them. As long as he doesn’t try to read it to the other kids he certainly has EVERY right to do so.

Joe:

Next thing you know these relitively small groups of anti-God liberals will be demanding that we take the crosses off of the tombstones at Arlington and other National cemetaries.

I am definitely one of those bleeding heart Liberals to whom you refer, but Godless? No sir. I am one of those who insist on programs to help feed the poor, provide medical care for those without any and champion for financial assistance for low income families. I went to LA for Katrina relief. I will continue to fight for assistance for those who have less. If Christ were here today he would remind us “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” Matthew 25: 34-46.

You also wrote:

I am getting sick and tired of people who obviously don’t know the constitution mis-representing it.

Obviously, that would be YOU!

Here, Have a few links:

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

John Adams, the country’s second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers ‘noble and gallant achievments” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces”. Late in life he wrote: “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”

It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of nature.”

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

Thomas Jefferrson even cut out parts of the Bible and created his own “the Jefferson bible.”

To say they were not religious is wrong, but to say they were Christians is equally wrong. Check it out yourself.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

sorry, but I strongly disagree with you and I DO know something about the Constitution.

sassyliberal

Xaris~Tamara,
You didn’t offend me. I didn’t mean to make you feel as though you did. Your son has every right to bring his bible to school and read quietly to himself. I understand the school is freaking out, but perhaps you could speak to them. As long as he doesn’t try to read it to the other kids he certainly has EVERY right to do so.

Joe:

Next thing you know these relitively small groups of anti-God liberals will be demanding that we take the crosses off of the tombstones at Arlington and other National cemetaries.

I am definitely one of those bleeding heart Liberals to whom you refer, but Godless? No sir. I am one of those who insist on programs to help feed the poor, provide medical care for those without any and champion for financial assistance for low income families. I went to LA for Katrina relief. I will continue to fight for assistance for those who have less. If Christ were here today he would remind us “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” Matthew 25: 34-46.

You also wrote:

I am getting sick and tired of people who obviously don’t know the constitution mis-representing it.

Obviously, that would be YOU!

Here, Have a few links:

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

John Adams, the country’s second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers ‘noble and gallant achievments” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces”. Late in life he wrote: “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”

It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of nature.”

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

Thomas Jefferrson even cut out parts of the Bible and created his own “the Jefferson bible.”

To say they were not religious is wrong, but to say they were Christians is equally wrong. Check it out yourself.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

sorry, but I strongly disagree with you and I DO know something about the Constitution.

sassyliberal

Dear Sassy,
I don’t belive Joe ever claimed that the fore-fathers were Christians themsleves. That is a whole nother debate not worth getting into right now. But even Deists have Christian principles and founded our nation on those very ideas. Nonetheless, the crosses on the sides of highways or in Arlington National Semetary are symbols. They are not claiming that the person is a Christian or believes in Christ, they are simply a symbol that is recognized by most every person in this nation. The symbol itself does not obstruct the freedom of any of the fallen soldiers, it merely recognizes that the person is no longer with us and offers them the peace that i am sure anyone, whether they believe in life after death or not, would also bid them.

I’ve made my entire family swear to NEVER erect a cross for me on the side of some road, should I ever die in a motor vehicle accident.

I am impermanent here, and when it is my time to go, it is done…

Sassy:
Wow! Strong post. I’ll spend days on the links. Great material—thanks.

MJ: I’m designing a 40 ft tall solid granite obelisk to be placed at my crash site, decked out with flashing neon lights and a marching band— cuz I’m just so darned important!

Ron, glad you liked that psycho-santa link. I’m really hoping that no child under the age of seven will ever have to walk past it!

Sassy, very nice post!

I admire the Jefferson Bible almost as much as admire every other brilliant thing the man produced.
I find it amazing how he managed to carve away all the hocus pocus in favor of focusing on the real, shining jewel to be found within the New Testament — the ethical teachings of Jesus.

I’m an agnostic who believes that divinity is a great mystery, and one that cannot be simplistically explained or handed to anyone — whether by dogmatic sermons, mindless memorization, rote ritualism or any other sort of show biz. However, I very highly esteem and respect the kind of freethinking, yet thoughtful and considerate effort that Jefferson engaged in, in order to produce his own stripped down, no-nonsense version of the bible.
I think it’s a great read, too.

Btw, if you haven’t already, you might enjoy reading what I thought was an excellent article that appeared in the December Harper’s. (Hey, I just went and looked online for it, so now you don’t even need to go buy it! :^) It’s called ‘Jesus Without the Miracles’ written by Erik Reece.
In it, he talks a lot about The Jefferson Bible, and a certain commencement address given by Ralph Waldo Emerson at Harvard’s Divinity School, and how each of them contain oddly coincidental but very strong similarities to the heretically banned (and thus destroyed), ‘Gospel of Thomas’ which was rediscovered along with the many other gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Fascinating stuff — though possibly only to nerds like us! ;^)

This country was founded on strong Biblical principals.

I wonder how many people that are born here actually know the Constitution and how many are willing to say that it was based on Christianity!
Posted by: Xaris~Tamara at December 14, 2005 08:15 PM

Xaris~Tamara,

Say what? Can you back this statement up? I think this is one of those history revisionist things. The Constitution is a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.

Sassy liberal brought up some of the numerous examples that our Constitution is not based on Christianity.

The treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli was passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous. There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it: “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson was outspoken about his strong opposition to the intermingling of Church and State.

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. -Thomas Jefferson, “First Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1801

I will never, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. -Thomas Jefferson

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. -James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Separation of Church and State Quotations

Hi Joe,

“However, our for fathers didn’t count on 10% of the populous having enough power to out law Christianity.”

If you have any examples of anybody who wants to outlaw Christianity I’d love to hear about them.

“Today the single most discriminated group in America is the Christian Church.”

I’m in Church most Sundays and I pop in on other days as well. I haven’t noticed any discrimation against that or any other Church around here.

Can you provide any examples of Churches being discriminated against?

When government gets in the religion busines then religious persecution becomes the law of the land.

SassyLiberal and JayJay-

Another interesting site that you should consider is the Religion and the Founding of the American Republic found at the Library of Congress. I think you will find this exhibit mostly balanced.

Of particular interest is Section VI. “Religion and the Federal Government.”

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, “many pious people” complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained “no recognition of his mercies to us … or even of his existence.” The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only “religious clause” in the document—the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six—was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an “irreligious” document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an “irreligious” document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.

Historically, religion played a much more prominent role in the public square than it does now. It was in our military, our school houses, and was the primary basis for what social services were provided. Whole communities, even entire States, were devoted to a particular religion or belief. Even 50 years ago, there existed more religion than less within our government at all levels (until the 1960’s New York State ruling).

Can you imagine the outcry today if GW Bush held a Sunday church service in the Supreme Court building or Capital in much the same way as did Jefferson and Madison?

We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.
-Ronald Reagan

The secularists DO have a sign for their faith, ACLU.

Hi George,

The Constitution is based on the philosohy of secular humansism…that man can rule himself fairly.

Our founding fathers were well aware that religion and government is a bad mix. They knew that the mix of religion and government had caused vicious sectarian slaughter in Europe for hundreds of years.

LouisXIV-

History is very unkind to your argument.

Hi George,

What have I said that isn’t true?

You are aware that government getting in the religion business in Europe resulted in sectarian slaughter on a large scale? I’m talking about historical fact here.

You are aware that the Consitution is based on the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly? That philosohy is secular humanism.

What have I said that history doesn’t support?

sassyliberal
While I don’t know if George Washington ever professed to be a Christian or not. He did acknowldge God.
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benifits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.”
Geroge Washington, 3 October 1789. Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving.

John Adams might not have become the preacher that his father wanted him to. But in 1756 we made the folowing statement.
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. What a paradise would this region be!”

Our Founding Fathers may or may not all have been Christians, but they ALL acknowledged God and his law as supreme.

*sigh*

Going for yet another run around the lunatic left hypocricy tree, eh? Typical Jeffersonian ideology aka situational ethics.

Jefferson=Condemn slavery while owning and abusing slaves-Jefferson

Lunatic Left=Condemn radical right wingers of imposing their beliefs on the rest of us…
while their own atheistic beliefs have been imposed on the rest of us for decades.

Both the radical right and the lunatic left have belief/non-belief in God/Creator as foundational to their ideologies. Yet it is the lunatic left who has had the federal government establish their sect over all others.

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.

Cut and paste, trim and tuck, anything goes as each person sets about making up their own rules.

Jeffersonian ‘Bible’= ‘Hey, “Christ Incarnate” is a bit much for me, I’ll just snip off a finger here, a toe there for myself and toss the rest in the arena as lion chow.’

If you really want to go another round on the leftie progressive spin cycle, maybe review the last 20+ comments in these threads so perhaps we can cover some new ground before everyone gets sick and falls off the merry-go-round.

Bush vs. The United States (Part 1)

History or Philosophy?

It is however quite hilarious to watch their contortions when the Bill of rights they spout off about so much, is by their own arguments, unconstitutional in that they are granted by “our Creator”. Protect the Bill of Rights, vote all democrats out of office. :-(

Hi Ron,

“but they ALL acknowledged God and his law as supreme.”

What “law” of God’s are you refering to? You’re not saying that all of our founders wanted people to be exucuted for blasphemy as it says in the Bible are you?

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry”-Thomas Jefferson

“One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

LouisXIV-

That our founding fathers wanted secular government is not true. They did not want a national religion as James Madison intimated in introducing the Bill of Rights, but there was never any effort to secularize government.

Again I think the exhibits I linked to showing the role of religion in our founding government are pretty convincing on this point. Also, you must take Federalism into account when you look at the Constitution. At our founding the State had a much more prominent role in our government (and that’s an unfortunate statement).

Religious taxes were laid on all citizens, each of whom was given the option of designating his share to the church of his choice. Such laws took effect in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and were passed but not implemented in Maryland and Georgia.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports
-George Washington

Jefferson is very interesting. The left says he was a wise man and that we should listen to his words. That he knew about the so-called evils of religion way back in the 1700s and warned us.
Funny how we should listen to his wise words concerning religion but ignore his even wiser words concerning our right to keep and bear arms.

Listen to our founding fathers, well, when they agree with our agenda that is.

“When writing in 1824 to the great English Whig John Cartwright, Jefferson could observe: “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in THE PEOPLE;… that it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED…”

Hi George,

“That our founding fathers wanted secular government is not true.”

They said they did. They created a secular document to found our country on (the Constitution).

“but there was never any effort to secularize government.”

There was a HUGE effort to secularize government. The Constitution was unprecidented in it’s secularism.

The first three words of the Constitution make it clear that it’s based on the philosophy of secular humanism.

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

“it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”!!!!!!!!

Hi George,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports”

One of the ideas of the European enlightenment was that religion is an important moral force. All sorts of enlightenment philosophers who were skeptical of religion believed it was necessary for the masses in order to have an orderly society.

It is interesting how much the communist manifesto has in common with the humanist manifesto.

Hi Jo,

You’re accusing Jefferson et. al. of being communists?

I don’t know much about the communist manifesto. What similarities are you talking about?

Louis,

i did not address you, nor will i be responding anymore to partisan bait. Try another corner.

Hi Jo,

What “parisan bait”?

I’m curious about what similarities that the communist manifesto and the humanist manifesto there are.

Jo

It is however quite hilarious to watch their contortions when the Bill of rights they spout off about so much, is by their own arguments, unconstitutional in that they are granted by “our Creatorâ€.

I’m sorry, perhaps you could point out to me and the rest of us “Lunatic-Left-Athiests” where in the Bill of Rights to which you refer, “our creator” is in any shape or form linked to Christianity. Many religions support the notion of a divine creator. Some Native-American beliefs support the notion of Mountains or rocks as the creator, and upon death you “become” or revert back to the same form. Judaism supports a belief of God (yes, the very same God) as the creator, but rejects the notion of Christ as God’s son, or the “Messiah” altogether. They are still waiting for the Prophesies of the Old testament to unfold. Muslims also believe in the same God as the creator, but believe just as was Mohammed, Christ was a Messenger of God. So your argument that the bill of Rights supporting Christianity doesn’t hold much water.

“Lunatic Left=Condemn radical right wingers of imposing their beliefs on the rest of us…
while their own atheistic beliefs have been imposed on the rest of us for decades.

Wrong again. I am not an athiest. Just because I believe (as DID our Founding Fathers) Religion MUST be kept OUT of Government, by no means makes me an athiest.

Do you even have a clue as to what my personal religious beliefs and practices might be? You don’t. Because I am NOT imposing them on you or anyone else. I RESPECT your opinions as your own. BECAUSE I have this belief I will (and DO, I might add)fight for your right to speak your mind and for you to be able to practice your beliefs. But I don’t particularly want to hear them.

I read the threads you linked in your post. ????? I saw countless futile efforts on the part of Christianity supporters to ineffectively disprove the Founding Father’s own words as to why we MUST have a secular Government. Otherwise we would be a government “bY the Christians, Of the Christians, For the Christians.” Then the rest of us can watch as they destroy themselves and the rest of us arguing about which form of Christianity will prevail.

One more Question please:

Suppose we as a society decide it is ok to teach “Creationism” as an accepted form of SCIENCE (refraining from comment). Whom will you then consider qualified to teach the theory? Since there are many different versions of this as well, would you be satisfied with, say, ME teaching your children this (theory)?

sassyliberal

Louis XIV-

Again, history is very unkind to your arguments.

John Adams continued the practice, begun in 1775 and adopted under the new federal government by Washington, of issuing fast and thanksgiving day proclamations. In this proclamation, issued at a time when the nation appeared to be on the brink of a war with France, Adams urged the citizens to “acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation; beseeching him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offences, and to incline us, by His Holy Spirit, to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction.”

Fast Day Proclamation, March 23, 1798

missy:

Nonetheless, the crosses on the sides of highways or in Arlington National Semetary are symbols. They are not claiming that the person is a Christian or believes in Christ, they are simply a symbol that is recognized by most every person in this nation.

By that logic, I suppose you would be JUST as pleased to support the placing of a Swastica along the side of the highway to memorialize the fallen troopers. After all, it too is “simply a symbol that is recognized by almost every person in this nation.”

somehow…..I don’t think so, even though you further assert that:

The symbol itself does not obstruct the freedom of any of the fallen soldiers, it merely recognizes that the person is no longer with us and offers them the peace that i am sure anyone, whether they believe in life after death or not, would also bid them.

I indeed bid them peace and further wish for peace for their families, “Heil”

kctim:

“When writing in 1824 to the great English Whig John Cartwright, Jefferson could observe: “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in THE PEOPLE;⦠that it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

I myself and I venture to say almost all lefties concur we all have the right to bear arms. See, the problem here lies in the actual wording of the CONSTITUTION. You and others supporting your position conveniently omit the important part about “well regulated militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I do not want to infringe on your right to bear arms, but assault rifles should be REGULATED!!

sassyliberal

Sassy-

What is an assault rifle?

Hi George,

“Again, history is very unkind to your arguments.”

That’s the second time you said that and I’m now requesting that you support it or retract it.

If you have any evidence that the Constiution isn’t based on the philosophy of secular humanism I request that you produce it.

My argument goes: The Constitution is based on the philosphy that man can rule himself fairly. That philosophy is secular humanism.

Please indicate where history is unkind to my arguments or retract the statement.

Sass
It was not my intent to bring up the 2nd to discuss. We look at it in two different ways and can wait until somebody makes it a topic, sorry about that, dont want to derail this thread.

I was just showing how convienent it is for the left to accept “some” of Jeffersons words but be unwilling to accept the ones that do not agree with their agenda.
The People means one thing here and another thing there, is how they look at things.
The People means The People. You cant ignore or change things to mean or say something so that it agrees with an agenda.

LouisXIV-

I supported my statements both times with links to exhibits from the U.S. Library of Congress. I think that pretty well covers it….

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him
-John Adams, Secular Humanist

My brother, his fiancé and best friend, all in their early 20s, drowned on a very dangerous road that was known by the local road commission to flood. When they tried to cross the roadway they determined that the water over the road was too deep and attempted to back out. It is unclear if the car was swept off the road and into the river or if because of the poorly designed road, they were unable to navigate their way out and drove into the river. (The road was designed to follow the river that ran along side it, therefore twisted with the river at the area. The place that the car left the roadway, there was a sharp curve in the road, and due to the flooding and the fact that this happened late at night, the roadway was indistinguishable from the river. There were no guard rails and no signage to indicate were the curves in the roadway were at.)

One of his friends managed to get out through an open window, but the other three died tragically, because this road was poorly designed and poorly maintained. There was not so much as a guard rail between the roadway and the river there wasn’t so much as a road sign to indicate that the road twisted. The road seasonally floods and the county road commission knew this. In fact, people who lived in the area including a local law enforcement officer complained to the road commission that the road was flooded. The road was inspected by a road commission official earlier in the day before the tragedy, and was determined by them to be passable, and therefore they never closed the road, even though there was rushing water over the roadway.

I have only been to the place once, right after the incident, and have never been back. My other family members have never been back either, and my mother has never been able to go there at all. The day I was there, I was in disbelief at the condition of this road, it looked like the road led right into a lake. It is inexcusable that this road had not been closed or improved. From what I have heard from my brother’s friends who frequent the site to make sure the road commission closes the roadway when flooded, there have been no improvements to this road to make it safer. Not so much as a guard rail. My brother and his friends tragic deaths would serve their memory and the community much more by making improvements to this dangerous roadway. I would much rather see a guard rail erected, then a cross or some other symbolic memorial.

Prior to my brother’s death, gates that would have been permanently installed on this road were purchased by the road commission with the specific intent of being used to close off this road in the event of a flood. The incident that killed three young people happened on Feb 13, 2001, those gates, to my knowledge, to this day have not been installed but sit in a road commission warehouse. Why? I don’t have the answer to that question, but I can tell you that it is political in nature and involves the road commission’s insurance carrier.

To me a memorial is nice, but fixing the problem that caused the tragedy to occur in the first place is much more important to prevent tragedy from happening again.

Hi George,

I very much encourage you to support or retract your statement about history not being kind to my arguments.

If you can find anytyhing that actually pertains to what I said about the Constitution that would be a good start.

“History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
Thomas Jefferson, to Baron von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

Going for yet another run around the lunatic left hypocricy tree, eh?

Jo,

I am very disapointed. I have had lengthy debates with you and have for the most part we have stuck to the issues at hand, without resorting to name calling. Hopefully, your future comments will be of substance. Name calling is the lowest form of debate.

It is interesting how much the communist manifesto has in common with the humanist manifesto.

More substance please, less acusations.

i did not address you, nor will i be responding anymore to partisan bait. Try another corner.

Jo,

Please go back and re-read your comments about the “lunatic left” then tell us who is the partisan baitor?

Jo:
“Typical Jeffersonian ideology”

“All men are created equal.” “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Government geared to the average citizen, rather than to the rich and well-born. America owes so much to Jeffersonian ideology.

“Yet it is the lunatic left who has had the federal government establish their sect over all others.”

Are you not free to worship whatever and wherever you want? Yes you are. Therefore, this is a bullsh*t..

“I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.
Cut and paste, trim and tuck, anything goes as each person sets about making up their own rules.”

Exactly. All men and women equal. All equally free to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

“Jeffersonian ‘Bible’= ‘Hey, “Christ Incarnate†is a bit much for me, I’ll just snip off a finger here, a toe there for myself and toss the rest in the arena as lion chow.’”

Yes, carve it all away, in order to expose the pure heart and the philosophic mind of a mortal man — unadorned by the imposition of social or political machinations, or primative superstition and magic. Bloody brilliant.
Hooray for the Enlightenment! Otherwise all America’s would have been forced to live under the dark, forbidding clouds of what Jefferson called “Soothsayers and Necromancers”.

“It is however quite hilarious to watch their contortions when the Bill of rights they spout off about so much, is by their own arguments, unconstitutional in that they are granted by “our Creatorâ€.”

What’s really contorted is to claim that the word “Creator” is in our Constitution, when that word actually only appeared in the Declaration. The Bill of Right’s has nothing to do with Gods or Creators, it has to do with We the People. That means every one of us, the religiously pious and the non-pious alike.

“Protect the Bill of Rights, vote all democrats out of office.”

The Democrats may be the only ones who can save our Bill of Rights. Seeing as how the majority of Republican’s have been doing their level best to scrap the Constitution, and kill off our civil rights and liberties with the Patriot Act.
However, I was happy to see today that at least eighteen Republican representatives in the House weren’t going along with that idea.

Louis XIV-

From my earlier post:

Again I think the exhibits I linked to showing the role of religion in our founding government are pretty convincing on this point. Also, you must take Federalism into account when you look at the Constitution. At our founding the State had a much more prominent role in our government (and that’s an unfortunate statement).

And as I originally quoted from the LOC:

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an “irreligious†document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an “irreligious†document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.

You seem to have ignored this as “not pertaining” to what you have said.

Here’s a second opinion along the same lines. In a response to Kramnick and Moore’s “Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness”, American University Professor Daniel L. Dreisbach, D. Phil authored this article back in 1997: A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore

I haven’t read Kramnick and Moore’s piece, but it appears it is along the same lines as yours.

The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the “Christian nation” rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize.

Dreisbach is a little more wordy than my “history is unkind”, but I think you will get the point.

Hi George,

“You seem to have ignored this as “not pertaining†to what you have said.”

You seem like a nice fellow.

Let’s go slowly this time.

Do you aknowledge that the Consitution is a document based on the philosohy that man can rule himself fairly?

Do you have any historical evidence that that Constitution isn’t based on that philosophy?

You’ve presented nothing that shows that the Constitution isn’t based on the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly.

Once we establish that the Constitution is based on the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly, (I can provide mountains of evidence to support that), then we can discuss whether the idea that man can rule himself fairly.

For now I’ll assert that the idea that man can rule himself fairly is humanism as a primae facie argument.

Do you aknowledge that the Consitution is a document based on the philosohy that man can rule himself fairly?

Hi George,

“Dreisbach is a little more wordy than my “history is unkindâ€, but I think you will get the point.”

I very much encourage you to show that history is unkind to what I said about the Constitution is based on the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly.

Do you have a shread of historical evidence that the Constitution isn’t based on the idea that man can rule himself fairly?

If you can’t produce any evidence then I request that you retract that statement.

I think there is an important distinction we need to make between the founding fathers personal religious beliefs and their beliefs in the role religion should play in the government. It is clear from historical documents, including in bills they passed, that the founding fathers thought the more separation there is between Church and State, the better. When one of the founding fathers expressed his thoughts on religion they were free to do that by the very document they had drafted. That does not mean that they intermixed those beliefs with the founding documents. In fact there is strong evidence that they went out of their way to exclude them.

Religion should not be a part of the law, but expression of religious beliefs in the debate on the issues should not be discounted. Nor should personal religious beliefs be suppressed when serving in office, as long as those personal beliefs are not imposed on the people through laws and legislation.

Some feel that is exactly what is being done when religious symbols are placed on publicly owned and/or operated institutions or property. As such, these people, who may very well be a small minority, have the right under the Constitution to bring their grievances to the government, through the judicial branch, and have their day in court. Our judicial branch is obligated to follow the laws set forth in the constitution. Some will argue that judges have made many decisions that were not based on the constitution and label them “activist judges”. I think that is not a fair charge, because our Constitution was actually quite brilliant in it desire to be timeless.

If you read our Constitution it is interesting that the sections that deal with the power of the government are very clear and specific. It spells out in great detail the functions, responsibilities, and limits of the federal government, how the representatives of each branch are to be chosen, and even going so far as to say who can and cannot represent us.

However, if you look at the sections of the Constitution that deal with our rights and our freedoms, they are much more vague, and much more brief, therefore much more open to interpretation. I believe this was done intentionally by the founding fathers. Why? Because they knew that time was not static. What they knew was that government needed to be limited in it’s powers, but that other issues regarding personal liberties would and should change with the times.

They also knew through their experience with the Articles of Confederation that the document was too difficult to amend, and one of many purposes for the Constitutional Convention was to address this concern. They did make changes to the procedure in the Constitution to make it slightly easier in this respect, but I believe they intended to make that procedure unnecessary by being very specific about the powers of the government and vague on issues of personal liberties. This would protect our system of government from being easily changed by the courts, leaving it to the other branches to initiate difficult amendments. This would ensure that the changes to the way government worked were widely accepted. It would also allow our personal liberties, rights and freedoms to change with the changing times, not through the difficult to impossible task of amendments, but by allowing the court of the time to interpret the meanings based on the times.

Of course, I have no proof that this was their intent but, if you think of it in these terms, as I do, our founding fathers were quite brilliant in crafting a document that did just that. Are there some rights granted by the courts that the founding fathers never intended? Yes, but I think that was exactly what they intended to happen.

Hi George,

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I’d say that indicates that the Constitution is based on the idea that man can rule himself fairly. There is nothing about God ruling over us…..It’s clearly about man ruling himself fairly.

I think it’s time for you to support your assertion George! What historical evidence do you have that shows that the Constitution isn’t based on the idea that man can rule himself fairly?

It is time for you to support or retract there George! Show us what you’re made of George! Support your assertion or admit that you can’t!

Louis,

It is also interesting to note that the oath of office in the Constitution never mentions God or swearing on a stack of bibles. The words “so help me God” were spoken voluntarily by George Washington at the end of his oath of office, and almost every president has added it since. This is important because it illustrates that the framers of the Constitution exercised there right to express themselves freely, yet went out of their way to exclude religion from the Constitution itself. This debunks the theory that the Constitution is based on Christianity.

The strongest evidence by far though, still comes from the unanimous passage of the treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli in 1797. Just 10 years after the signing of the U.S. Constitution. I think these people would know better than anybody today what this country was founded on. They were quite clear in the Treaty of Tripoli: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”

This one section of the Treaty of Tripoli makes all arguments that the country was founded on Christian principles moot. If you ignore this then you are simply blinded by a personal agenda.

Louis,

sorry, my last post should have been addressed to
George in SC. as well, or anyone else that thinks the country was founded on Christian principles.

Hi JayJay,

You provided a great quote!

The preamble to the Constitution makes it extremely clear that it’s based on humanistic rather than religious philosophy…..it essentially says so in so many words.

“I’m designing a 40 ft tall solid granite obelisk to be placed at my crash site, decked out with flashing neon lights and a marching band— cuz I’m just so darned important!” — Lee

Important or not, you are impermanent as well… As we all are.

Make sure you don’t die on the road beside my property; because you can rest assured I be tearing it down regularly and with a smile on my face. Your grave marker is for your grave, not the side of the road or on the edges of someone’s land.

Jay Jay,
You’re so right. The founders had every chance to be specific about using the word God in the formation of our government had they wanted to, but instead the more neutral term Creator was used. And to me it is very telling that when it was used, it was only to send a message to King George — making the bold distinction that we would be a nation where equality and reason would always reign, rather than the dictates or whims of a King and his religion.
I also agree that they seem to have been deliberately vague regarding personal liberties. In fact, Jefferson believed that the rights and liberties ensured by the Constitution should be examined and possibly altered to reflect the changing attitudes of every generation (he advocated for allowing this to occur every nineteen years). Being a man of the Enlightenment, he would probably never have entertained the notion that an entire generation or more of our people would wish to take us back to the tyranny and violence of the past, where mandatory or institutionalized religious observances automatically meant all men would NOT be viewed as equals. Where the liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one segment of our society would mean nothing to another segment, due to prejudices born of religion.

Indeed, Jefferson’s writings suggest that he truly believed America would continue to break away from old pre-established patterns found in the rest of the world. That we would be a truly modern nation, and that our people would continue to naturally follow the reason of natures laws, and choose more freedom and tolerance, rather than less.

Adrienne:

BRAVO!!!!!

sass

Louis,

Something else that backs up the thought that our founding fathers used humanistic rather than religious philosophy is the motto “In God we Trust”. The first use of “In God We Trust” was in 1864, when it was placed on United States 2 cent coins, largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins. The motto did not appear on all forms of money until 1956, when an act of congress made it our unofficial national motto.

Our official and original national motto was the secular “E pluribus unum” which means “One out of more.” It referred to the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country. This stands in stark contrast to the national motto that congress adopted in 1956.

“E. Pluribus unum” was first proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in 1776, but was not adopted as our national motto until 1782. “In God we trust” showed up for the first time 82 years later and not adopted as our unofficial national motto until 180 years later. The act of congress in 1956 did not supersede “E. Pluribus unum.”

Hi JayJay,

I’d forgotten about the E plurabis unum being the motto.

The Constitution was criticized by fundamentalists when it was written for being “Godless”.

The founders knew just how bad the mix of religion and government had been in Europe and made a decision not to have that here.

Thanks, Sassy!
Another good point, Snowman. Nicely done.

Here’s a perspective that many of you may not have considered. What about the people who live where the crosses (I’m talking about the small roadside memorials) have been placed? Not long ago, I was unfortunate enough to discover the body of a young man in my front yard. The ATV he was a passenger on, had crossed a busy road late at night, and was hit by a truck, throwing him into our yard. As if this was not bad enough to deal with, we had to live with the memorial.. NOT to his life, but to his death.. right outside our fence, where we had to deal with it every day. I understand that people don’t want us to forget, but for someone who can’t escape the reminder, it’s a bit unfair. We had no say in the placement of the memorial, and no choice but to be confronted with it, and consequently, the flashback to that boy’s lifeless body in my yard. I don’t think it is healthy to bring a cemetery-like atmosphere to our roadways and public places.

Roberta,

You make an excellent point. If a roadway is so dangerous that it needs to have a reminder that it killed someone, then something needs to be done to fix it. As I said before a roadside memorial would not be for the family, as I or my family have never returned to the site of my brother’s death. I go to the cemetary to remember him. Right of ways are not the proper place for makeshift cemetaries.

Thanks Adrienne,

Let me see if I can think of any others. The Pledge of Allegiance didn’t originally contain the words “under God” but everybody knows that! Don’t they?

i apologise. My knee-jerk comments yesterday were selfish off-handed responses as i was heading out the door. i was wrong to post them.

Communism, socialism and Secular Humanism all consider religion deleterious, reluctantly allowing it only to appease the unenlightened masses.

Mirroring the far right’s fingers-in-the ears ranting that everyone should disregard physicality, is the far left’s invectives for us to dismiss spirituality. Both sides stand firmly in BELIEF, not empirically proved fact, as neither the existence or non-existence of God/spiritual things are proven. My preferred ideology being one of balance, i find both extremes nonsensical and the endless egoistic arguments inane.

Yet it is the left, while simultaneously shouting for science, who deny Secular Humanism’s very foundation is grounded on faith, on the pre-conceived, pre-judged BELIEF in the non-existence of the spiritual. At least the far rights concede that faith and belief are the fulcrum in this carnival ride.

We can never get anywhere until the far lefts openly admit that their conclusions are no more or less reliable than other views as they start from a similarly non-scientific, faith-based assumption. Nor can we get anywhere until both sides concede it is not for government to circumscript individuals’ God/Creator-given free will or the expression thereof.

Jefferson’s wording in the declaration of Independance (not the bill of rights, my bad) includes the word “Creator”. Who/what that means is a matter of FAITH and belief, NOT science. To live in a free and open society, it is necessary to respect others’ faith/belief and tolerate its expression (not advocate its repression). It is egomaniacal to demand another’s faith (such as far right christian fundamentalists) not be uttered or discussed in public schools. If a child wants to bring his Bible to school and disuss it with his friends, it should be no more resisted than a child bring a Platonic work and discussing that. Open discourse is necessary. Our children should not be deprived of information. History abounds with examples of divergent philosophical/religious bents both encouraging and discouraging scientific discovery and advancement. Blocking the discussion of these subjects and how they effect other subjects is, again, a mirror of Middle Age elitist subjugation of the proletariat with knowledge/information suppression.

i disgaree with the contention that governance by the governed is a humanist invention as Christianity has had conciliar governance for millenia— Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts chaired by St James with participation of clergy, elders and ‘all’, whose copmbined judgments governed the universal (catholic) church. Note even the ‘congregational’ protestant denomination.

As for the crosses on the sides of the highway, i do not think most find them anymore distracting than the more numerous flirtatious billboards or street signs proclaiming local student accomplishments.

p.s.
Adrienne, i agree that the Patriot Act severely undermines our civil liberties once protected by the Bill of Rights.

p.p.s.
JayJay, May i ask where you are from? You sound very much like a friend of my daughter with the same name.

JO,

You don’t have a real understanding of secular humanism.. Please check this link . Question: Would you support the right of a muslim child bringing in a Quran to school and trying to convert your child?

jayjay, adrienne, sassy,

Great posts, thanks…

Try this
too

i am familiar with that link.. and from it offer this except (emphasis my own):

perhaps less confrontational synonym is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson termed “the only world-view compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature”

And this opinion is promulgated throughout our public schools and society at large… if you are not a secular humanist, you cannot deal with science.

from your second link:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Please cite some peer reviewed papers supporting that spiritual things have been weighed and scientifically tested with results of positive evidence of their non-existence.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Please explain to me how this is not a biased anti-faith ideology and how people of faith should not be offended by the government’s establishing this world view above all others.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Please explain how Secular HUmanists are supporting an open marketplace of ideas by suppressing any ideas other than their own? How can other ideas be viewed with skepticism if they are hidden away and barred from the public square?

And no, i would not mind a Muslim bringing their Quran to school and discussing it. My daughter’s best friend is Muslim.

JO,

Thanks for the apologizing. I get frustrated here when people try to have meaningful debate and others interject with names and labels. The only possible result of name calling and affixing labels is that it discourages others from expressing their opinions for fear of being labeled a lunatic, or whatever. Until we stop seeing people as left or right, Democrat or Republican, and start focusing instead on the issues at hand we can never move forward. That is true for here and in Washington. But that was the past, apology accepted, now lets move forward without the derogatory labels.

We can never get anywhere until the far lefts openly admit that their conclusions are no more or less reliable than other views as they start from a similarly non-scientific, faith-based assumption.

Depends on the reasons that led us to that conclusion. Our personal faith and beliefs do not necessa