The Founding Fathers Never Intended for a Separation of Church and State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.

The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke, the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Is the seeder actually advocating that we establish an "official religion?" Haven't we seen throughout history, the psychotic, erratic, coercive, hateful and violent aspects of religion?

And just look at how the current Republican/right-wing base sabotages every initiative that would benefit poor and middle class Americans as a trade-off for pandering to their dogmas by the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and others.

A. Macarthur

Also, this country wasn't founded on Christianity. Most of the founding fathers were Masons and free-thinkers. Most people don't want to admit this, or study it.

Many were also Deists, who did not deny the existence of a supreme being -- as in the "Creator" of our inalienable rights -- but such a being did not trouble with the day-to-day affairs of the world. The founders would have substantially dismissed a touchy-feely "personal relationship with God" out of hand.

Pacific...

Great rebuttal! Shot down right out of the gate....

Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible to underscore how he viewed the bible to be completely absurd.

I may be a Christian but, I know that this nation is secular.

Separation of church and state is simply a laymens term for what the First Amendment says. Even Thomas Jefferson spelled it out once (although I can't remember where).

And by the way, it is blatently apparent that the author intended this story to skew facts in order to support the idea of a faith-based government movement. I find this to be incredibly misguiding. I think a change in title is in order.

What do you have against an American theocracy? I mean besides the persecution and fascism.

The big hair and fake furniture.

Oversized TV preacher hair is pretty scary.

All you have to do is look at places like Iran to see why mixing State and Religion is a bad idea.

All you have to do is look at places like Iran to see why mixing State and Religion is a bad idea.

Exhibit A: The entire Middle-East.

While Jefferson did not write the 1st Amendment, Jefferson was responsible for the Bill of Rights.

I contend that Jefferson's friend La Marquette (was it?) wrote the Bill of Rights.

Our Bill of Rights IS IDENTICAL to the French's Rights of Men.

Jefferson was Ambassador to France at the time and the French passed their constitution (or Rights of Men) before we did.

Karen in Los Angeles

Jefferson was Ambassador to France at the time and the French passed their constitution (or Rights of Men) before we did

U.S. 1787

France 1789 (same link as below)

Our Bill of Rights IS IDENTICAL to the French's Rights of Men

Not even close.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/French_RightsofMan.html

The representatives of the French people, organized in National Assembly, considering that ignorance forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man in order that such declaration continually before all members of the social body

may be a perpetual reminder of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power may constantly be compared with the aim of every political institution and may accordingly be more respected; in order that the demands of the citizens founded henceforth upon simple and incontestable principles may always be directed towards the maintenance of the Constitution and the welfare of all.

Accordingly the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being the following rights of man and citizen.

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness.

2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man; these rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.

3. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefrom.

4. Liberty consists of the power to do whatever is not injurious to others; thus the enjoyment of the natural rights of every man has for its limits only those that assure other members of society the enjoyment of those same rights; such limits may be determined only by law.

5. The law has the right to forbid only actions which are injurious to society. Whatever is not forbidden by law may not be prevented, and no one may be constrained to do what it does not prescribe.

6. Law is the expression of the general will; all citizens have the right to concur personally, or through their representatives in its formation; it must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens being equal before it, are equally admissible to all public offices, positions, and employments, according to their capacity, and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents.

7. No man may be accused arrested, or detained except in the cases determined by law, and according to the forms prescribed thereby. Whoever solicit expedite or execute arbitrary orders or have them executed, must be punished; but every citizen summoned or apprehended in pursuance of the law must obey immediately; he renders himself culpable by resistance.

8. The law is to establish only penalties that are absolutely and obviously necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offense and legally applied.

9. Since every man is presumed innocent until declared guilty, if arrest be deemed indispensable, all unnecessary severity for securing the person of the accused must be severely repressed by law.

10. No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Consequently every citizen may speak, write, and print freely subject to responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the cases determined by law.

12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen necessitates a public force; such a force therefore, is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.

13. For the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration a common tax is indispensable; it must be assessed equally on all citizens in proportion to their means.

14. Citizens have the right to ascertain by themselves or through their representatives the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to supervise its use, and to determine its quota, assessment, payment, and duration.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an accounting of his administration.

16. Every society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation of powers not determined has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is a sacred and inviolable right, no one may be deprived thereof unless a legally established public necessity obviously requires it, and upon condition of a just and previous indemnity.

If one looks how Jefferson phrased the decleration of Independence, he sought to frame our revolution with the ideas of complete freedom, including freedom of the government to operate without being beholden to a church but rather to the people.

The other framers agreed with that sense on the basis that in order to provide religious freedom no religion could have access to making laws to govern the rest of the populace as they would surely use such influence to legislate against other religion.

You find that thru out the ideas in the constitution was a seperation not just of religion, but also of business, or those who stood to gain by manipulation of law or favor.

"Separation of church and state" should be more accurate as "separation of Church and State" - rather, we argue over "separation of religion and sprituality - and State".

To put such things as the Ten Commandments into stone at a courthouse - or in the Capitol - is a reflection of the beliefs of the time, not a representation of a State-sponsored religion (which IS unconstitutional). Even less so is a student depicting religion in a school assignment; though we waste extraordinary efforts in those regards.

Separation of Church and State is to keep organized religion - of any sort - from subverting our Constitution and the liberties it is intended to ensure. Religions - with very rare exception - may have a spiritual basis, but are in fact, another form of governance of Man. To expressly forbid the (official) establishment of a religion is to - hopefully - preclude the rise of a theocracy to challenge the Constitutional Republic wherein "all men are created equal".

To utilize the teachings of any religion as a personal "moral compass" while discharging the responsibilities of a duly-elected representative is to be desired. These form a solid basis for carrying out these duties that the constituency can understand.

What is NOT desired, is Roman Catholic Law - or Sharia Law - or any other, to supplant the basis of our Constitution in English Law. That much of English Law, the Constitution, and our Founder's beliefs are based on Christian teachings is not a free pass to proclaim any more than that we are currently, predominantly, a Christian peoples.

Our Constitution forbids swearing official fealty to any religion and accepting any religious view as officially superceding any (all) rights of the People. Personally and individually, any of the People may swear religious fealty as they wish - as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Politically Homeless

I read the Rights of Man in French and again state THE FRENCH'S RIGHTS OF MAN IS IDENTICAL TO OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

Est-ce vous parlez francais? Je parle tres bien. Merci et au revoir.

Here is the website TO THE FRENCH VERSION.

PUH-LEEZ - who is the fool that seems to think that English can be translated into French and vice versa.

THEY ARE THEIR OWN LANGUAGES. The website below is in French.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

Rights of man

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/constitution/const01.htm

Les Représentants du Peuple Français, constitués en Assemblée Nationale, considérant que l'ignorance, l'oubli ou le mépris des droits de l'Homme sont les seules causes des malheurs publics et de la corruption des Gouvernements, ont résolu d'exposer, dans une Déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l'Homme, afin que cette Déclaration, constamment présente à tous les Membres du corps social, leur rappelle sans cesse leurs droits et leurs devoirs ; afin que leurs actes du pouvoir législatif, et ceux du pouvoir exécutif, pouvant être à chaque instant comparés avec le but de toute institution politique, en soient plus respectés ; afin que les réclamations des citoyens, fondées désormais sur des principes simples et incontestables, tournent toujours au maintien de la Constitution et au bonheur de tous.

En conséquence, l'Assemblée Nationale reconnaît et déclare, en présence et sous les auspices de l'Etre suprême, les droits suivants de l'Homme et du Citoyen.

Art. 1er.

Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l'utilité commune.

Art. 2.

Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l'Homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté, et la résistance à l'oppression.

Art. 3.

Le principe de toute Souveraineté réside essentiellement dans la Nation. Nul corps, nul individu ne peut exercer d'autorité qui n'en émane expressément.

Art. 4.

La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi, l'exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n'a de bornes que celles qui assurent aux autres Membres de la Société la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.

Art. 5.

La Loi n'a le droit de défendre que les actions nuisibles à la Société. Tout ce qui n'est pas défendu par la Loi ne peut être empêché, et nul ne peut être contraint à faire ce qu'elle n'ordonne pas.

Art. 6.

La Loi est l'expression de la volonté générale. Tous les Citoyens ont droit de concourir personnellement, ou par leurs Représentants, à sa formation. Elle doit être la même pour tous, soit qu'elle protège, soit qu'elle punisse. Tous les Citoyens étant égaux à ses yeux sont également admissibles à toutes dignités, places et emplois publics, selon leur capacité, et sans autre distinction que celle de leurs vertus et de leurs talents.

Art. 7.

Nul homme ne peut être accusé, arrêté ni détenu que dans les cas déterminés par la Loi, et selon les formes qu'elle a prescrites. Ceux qui sollicitent, expédient, exécutent ou font exécuter des ordres arbitraires, doivent être punis ; mais tout citoyen appelé ou saisi en vertu de la Loi doit obéir à l'instant : il se rend coupable par la résistance.

Art. 8.

La Loi ne doit établir que des peines strictement et évidemment nécessaires, et nul ne peut être puni qu'en vertu d'une Loi établie et promulguée antérieurement au délit, et légalement appliquée.

Art. 9.

Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable, s'il est jugé indispensable de l'arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.

Art. 10.

Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la Loi.

Art. 11.

La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l'Homme : tout Citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la Loi.

Art. 12.

La garantie des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.

Art. 13.

Pour l'entretien de la force publique, et pour les dépenses d'administration, une contribution commune est indispensable : elle doit être également répartie entre tous les citoyens, en raison de leurs facultés.

Art. 14.

Tous les Citoyens ont le droit de constater, par eux-mêmes ou par leurs représentants, la nécessité de la contribution publique, de la consentir librement, d'en suivre l'emploi, et d'en déterminer la quotité, l'assiette, le recouvrement et la durée.

Art. 15.

La Société a le droit de demander compte à tout Agent public de son administration.

Art. 16.

Toute Société dans laquelle la garantie des Droits n'est pas assurée, ni la séparation des Pouvoirs déterminée, n'a point de Constitution.

Art. 17.

La propriété étant un droit inviolable et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si ce n'est lorsque la nécessité publique, légalement constatée, l'exige évidemment, et sous la condition d'une juste et préalable indemnité.

OK. Well George Washington also owned a slave, so I would say that the constitution was also never intended to apply to blacks.

we do however have the ability to grow and mature, and having done so have seen our falacy and not only freed the slaves, but have since then taken a number of steps to ensure that they are treated as free and equal citizens (although I think we treat illegal aliens better).

as we grow so does our understanding (or ignorance). personally, mine is about 50/50 on a good day.

1.14, I disagree that the 10 commandments aren't an endorsement of religion. It may not be a specific denomination but it is exclusive to a group of religions, namely Jeudo-Christian monotheism. Heck, isn't the first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me.". Not exactly a shining example of religious tolerance is it.

While Jefferson did not write the 1st Amendment, Jefferson was responsible for the Bill of Rights.

I contend that Jefferson's friend La Marquette (was it?) wrote the Bill of Rights.

Sorry, Karen, you're not even close. James Madison did, indeed, write the Bill of Rights, and he quite specifically and intentionally modelled them after the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason in 1776.

Regards

In the Supreme Court building where the separation of Church and State was established, there is a statue of Moses and the Ten Commandments, in both the lobby and in the courtroom itself.

Which proves absolutely nothing. The friezes on the north and south walls of the courtroom also contain depictions of Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Octavius, Confucius, Mohammed, Justinian, and a few others. The decorations on display in the Supreme Court building have nothing to do with Religion. They are intended to pay homage to the various law-givers throughout history.

Heck, isn't the first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me.". Not exactly a shining example of religious tolerance is it.

Yes and no. Contemporarily, we (in the Judaic-Christian traditions) consider this metaphorically -- one should not figuratively place something between self and Diety. To the early Hebrews this was quite literal. One should not place smaller shrines to minor deities in the hall in front of -- "before" -- the statue of the Big Hairy Guy (and His Cohort), as the Egyptians and other middle eastern religions did.

So in the original sense, there was more tolerance than your average Bible-thumper has today for alternate views.

So in the original sense, there was more tolerance than your average Bible-thumper has today for alternate views.

Yep. The Bible not only acknowledges that there are other deities, but permits their worship, in a secondary capacity.

Sorry but they did,

If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
-- George Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman asking him to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. -- George Washington, August, 1790

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live." [Thomas Jefferson]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." [Thomas Paine]

"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed." [The Theological Works of Thomas Paine]

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.
-- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others.
-- George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28,1789

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

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)

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, October 18, 1756

"The law for religious freedom... has put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile [non-belivers], the Christian and Mahometan [Muslum], the Hindoo and infidel [atheist] of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

"It would seem impossible that an intelligent people with the faculty of reading and right of thinking should continue much longer to slumber under the pupilage of an interested aristocracy of priests and lawyers, persuading them to distrust themselves and to let them think for them... Awaken them from this voluntary degradation of mind! Restore them to a due estimate of themselves and their fellow citizens, and a just abhorrence of the falsehoods and artifices which have seduced them!" --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

"After stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences... And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1822.

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.-- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743

He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.
-- Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin's Autobiography

"May [our Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government... All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782.

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur [an official license by the Roman Catholic Church to print an ecclesiastical or religious book.]shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801.

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819)

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774

Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, January 24, 1774

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death (Willie died in 1862)

Wonderful collection of quotes!

Thanks be to the Library of Congress in Washington DC

Damn Dan, I knew I loved you for some reason. Now I remember why.

What Dan said.

What Dan said, from men of extraordinary wisdom, vision. and courage.

I could have saved my fingers (on 1.14) and just pointed down to Dan.

So let me get this straight, I am free to practice my beliefs (which may include telling others about my beliefs, and encouraging them to consider them) as long as they are not percieved to be "forced" on anyone else - because at that point, only those who believe that it's morally wrong for me to do that are allowed to "force" their moral veiwpoints on me and others? Did I understand that correctly?

Kozmonot

You are being very disingenuous. it's not hard to understand at all, but it's an argument that the Religious Fanatics continue to pretend they don't get because they don't like it.

If you're a Jehovah's Wittiness (Or any denomination or cult) and knock on my door, I can tell you to go away, end of story, but if you are a Jehovah's Wittiness and teach my kids religion in a public school, (and not just on the basis of another world religeon like all the other, but preach) that I am required to pay taxes for and have my kids attend by law, (If I can't afford a private school) then that is Religion by FORCE OF GOVERNMENT LAW and Unconstitutional and immoral!.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779.

This is a basic American principle, an axiom, and unless you are in grade school, I don't think this is beyond your limits of understanding.

If you're a Jehovah's Witness (Or any denomination or cult) and knock on my door, I can tell you to go away

That is one way, I prefer to talk to them about my made up religion and argue pointless things and generally just mess with their minds. They will come back if you just tell them to go away, but if they think you are insane or at least as much of a pain in the ass as they are, they will no longer bother you.

P.S.

Falsely making the contention that Science is a religion is also being intellectually dishonest.

The left is all for freedom, diversity of thought and opinion, as long as theirs trumps all others.

Those of you deeming people to be a sack of salt and water and a few other chemicals randomly occurring as a freak occurence of nature totally devalue humanity though you don't realize it (actually many of them do). With that philosophy about man's place in the natural world, and there being only your natural world, man is free to commit every evil deed with no consequences, no guilt, no inhibition, and that has been the history of that belief. So a sack of salt and water was prematurely returned to Mother Earth, what's the big deal, particularly if that sack of salt and water believed in God or was somehow otherwise a nuisance to one of the science worshippers unencumbered by faith? Many of you end up giving man a special place out of your own non-science beliefs, therefore participating in a religion of your own that has its own loosely organized church and not recognizing there is no scientific basis for your own beliefs. Other non-believers choose to paticipate in a religion or church for their own personal gain, frequently taking leadership roles and defiling that religion and making it a source of ridicule to the other non-believers. One of the present day science churches is the climate change church, where those of the Marxist faith join to worship the climate, pray they can convert the masses to their beliefs that the sacks of salt and water are ruining their beloved enviornment and therefore should pay hefty tithes to their church, and create scriptures defining the source of those beliefs and distribute them to the masses. Like those Mormons they disdain, the science church members don't go door to door, they use the radio and TV to preach and reach, to solicit donations, to convert the masses to their ways. They have a major revival going on in Copenhagen right now.

Atheists and non-believers can't justify even their own existence with their science, so of course abortion, euthenasia, elimination of "excess" population, elevation of all other animate and inanimate works of nature to equal or superior status, are all the outcomes of man's application of science without conscience. As a cover for the lack of conscience, those same people promote notions like opposition to the death penalty, free health care for all, and imposition of their own special oversight of man's activities with their government. None of those social philosophies has a scientific basis, of course. But it does make for a good show. The weakness on crime kills more than the death penalty, the free health care will end up denying care to millions and promoting the preventable deaths of millions, and government by authoritarian non-believers has been the biggest killer of man second only to aging.

In summary, science worshippers without a soul are a clear and present danger to the world and we need a separation of science and state.

That is one way, I prefer to talk to them about my made up religion and argue pointless things and generally just mess with their minds. They will come back if you just tell them to go away, but if they think you are insane or at least as much of a pain in the ass as they are, they will no longer bother you.

Any Jehova's Witness that comes to my door shall be immediately informed of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that they might be saved through the gentle touch of His Noodly Appendage.

Falsely making the contention that Science is a religion is also being intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual honesty is something those darned liberal intellectuals use, and I'll have none of it!

Any Jehova's Witness that comes to my door shall be immediately informed of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that they might be saved through the gentle touch of His Noodly Appendage.

Get really whacko and start telling them about man made global warming, or if it is really cold outside, man caused cllimate change.

Get really whacko and start telling them about man made global warming,

Not necessary. Just ask them where the dinosaurs came from, then watch their heads explode.

There is a simpler realistic question to be put to any currently preaching Jehovah Witness these days: Unless I misunderstood what one told me, according to their convictions, only 144,000 devoted ones will be saved, comes Judgment Day...

Haven't they reached that number hundreds upon hundred years ago yet? Had not that number been already reached before their births? You have to understand that in that list, you will at least find Jesus, his immediate parents, friends and all holy men and women that followed him for the past 2000 years!Based on these numbers, their preaching for new doomed converts, are futile.

I just indulged in that silly arithmetic to point out that some beliefs are on a limb, way out there.

I love the Flying Spagetti Monster....classic.

But--folks, I literally freaked a guy out once when I explained to him the world really was older than 8,000 years. Nice guy, but seriosly he came unglued. Total mental crisis. I was taking a world prehistory class at the time and was just causually chatting about fossil records....geology, carbon dating etc. I've never seen anything like it.

I don't disrepect any faith, each of the major world religions evolved over time in response to specfic needs and cultural factors which facilitated social norms and belief systems. That being said, I used to work nights and the poor Morman mission kids knocked on my door once at like 9 am--just got to sleep, my teen asked me what to do, told her to tell my 3yo to tell them go to hell. That boy never had so much fun. Bragged about it for years.

The last time the mormons knocked on my door, they fooled me. Sent two little girls, I swear, I answered the door and thought I was going to be buying girl scout cookies. Sent 'em on their way politely and with a request to take our address off their list.

This what drives me nuts when folks send aroud those petetions on Facebook...keep God in School, I ask them which God? I never get an answer.

keep God in School

I thought He graduated a really long time ago.

My sister lives in Louisiana close to the Texas border. She tells me the small church she attends preaches nothing but hatred, ill-will and doom for Obama. She says we are becoming a communist country and all of the young folks should be required to serve the country in the military. She and her husband watch nothing but Fox news. Just a thought about indoctrination.

Lola-Ohio

My sister lives in Louisiana close to the Texas border. She tells me the small church she attends preaches nothing but hatred, ill-will and doom for Obama. She says we are becoming a communist country and all of the young folks should be required to serve the country in the military. She and her husband watch nothing but Fox news. Just a thought about indoctrination.

And a good point. But no different than watching Rachel Maddow and reading the NY Times editorial page (just as biased as the Wall Street Journal)

All this doubt about God. How brave people are to express their opinion about something that they seem to know nothing about. Keep God in your heart that's all you have to do . If a church is preaching hatred then it is not a Christian church. Religious fraud does exist . Christ has been around for over 2,000 years, you all will be forgotten a few years after you die. If you say there is no God then make me something out of nothing. people want God out of school and even out of our Pledge of Allegiance. Well without God you will not have a concience and then the devil will lead. If someone puts a gun to your head will you say "Oh devil save me!" God can be a touchy subject but He does exist and for someone to deny it well I'll believe you when your name is mentioned 2,000 years after you die. I'm a Christian and I believe, I am also a war vet, disabled and struggled thru some hard times where I know God was with me giving me the strength to servive.

If you say there is no God then make me something out of nothing.

On the flipside, you say there is a God, have him make something out of nothing to prove his existance then.

Well without God you will not have a concience

Religion doesn't own morality.

He does exist and for someone to deny it well I'll believe you when your name is mentioned 2,000 years after you die.

Gilgamesh has been known for longer than that. Does that make him a God?

I'm all for people believing in God...it just annoys me when people try to defend that belief with faulty logic.

I'm sure this is just an isolated incident and is not really going on anywhere else.

Phil-1006700

There is not -- and never has been -- any successful attempt to remove God from the public schools.

She tells me the small church she attends preaches nothing but hatred, ill-will and doom for Obama.

Same thing in my sister-in-law's church in SW MO. And we have a local PREACHER who spouts racial hatred for Obama at the local cafe.

I was raised in church --- loved church, loved GOD. Then I started seeing the shift away from preaching the Bible and preaching politics....it was somewhat gradual at first, but I left church because I did not feel it appropriate to hear preachers do political campaigns.

I had received a very hateful, disgusting from a "good Christian" GOP member last fall that would curl my straight hair that pretty much spelled out that if you did not vote for the GOP that we would experience Armageddon and go to HELL.

That was it....I am done with the GOP and their hateful, divisive politics and their takeover of "Christianity" in the United States. The Conservatives are even re-writing a Bible to complete their coup of religion.

I really have no problem with people reading the Bible, attending their churches, and worshipping as individuals.

It is the self-righteous attitude that everyone must believe and bow down to their own personal beliefs and FEARS that I will not tolerate. And when their brand of Christianity is all about HATRED and CONTROL --- they need to call it what it is and it is NOT Christian.

Thank you for speaking out MOCowgirl.

no different than watching Rachel Maddow

Apparently you have never watched The Rachel Maddow Show then. There is a HUGE difference between Maddow's reporting, which while liberal does present people with differing ideological opinions, and what is preached at some churches and from Faux News. If you can't see the difference, you are either woefully ignorant on the subject or being purposely intellectually dishonest.

Seems their God and the GOP has the same political agenda.

The GOP learned the talking points to "align" themselves vocally with the "moral" people, who are quick to forgive them when their actions do not live up to their words.

It is mind control, and there is money and power on the line --- the GOP and Capitalists are feeding quite happily at the trough like fattening hogs.

Religion is just another market to be exploited. The research was done, the groundwork laid, and the takeover is in progress.

Tappy McWidestance

no different than watching Rachel Maddow

Apparently you have never watched The Rachel Maddow Show then.

Never ass-ume. (You're wrong)

There is a HUGE difference between Maddow's reporting, which while liberal does present people with differing ideological opinions, and what is preached at some churches and from Faux News. If you can't see the difference, you are either woefully ignorant on the subject or being purposely intellectually dishonest.

Yeah, right. And the Birthers believe Rush is never wrong. Blind faith partisans.

Religion is about intolerance and control of People. You cannot promote conversion with tolerance of others and freedom to choose against your own.

The Conservatives are even re-writing a Bible to complete their coup of religion

A blanket statement that "conservatives" are doing this is patently unfair and untrue. The spectrum of "conservative" is far too broad. More likely, it is the Fundamentalists within the conservative spectrum that are hoping to complete their coup of the GOP. This might be good - if those not accepting the Fundamentalist view have the courage to become Independent - or Libertarian. Should enough do so, the GOP could be relegated to "third-Party" status and relatively inconsequential.

Really - "becoming" anything else isn't necessary, if you vote other than GOP. Of course; I would hope their choice to be Independent, or Libertarian, because - in their own way - the Democrats are identical to any large religion

intolerant controllers of people

The Conservatives are even re-writing a Bible to complete their coup of religion

Sorry.

A blanket statement that "conservatives" are doing this is patently unfair and untrue.

Conservatives are rewriting the Bible.

Read more:http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/12/04/2009-12-04_conservative_bible_project_aims_to_rewrite_scripture_to_reflect_conservative_val.html#ixzz0Z1oim4CU

I stopped attending church in about September 1999. I used to like the church I attended until the preacher got on the pulpit one Sunday and told us that we weren't 'good christians nor good people of the community' unless we supported GW Bush and another local republican. I walked out and never looked back.

I stopped going to church when I was 8, after a priest molested my older brother and we, as a family, stopped. This was 1962.

I attended until the preacher got on the pulpit one Sunday and told us that we weren't 'good christians nor good people of the community' unless we supported GW Bush and another local republicans.

I found a pretty good non-denominational church and it's a rare occassion when anything political is stated. Very thankful for that.... and they day they start (hopefully never) is the day I walk out.

I read the bible as a kid, then read a science textbook. Been a atheist ever since. The bible just contradicts it's self too much to take it as literal truth.

I would hope their choice to be Independent, or Libertarian, because - in their own way - the Democrats are identical to any large religion

What a horribly tasteless way of saying that you and only people who align with you are good.

I really tire of independents and libertarians carrying on like they know something that the rest of the country doesn't. Your parties represent a small fraction of the people that the large parties represent and as a result, can focus more clearly on your goals. Large parties have the burdon of trying to please everyone.

No, there's nothing more that you and those like you have figured out, you have just chosen a different party. Just remember, it's parties like mine (the Democratic party) that strive to always consider your point of view.

Dustin- Good points and I have noticed Repubs running from the brand like crazy, renaming themselves and saying they are independent and conservative and libertarian, etc. I notice their platform is basically anti-Obama and other vague, obtuse ideologies that when applied to the economy have proven disastrous. They have to go back to the ghost of Reagen trying to cover up the Cheney administration. The GOP puppets are brothers-in-arms pandering to whoever they can rev up enough fear in that there is a conspiracy by libs to take their country and freedoms. They walk lock-step with other and can't fathom how there can be distention and disagreement amongst Democrats on serious issues and policy. I wonder how many of these folks are really Independents, or just closet Repubs embarrassed to admit they were a part of the last fiasco.

Lola-Ohio

I have noticed Repubs running from the brand like crazy, renaming themselves and saying they are independent and conservative and libertarian, etc.

Precisely like Democrats. Most people are fed up with both parties.

If we ask people to self-define by philosophy OR by party, only 26% indentify by party -- 15% Republican, 11% Democrat.

On the philosophy side, conservatives outnumber liberals 2-to-1, as always, but even that is to vague. Conservatives, like liberals, can be one way economically and the "opposite" socially.

On that basis, Zogby is the only poll which tries to be more specific: 59% define as Economic Conservatives AND Social Liberals -- classical liberals like our founders -- but not fully comfortable in EITHER party.

At the bottom of the scale, the smallest factions are Social Conservatives OR Economic Liberals ... who are also the most feared by the voting majority, as the most toxic and bigoted factions.

Ironically, both Social Conservatives and Economic Liberals believe America supports them, and hates the other, when America actually fears both. The classic profile of a bigot.

Precisely like Democrats.

Sorry but no.

The school yard argument of, He did it too, doesn't work here. 

A Democrat may dissagree with their elected officials but they are still DEMOCRATES!

Conservatives Lock-step behind their leaders and let them dictate to them what they should or should not think and believe, never questioning, like subjects to a King.

a Patriot supports his country all the time, and his government when it deserves it." ~ Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain.

Sorry but no.

The school yard argument of, He did it too, doesn't work here.

Indeed, the ever-popular fallacious argument properly known as "Tu quoque." :)

Regards

Precisely like Democrats. Most people are fed up with both parties.

Dan Hallo, aka,

Sorry but no.

The school yard argument of, He did it too, doesn't work here.

Clearly, I wasn't trying to excuse or rationalize anything or any side. I said both sides are considered wackos by most Americans.

One reason being nonsense like this:

A Democrat may dissagree with their elected officials but they are still DEMOCRATES!

Conservatives Lock-step behind their leaders and let them dictate to them what they should or should not think and believe, never questioning, like subjects to a King.

You mean DEMOCRATS instead of individuals. (giggle)

That kind of talk, so much like bigotry, is what turns people off.

Bigotry consists of judging people by their party affiliation -- or their race, religion or gender.

We have more than enough divisiveness, why add more?

"There are no good guys; there are no bad guys. There's just you and me and wejust disagree."

Real DEMOCRATS are tolerant of others.

Sure you weren't.
toleration for the intolerant is not even rational thinking so no. Democrats don't tolerate irrationality.

"Truths necessary for our own character must not be suppressed out of tenderness to its calumniators." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.

This anti-government, anti-American, "they are bad" rhetoric is how Germany lost it's Democracy to Hitler. Lets tolerate that... sorry. You should stop painting with such a large brush if you are sincere.

Real Democrats are indeed tolerant of diversity of both ideas and persons.

The biggest difference actually between the modern right wing GOP and the modern center/center left and left Democrat is a tendency to have an authoritarian personality. Thus much of the reason for the preaching of fear and do as I say, fall in line, follow the rules, fear of the other, etc.

I'd rather our children learn about math, science, language, history, etc., in school, and religion in church, at home, and during their free time.

That is a good plan, but there are a lot of people that have some crazy ideas about religion that they pass on to their children.

Religion - other than how each affected history - should not be taught in schools. Not because of any Constitutional provision, but because religion is the province of individuals and their church. All schools can do with religion is confuse things. Schools - particularly those beholden to the State - cannot expressly promote a single religion - regardless of personal beliefs. Please, leave it to the families and churches.

This is not to say a student cannot use their religious experiences in a class assignment, unless all are strictly forbidden to do so for that assignment.

Aleuicius

I tend to disagree with you. I believe religions should be taught as a subject in High School where all religions should be brought out and discussion allowed with in the confines of the subject's syllabus.

I believe religions should be taught as a subject in High School where all religions should be brought out and discussion allowed with in the confines of the subject's syllabus.

Do you really think it's possible to do that objectively? I sure don't. Inevitably it'll end up as a way for teachers to lead people to one religion over all others. They will teach the positive parts of their own religion and the negative parts about all other religions. It makes far more sense to just keep religion out of public schools entirely.

The world's had more than one religion

Yes indeed.

Looking for a few pretty virgins to throw into a smoking volcano.

Why not Saladin (AKA Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb)? He was a very fair and chivalrous man, not to mention one of the greatest leaders in history.

Owned.

Thank you, SuperSaiyan, for your research.

This article is revisionist history in all of its unfortunateness.

This nation was founded by folks like the pilgrims who fled the religious persecution of state-sponsored religions. the basis, the very core and central tennant, that held the disparate groups here together was to keep religion separate from government.

This did not mean that one could not practice their religion -- just the opposite. One had the unfettered freedom to practice their religion without the government dictating which religion was in any way favored.

I do not understand the need for or purpose of this article -- to help us un-learn everything we ever knew about what makes this "melting pot" great? Why America draws people every year, century after century, to its shores, for the hope of freedom, for not being controled by bishops, deacons or self-appointed leaders of one religion or another?

Why woud anyone be against freedom from the imposition of another's religion upon them?

I recall the words of St. Paul to the people of Galatia (Galatians 5:1), "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

The bondage Paul referred to was the bondage of another religion being imposed upon them. In Chapter 3, he begins, (verse 1), "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"

For all that died in our American Revolution for the sake of freedom from any religious imposition, this article is fundamentally unfair to their memory and the honor of their sacifice.

The separation is to protect religion as much as it is to protect the state. I wonder how many of these Evangelicals would feel if congress decided to make Catholicism the official religion and made tithes to the Vatican with tax payer money.

Thank you, SuperSaiyan, for your research.

No problem, Rusty.

Ninbyo, we all now how they would feel... They would then claim the founders intended for the strict separation of Church and State.

The same way they preach about small government and then want to Amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. They are hypocrites in the fullest regard. Small government that only does what suits their agenda.

Likewise, the authors of both the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution had ample opportunity to document which specific religion and deity they believed to be supreme if they had so chosen to establish this as a "Christian Nation," but other than the reference to the "Creator" there are no other such references.Why would they possibly neglect such a statement if that was their intent?

Is this a rhetorical questio Uthaclena?

Regardless of what any present day Far-Right Neo-con (Loyalist,Tory, Aristocrat, Divine) tells you, the Preamble [Law; the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.] to the Constitution is in simple English and states clearly under whose authority it was written. "We the People Of the United States" Not any god or small government who ruled under the discredited and defeated authority of the "Divine- Right of Kings."

Here's a fun match-up game for conservatives...match the letter to the appropriate number.

[blank] have [blank] given by [blank]

A: We the People
B: States
C: People in Cuba

1: Rights
2: Privileges
3: Freedoms

X: The Constitution
Y: A Dictator
Z: The People

(Answer: [A,3,Z] [B,1,X] [C,2,Y])

Conservatives should be happy there isn't an established religion in the U.S. When the topic was briefly considered the religion that was mentioned as a possible state church was the Congregationalist church as existed in Connecticut, which is about as liberal a church as exists. I can just imagine all the conservative churches being forced to perform gay marriages.

Andrew,if a priest preaches to his church that gay marriages are wrong ,THIS government can arrest him and charge him with a hate crime. Where is the separation of church and state?

Andrew,if a priest preaches to his church that gay marriages are wrong ,THIS government can arrest him and charge him with a hate crime. Where is the separation of church and state?

False. Only violence against said protected classes can be considered at hate crime (unless the aforementioned speech instigates violence).

Now, do you have any other church fear points for me to debunk?

Andrew,if a priest preaches to his church that gay marriages are wrong ,THIS government can arrest him and charge him with a hate crime. Where is the separation of church and state?

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Now that I could understand ... Separation!! I learned that in elementary my dear watson.. some 50+ years ago... some how some one is confusing the issue to feed their own agenda.

"freedom of religion" not freedom from religion.

Why not "freedom from religion"?

Does everyone have to have a religion?

If someone refuses to have one, then should one be issued to them?

MoCowgirl-1193719

"freedom of religion" would also pertain to the freedom not to have a religion. This subject has been so misconstrued it is ridiculous. If you wish to know more on religious persecution of our forefathers, I'm sure there is more on the Internet. Stories of how religious run governments would go on witch hunts for those who opposed the government etc. Just look it up.

Moderate-514640

It's a shame that so many have been deprived of the history lessons that used to be taught in public schools or they would know that our forefathers intended "freedom of religion" not freedom from religion.

Oh, you mean history as taught when Christianity was still allowed to utilize public schools to indoctrinate kids in Christianity? before they "took prayer out of school?"

You don't appear to have learned how to investigate and weigh multiple sources of information in reaching a conclusion either. There are in this thread alone multiple citations to Madison, Jefferson, Adams, but you apparently have your conclusion pre-determined. Rather like that arrogant bumper sticker:

"God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It."

Cease thinking beyond that point.

One of the reasons I suspect was due to the history of the church during the Crusades. They did not want to have the church be all powerful over another kingdom or over governments. They wanted it to be separate and have its place if people so wish, but it was not to be the #1 honcho on the block.

From the history of the middle east - it doesn't take much for religions to start killing people .. especially when it comes to 72 virgins.

Madison

As a young lawyer, Madison defended Baptist preachers arrested for preaching without a license from the established Anglican Church. In addition, he worked with the preacher Elijah Craig on constitutional guarantees for religious liberty in Virginia.^[10] Working on such cases helped form his ideas about religious freedom. Madison served in the Virginia state legislature (1776–79) and became known as a protégé of Thomas Jefferson. He attained prominence in Virginia politics, helping to draft the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It disestablished the Church of England, and disclaimed any power of state compulsion in religious matters. He excluded Patrick Henry's plan to compel citizens to pay for a congregation of their own choice.

Madison's cousin, the Right Reverend James Madison (1749–1812), became president of the College of William & Mary in 1777. Working closely with Madison and Jefferson, Bishop Madison helped lead the College through the difficult changes involving separation from both Great Britain and the Church of England. He also led college and state actions that resulted in the formation of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia after the Revolution.

James Madison persuaded Virginia to give up its claims to northwestern territories consisting of most of modern-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota - to the Continental Congress, which created the Northwest Territory in 1783. These land claims overlapped partially with other claims by Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and maybe others. All of these states ceded their westernmost lands, with the understanding that new states could be formed from the land, as they were. As a delegate to the Continental Congress (1780–83), Madison was considered a legislative workhorse and a master of parliamentary coalition building.^[11] He was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates for a second time from 1784 to 1786.

Does everyone have to have a religion?

If someone refuses to have one, then should one be issued to them?

Can I get one that requires no sacrifice or work and has great rewards?

Moderate-514640

Madison also knew in order to be a free country and respect all you need to keep Faith and governmet separate.

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819

His Defense of the Baptist preachers right of worship and speech is a First Amendment right. If they were Islamic, Jew or Catholic.

Thomas Jefferson

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality.^[1] He is most closely connected with the Episcopal Church, Unitarianism, and the religious philosophy of Deism. As the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence, he articulated a statement about human rights that most Americans regard as nearly sacred. Together with James Madison, Jefferson carried on a long and successful campaign against state financial support of churches in Virginia.

Now if you want to know more about our forefathers religious beliefs Uthaclena, look it up yourself and don't demean my intelligence again.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

The intention was to prevent one religion from becoming our government, not to prevent the practice of religion nor to tie the hands of those with religious affiliation from having a say in our government.

Moderate

I agree. Forgive me if I wasn't clearer.

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile [non-belivers], the Christian and Mahometan [Muslum], the Hindoo and infidel [atheist] of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

those with religious affiliation from having a say in our government.

When churches become an arm of a political party then they need to be taxed and labeled as a lobbyist.

I am not a Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Quaker, Jehovah Witness, Muslim, Wiccan, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Penecostal, Church of Christ, etc.

So why should any of these "religions" govern my life? Some prohit dancing, some smoking, some make up, some jeans on women, some music, .....again -- just why should any of these people have a say in my "moral" life or even possible afterlife?

I am not attending their church, I do not believe the way they do, yet THEY are insisting that their church/religious beliefs should have a voice in my government and MY day to day living.

Isn't this one of the things we absolutely find appalling in the Middle East culture is their governments being controlled by religious fanatics?

Why would anyone except a religious fanatic think that it should be accepted here?

Ride em, Cowgirl!

No problem Dan, maybe I missread it, I'm not infallible.

When churches become an arm of a political party then they need to be taxed and labeled as a lobbyist

Then we would need to tax other lobbyists as they do not agree with other peoples religious beliefs or beliefs in general. For example, Acorn.

I am not attending their church, I do not believe the way they do, yet THEY are insisting that their church/religious beliefs should have a voice in my government and MY day to day living.

You are imposing your non-religious beliefs on those that are religious. Why should you be able to impose your beliefs over them? It is also their government, why shouldn't they have a voice?

Why would anyone except a religious fanatic think that it should be accepted here?

What is you definition of a religious fanatic? Not all religious people are fanatics.

Don't forget, it is religious people who have defended your right to have your say in government affairs.

I am not imposing a damned thing on them.

They can stay on their knees praying until they develop callouses, live INSIDE their church 24/7, wear robes or bathrobes for all I care....I am not advocating laws to govern their individual freedoms or religions...they are free to live and worship as they chose.

When "religious" people enact laws according to their "faith" it affects every person living in the area the laws cover.

What part of that is so difficult to comprehend?

Don't forget, it is religious people who have defended your right to have your say in government affairs.

Oh really? I am a woman....the Bible considers me a man's property to do with what he will.....

A religious fanatics among other things is someone who insists on imposing their views on others who are not interested --even to the point of slavery. There is no recognition of rights of the individual to reject the fanatic's way of life.

Anytime you vote, you vote your personal beliefs and that affects every citizen in the area the laws cover.

Are you equating all religions the same?

Are You saying that your belief system trumps everyone else's belief system?

Which religions in this country condone treating women as property?

Do you believe that all religious people are fanatics?

Do you believe that all religious people are fanatics?

Only the Fanatical ones... on the extreme, The Lunatic fringe.

They know who they are, and All faiths have, or have had their share of fanatics.

Anytime you vote, you vote your personal beliefs and that affects every citizen in the area the laws cover.

Yes, and I expect every one else to do the same.

However, what is the purpose of preachers/pastors/ministers/clergyman -- political advisors or spiritual advisors? Are they conducting a church service or a political rally?

Are you equating all religions the same?

Name the ones you specifically are concerned with and I will address them individually.

Which religions in this country condone treating women as property?

Christianity is the one I am most familiar with and have experienced personally from childhood.

Do you believe that all religious people are fanatics?

Answer is in post 16.16.

LOL agreed Dan.

MoCowgirl-1193719

1. Yes everyone should have a voice, we agree.

2. Have to say I wonder when I see clips from Rev. Wrights sermons. However, if non-religious organizations can lobby, so should religious organizations have the same right.

3. It was a general question regarding religion therefore naming any would take away from the question.

4. What you sited was from the old testament, read the new testament. Many Christian religions would differ from that assessment.

5. Your answer is ambiguous. But there are fanatics in all facets of life.

if non-religious organizations can lobby, so should religious organizations have the same right.

The difference is that those non-religious organizations that do lobby pay taxes. Religious organizations do not pay taxes; thus, they have no right to lobby. If they want to lobby, they are more than welcome to start contributing taxes.

Which lobbyists do you proclaim pay taxes?

Research how many lobbyists get government funding.

Your answer is ambiguous. But there are fanatics in all facets of life.

There is no recognition of rights of the individual to reject the fanatic's way of life.

Example: You are Church of Christ - no musical instruments allowed because your church says it displeases GOD.

Your church is successful in banning all musical instruments in the United States, and possession of a musical instrument will require harsh punishment.

It was not enough that you did not have to have any in your church or home or own any device that played music --- no, in order to please YOUR God, there must be laws enacted to ban them for everyone in YOUR nation.

Example: You are a Baptist. Several things that displease your GOD, but you have decided that dancing is the greatest sin that displeases your GOD and must be banned.

As a Baptist you do not have a problem with music or musical instruments as long as people do not move in anyway in time with the music. Dancing is EVIL, and so is anyone who engages in such an outrageous display of movement --even in the privacy of their own homes. Dancing will no longer be tolerated, and offenders will be prosecuted and even imprisoned for offending GOD.

Mormon's God does not like caffeine, and I think they're supposed to wear some kind of "approved" undergarment....... can't wait for those things to be mandatory.

Most of us could care less if you listen to music, dance, drink caffeine, or wear undergarments......but you are a fanatic if you care whether we do those things or not, and insist upon dictating our rights to do so.

Jehovah Witness --- no flags, no wars........ currently they do not have to go to war, but if they can make the rest of change to their GOD's rules there will be mandatory flag burning, and we can excel at agriculture after beating all our "swords" into plows...

I have no idea how we are currently imposing our will on the Wiccan's beliefs, but to be fair I suppose we must enact laws according to their Highest Power's rules.

And what is your proposal to see that we are not trampling the rights of the Satinists?

MoCowgirl-1193719

What about the government forcing "sex education" in elementary school. Do you really think a five year old should be learning anything at all about sex. Many don't think so, yet someone else's beliefs are being imposed on them.

There is a such thing as anti-religious fanatics too.

Keep in mind, your freedoms only go so far as to not infringe on the freedoms of others.

Keep in mind, your freedoms only go so far as to not infringe on the freedoms of others.

Bingo.... I believe you are catching on.......I don't know YOUR God, and do not wish to. I see no problem with you following his every rule about your personal life and habits. I see no reason for me to know anything about him in my lifetime.

It doesn't matter to me if I go to Hell or not...so why does it concern you? Why is it any of your business to make YOUR God's law the government of my nation?

That is why our founding fathers were smart enough to say NO to national religion. They probably remembered the history of Henry VIII and the Pope in Rome.

Can you cite a national mandate to teach sex ed to 5 year olds? I have not seen anything about this in the news and I don't understand what you are talking about.

What about the government forcing "sex education" in elementary school. Do you really think a five year old should be learning anything at all about sex. Many don't think so, yet someone else's beliefs are being imposed on them.

You are more than welcome to your opinion, but several reputable studies have shown a significant reduction of STD's in high school students since the introduction of sex education. Not to mention, such classes do not focus on "beliefs," but on health-related issues supported by scientific study.

Quite a difference.

Regards

Also, there's studies showing that states that teach abstinence only actually end up having a higher teen pregnancy rate.

What about the government forcing "sex education" in elementary school. Do you really think a five year old should be learning anything at all about sex. Many don't think so, yet someone else's beliefs are being imposed on them.

Man, I thought I'd never see that tired piece of propoganda again. That really takes me back to the bad-old days from the 2008 election.

Of course, anyone who cares about the truth saw that turd debunked right after it was rolled out. The truth is that nobody was advocating teaching gradeschoolers about sex. The elementary sex ed curriculum focuses on the private zones and protecting themselves against child molesters.

That was just one example of many showing how deep into the gutter the right wing was willing to go in order to score cheap political points. If some kids didn't learn how to be safe from pedophiles, that's a small price to pay in their bid to cling to power.

MoCowgirl-1193719

Aparently you didn't understand my posts.

Bingo.... I believe you are catching on.......I don't know YOUR God, and do not wish to. I see no problem with you following his every rule about your personal life and habits. I see no reason for me to know anything about him in my lifetime.

The discussion was about equal rights for all person regardless of belief.

It doesn't matter to me if I go to Hell or not...so why does it concern you? Why is it any of your business to make YOUR God's law the government of my nation?

Still, you seem to believe that your beliefs trump that of all others. From your statement above, I can only conclude that you are taking the discussion out of context

That is why our founding fathers were smart enough to say NO to national religion. They probably remembered the history of Henry VIII and the Pope in Rome.

That is exactly what I said in #16.

My awareness of what is being taught in elementary school comes from friends who are currently raising children in that age range. Granted, some requirements may be state government, however they are being given opt out forms for certain programs.

Proud Pagan

I never mentioned sex education at the high school level. Provided it is taught appropriately, it should have a positive outcome.

Ninbyo

Nothing wrong with teaching abstinence but abstinence alone is not sufficient.

The discussion was about equal rights for all person regardless of belief.

What rights are you being denied?

This discussion never was about me personally.

You are still taking my comments out of context and therefore I will no longer respond to your posts regarding this discussion.

Moderate, you weren't trying to bring Runkel v Winemiller into this, were you?

That was by a General Court (of Maryland). It wasn't part of the official circuit and it was even abolished because it was recognized as invalid in function and jurisdiction.

The Kings Bench in England had no sway, and this was a case tried in 1799, after the US declared independance, meaning that the resolutions were not merely invalid, but nothing less than seditious.

It's like saying that the residents of Bombay must pay for the Queen of England to buy a new collection of hats in their 2009 taxes... Well, they'd been independent of British rule for quite some time, if I'm remembering things correctly.

Moderate,

I never mentioned sex education at the high school level.

Neither did I. I was speaking of the trickle-down effect of early education. Sex education that began at grade school level (5th and 6th grade, by the way, not five-year olds), culminated into fewer cases of STD's by the time students reached high school.

Regards

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

Only the educated are free.
Epictetus

Like I said, this discussion has been taken out of context. Original intent was to discuss freedom of religion as opposed to freedom from religion. Unfortunately, some think that those with religious affiliation should not have the same rights as those who have no religious affiliation. All of us have a belief system, it is part of our cultural make-up, to deny someone a voice in our government based on their religious belief is to deny their constitutional rights. This does not mean that any one religion should govern our country, in fact, quite the contrary, our forefathers intended to prevent that.

Moderate-514640

Like I said, this discussion has been taken out of context. Original intent was to discuss freedom of religion as opposed to freedom from religion.

But we have both.

Unfortunately, some think that those with religious affiliation should not have the same rights as those who have no religious affiliation.

Can you cite any examples of that?

The hate for those with religious beliefs is all through this seed. No reason to quote anything for you. Even the comment that those with religious beliefs should not be able to lobby congress but those that do not have religious affiliation should have that right. That would be to say that not everyone has equal rights.

Okay. You invented it.

Thanks.

I suggest you actually read the entire discussion not just my comments. Maybe you missed it.

I suggest you actually read the entire discussion not just my comments. Maybe you missed it.

If the religious hate comments are so prevalent, then why are you having such a hard time citing any?

Arad

I suggest you actually read the entire discussion not just my comments. Maybe you missed it.

If the religious hate comments are so prevalent, then why are you having such a hard time citing any?

I was going to ask the same thing, then I scrolled down.

There is a pattern to people who make all sorts of assertions and refuse to mention why. If they mention why then show them to be wrong

Might that be what you were hinting? :-)

Perhaps. I was merely prodding someone for the lazy habit of making claims and then telling other people to do the research. When you tell them they're wrong or that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, they either go silent or claim some ad-lib with the words "Liberal" "biased" "Socialist" etc...

Maybe I'm just tired of quoting the obvious for those who are too lazy to read or research for themselves.

Maybe I'm just tired of quoting the obvious for those who are too lazy to read or research for themselves.

You being too lazy to provide sources is your problem, not ours. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

I provided quotes at the beginning of this discussion. They were taken out of context, discussion was changed and I don't intend to pursue the change in discussion.

Moderate

I provided quotes at the beginning of this discussion. They were taken out of context, discussion was changed and I don't intend to pursue the change in discussion

See Message 16.38

Mioderate

Unfortunately, some think that those with religious affiliation should not have the same rights as those who have no religious affiliation.

Me

Can you cite any examples of that?

Never an answer. Always accuse.

PH

Let me get this straight. You believe that those with should not have the same rights as those with no religion. Is that correct.

Moderate made the allegation that there's an anti-religious bias to commenters in Newsvine. I asked him to provide proof of such a claim. He has so far failed to do so.

Or am I guilty of anti-religious bias by holding a lazy commenter's feet to the fire?

Anti religion sentiment quotes.

It is the self-righteous attitude that everyone must believe and bow down to their own personal beliefs and FEARS that I will not tolerate. And when their brand of Christianity is all about HATRED and CONTROL --- they need to call it what it is and it is NOT Christian.

Religion is just another market to be exploited. The research was done, the groundwork laid, and the takeover is in progress.

Yeah, right. And the Birthers believe Rush is never wrong. Blind faith partisans.

Keep your religion out of my life, thank you and now go away.

Hell, the first official mention of God in government was when the same wackos forced "one nation under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.

jaywow67

Incorrect 16.25

Keep in mind, your freedoms only go so far as to not infringe on the freedoms of others.

16.30

The discussion was about equal rights for all person regardless of belief.

Arad

If you had read the seed from the beginning, you would have seen them.

And here's another. Just too many to quote.

Get a clue, you dumb hik Bible-beaters! You have no business trying to make government an extention of your church or religious views.

So that means you think you have the right to infringe upon others rights to push a religious agenda and create a theocracy?

Also, does that mean you think all religious people are better than any non-religious person?

Is your reading comprehension low? Stop with the twisting of others comments.

After you.

Hey hey! You finally backed up your words! Congradulations, you're one step closer to being a respected poster on Newsvine. It wasn't that hard, now was it? :D

The first quote you had could have come from me, a Christian who is sick of the hate-mongering that the ChrisTaliban has been peddling.

How is the second anti-religious? It sounds like a business man examining his market.

The third doesn't exactly reference religion. Faith, while normally associated with the former, isn't always associated with such. I can have faith that the UPS will deliver a package on time.

The fourth isn't anti-religious hatred, it's a simple request and one I hear quite often. Would you like it if Pastafarians went door to door in order to spread the Delicious Word of FSM? Would you want to see billboards every half mile quoting the eight 'I'd Rather Have You Don't's? The argument isn't even restricted to religion. I personally can't stand country music and people who have the bass turned up high enough in their cars to rattle my window panes. Do I hate them for telling them to turn it down? No.

The fifth sounds like a statement of fact (though I think the fact itself is innacurate).

Keep in mind, your freedoms only go so far as to not infringe on the freedoms of others.

How about this? I won't infringe on your freedom of religion if you don't infringe on my pursuit of happiness, in this case, the right to marry who I love?

As for your very last quote, that one IS inexcusable, and I certainly hope it's moderated as inflammatory.

Of course, if you'd like, I could compile an extensive and encyclopedic list of homophobic/islamophobic posts and seeds for your reading pleasure.

I could compile an extensive and encyclopedic list of homophobic/islamophobic posts and seeds for your reading pleasure.

Why would you want to overload and probably crash Newsvine's servers with a list that big?

Moderate

jaywow67

Incorrect 16.25

Huh??????????????

Build me a Colosseum and I'll get the lions..

My Daddy always used to say, "In Rome, they fed the Christians to the lions, but now we seem to be feeding everyone to the self-appointed Christians."

Your Dad was a smart man Rusty.

My Mom always said being a Christian is like being a pretty girl. When you are pretty you don't have to tell folks. They know.

My mom said something very similar. "If you are a good person, you don't have to tell people, they know. Beware of those that tell you they are a good person a lot, they probably aren't."

And if they want the government to control your life they probably aren't either.

wow. typo city. sorry 'bout that.

Change "allow" to "let"

Change "which" to "the"

Change "out" to "our"

There may be another Non-Reality show in the works here, if we could just help the poor ol' TV networks out a bit by connecting the dots for them and deciding the different indoctrination challenges each must create for others or overcome in response... Go get 'em, tigers!

we are in the final hours of the great tribulation

Did God himself come to you and tell you this? Anther false prophet heard from...

heard the same thing in 1999. Guess what, nothing happened and the world kept on turning. There's always some impending doom, it's just to keep simple people scared too much to actually think about what they're doing.

DonkeyRidder

The founding fathers fully intended for a separation of liberalism and state and built those separations into the Constitution

I disagree, but unlike JayWow, I won't simply throw stones.

The Founders WERE liberals, what we now call Classical Liberals.

Today's liberalism did not exist, so how could the Founders separate something they never heard of?

The founders wanted minimal government and were keenly aware government would throw off the reigns of the people without eternal vigilance and the will to engage government win an armed conflict. Yes, the founding fathers regretfully but correctly concluded Americans would have to fight foreign enemies AND fellow Americans (liberals) to maintain their freedom and liberty.

Assign whatever label you'd like to the philosophy of the founding fathers, but the founding father's philosophy and behavior bears no resemblance to today's liberals. In fact, the founding father's philosophy was diametrically opposed to the philosophy of today's liberals who believe the people need a giant, powerful, controlling, religion suppressing, ever-growing central government.

Donkey,

I am really curious to know what the word liberal means to you. Please enlighten us.

Liberal, of course, has many meanings.

As applicable to today's political liberals, it is a person holding a philosophy that government's duty is to keep the people equal, to solve all problems, and to protect the people from themselves; that government must be a big, strong, central government; and that there are no limits to the government's role in the lives of the people if the government believes it is acting in the best interest of the people.

Yes, I know today's liberals like to think of themselves as the engines of intelligent progress, progressives, changers, the givers of hope. They believe themselves to be the enlightened, highly evolved segment of humanity tasked, by the very nature of their ascension, with the custody and stewardship of humanity and the natural world.

DonkeyRidder

Assign whatever label you'd like to the philosophy of the founding fathers, but the founding father's philosophy and behavior bears no resemblance to today's liberals. In fact, the founding father's philosophy was diametrically opposed to the philosophy of today's liberals who believe the people need a giant, powerful, controlling, religion suppressing, ever-growing central government.

Yeah, I know all that. You still haven't told me how the founders could have separated something they never heard of. But you did admit the founders never heard of them.

Plus, lumping all liberals together is like me believing all conservatives are as crazy as Jerry Falwell.

Barry Goldwater, a GENUINE conservative said, "Any TRUE Christian would give Jerry Falwell a swift kick in he ass."

He also said "You don't have to be straight to be in the military. You only need to be able to shoot straight." That puts Goldwater ahead of Obama on gay rights.

I somehow think you may know as little about conservatives as you know about liberals.

And by the way, white men CAN jump.

You seem to think the philosophy held by today's liberals didn't exist and was unknown to the world of the founding fathers. That is simply untrue. They knew full well there are people genetically and culturally predisposed to using government for evil purposes they could not otherwise achieve on their own or as a simple gang. There have always been people who use force to impose themselves on others, to gain advantages for themselves at the expense or labors of others, those who would punish or eliminate those who have more than themselves or don't bow to their commands. It has been that way for thousands of years. We just have modern day rationalizations for those primitive behaviors. Those rationalizations for the creation of a large and powerful government to satisfy those basic aggressive instincts defines the politics of liberalism. The imposition of those aggressive behaviors with that powerful government satisfies the liberal's instinctual aggression.

Goldwater's comment about Falwell was not based on conservatism. Based on your recitation of the comment, Christians, not conservatives, were directed to administer that swift kick. As unbelievable as it sounds, there are Christian liberals. No one is crazy because they are conservative. All liberals are as I defined them, with varying degress of dedication.

I could not care less if there are gays in the military. The don't ask, don't tell, and don't solicit policy is very appropriate. We don't, however, need gay activists in the military. Obama has had not even one original thought, so don't look to him for guidance. Obama drew a "jump to the finish" affirmative action card with no merit earned during the jump.

You've said nothing from Goldwater incompatible with my statements. It seems you are lacking in your knowledge of American history, conservatism, and Goldwater.

DR how is one "genetically" prediposed to using the governement for evil purposes?

DR how is one "genetically" prediposed to using the governement for evil purposes?

When someone is born emotionally handicapped and unable to feel the higher evolved human emotions like empathy.

The Moral Instinct

Antisocial Personality Disorder - Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment of Antisocial Personality Disorder

Nervous people 'are likely to be right-wing' - Science, News

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

Jefferson the Founder of the Democratic Party knew this as well.

"I sincerely... believe... in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

@ DR. I just never heard of any science article where they found that criminal gene, making sure that one will use the government for evil purpose? Also what at the evil pusposes they are using the government for?

It is true that whe some is born with those disorders they tend to be distrubed and could (emphasis on could, but not necessarly) be criminals, but that does not make them use their ciminal behavor to use the governement for evil purpose.

DR how is one "genetically" prediposed to using the governement for evil purposes?

I will pass this question to the atheist scientists, who have a science explanation for all, including human behavior. Why do many people inflict harm on others with total abandonment of guilt, concern, remorse? If goodness is genetic, then must not also be evil? Why do some people care about others in the absence of a soul?

And to the smarty pants "I just never heard of any science article where they found that criminal gene", if you haven't heard of genes affecting behavior, try taking a science course.

By the way, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. America, this Christian-Jewish nation, leads the world in science and technology, and not because the salt-water-bag atheists took the lead.

calling me a smarty pants...very childish on your part. DR you will pass the question to the atheist scientist, wow what a copout. You made the claim that people are genetically predisposed to use the government for evil purposes prove it. Cite anything from any source providing a little evidence to support your claim. I don't care what source you use just provide evidence.

From what i have read about genetics they have never found good/evil genes. I have read many articles about the genetics causing behavorial and developmental disorders, hence that is why there are genetic defeacts and desases, but have not seen a single article for a good/evil gene. Even most psychological disorders from mutliple personalities, to pyciopaths, to autism, etc..., but they have found no evidence that they are caused by genetics. They have no idea what the causes for most of this disorders are.

How is goodness genetic? I figure most people are good/evil based on how they are raised, their enviornment, and many other contributing factors.

First of all, if one is an atheist scientist, there is no good and evil, just diversity of activities and behaviors, and scientists of religion don't often use good and evil in thier scientific publications, so don't expect research to be worded in those terms. It will be posited as criminal activity, disobediance, defiance, etc.

If goodness isn't genetic, then where did it come from?

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?69+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+81+(winterspring+2006)+pdf

DonkeyRidder is a quack. Liberals are the reason my life sucks, wah wah wah.

The founding father were a bunch of Liberals! Hence the insanely progressive representative experiment they tried on the "New World".

Do you even understand what the definition of Liberal is?

It is liberals appealing to the government, relentlessly, to do something to make their pitiful lives not suck, of course at the expense of others. I want liberals to leave me alone -- that is the appeal of Heaven, a liberal-free zone. My happiness does not reside in any action by the government, rather in the government not entangling me in liberal schemes. I want to live as a free man, even if that means dying sooner. Just like the founding fathers of this country.

DR thank you for trying to provide a source, but the source is lacking. the reference you cited was a law review/journal article, dealing with people trying to claim a defence that they are genetically predisposed to be criminals. first off all those defenses have failed since they have provided no scienitific evidence showing that crimes are caused by genetics. So this article does support that crime of evil/good is caused by genetics.

Thank for tyring to support your claim, however the reference is lacking

He really is a paranoid man. Most conservatives seems to be.

"May [our Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government... All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826.

Now that is what I call a liberal statement.

DonkeyRidder

Why do some people care about others in the absence of a soul?

As evidence -- vivible proof -- that you are wrong to claim that caring requires a soul,

America, this Christian-Jewish nation, leads the world in science and technology, and not because the salt-water-bag atheists took the lead.

Mostly because we don't allow Christian bigots to create another Inquisition --

• Persecuting anyone who dares to challenge the abject stupidity of a flat earth.
• Burning people at the stake for denying that the sun moves around the earth.
• Following Deut 13; and slaying their own spouse and children for following any other prophets.

And lest we forget, the so-called Jewish Homeland was attained by committing mass genocide against the Canaanites.

Through all the millennia, the battlelines have not been drawn between belief and non-belief ... but between tolerance and bigotry.

Mostly because we don't allow Christian bigots to create another Inquisition --

We who? The Christians were such a majority they could have used atheists for fertilizer had they chosen to do so. You are here out of the goodness of the Christian hearts. The atheists Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Amin, Minh, etc., have killed more by atheist aggression than all the dead at the hands of man combined throughout history. Just what we need, more atheists.

Evil people saying they are religious to perpetrate evil, like those instances you mention, has been covered. The Catholic priests raping boys were true believers? No, they were calculating atheists using the religion to advance their evil.

"No, they were calculating atheists using the religion to advance their evil."

Oh, so the paraphrased excuse now is 'Religious in name only' ....

I wonder where I have heard that RINO 'theme' before....

The atheists Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Amin, Minh, etc., have killed more by atheist aggression than all the dead at the hands of man combined throughout history.

Oh ho ho...really? I'm going to call you on that. Cite your sources and numbers for that conclusion. Don't worry, I'll wait.

No, they were calculating atheists using the religion to advance their evil.

Are you sure that suicide bombers athiests? Because I'm fairly certain that it's their religious beliefs that convince them that they'll be rewarded for killing so many people...

Evil people saying they are religious to perpetrate evil, like those instances you mention, has been covered. The Catholic priests raping boys were true believers? No, they were calculating atheists using the religion to advance their evil.

This person is clinical. He/she clearly lacks a realistic perception of reality. It refuses to even believe there is or was a chance that anything evil could have been done by a religious of conservative person. A whack job through and through. A corrupted mind with little real addition to discussion or debate. The reason this country is failing.

Do you feel that way about all good decent Americans? What a kind and considerate atheist you are, a wonderful role model.

You've contributed nothing to the vine, no article or seeds, other than liberal and atheist bashing. You're a cancer to discourse. I don't have to be considerate to a disease such as yourself. You get what you give.

Do you feel that way about all good decent Americans? What a kind and considerate atheist you are, a wonderful role model.

Still waiting for you to source your claims...

Oh ho ho...really? I'm going to call you on that. Cite your sources and numbers for that conclusion. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Just wait a few years and you'll get to interview them yourselves. I won't be ther for you to share your new found truth and knowledge, however.

Just wait a few years and you'll get to interview them yourselves. I won't be ther for you to share your new found truth and knowledge, however.

So you just pulled that claim out of your rear then, and you're now trying to cop out?

What counterclaim are you pulling from your rear? Show me the data the cited figures claimed to be doing their evil deeds in the name of religion. My proof is the absence of their religion. You show me my claim is incorrect if you want to deny it. And of course you want to deny it because it makes atheists look bad and unworthy of trust. I don't care if you believe me, just that my kids and those who actually know me believe me, and being familiar with my wisdom and scholarly nature, they do.

What counterclaim are you pulling from your rear? Show me the data the cited figures claimed to be doing their evil deeds in the name of religion. My proof is the absence of their religion. You show me my claim is incorrect if you want to deny it. And of course you want to deny it because it makes atheists look bad and unworthy of trust.

For just a moment, I'll entertain the notion that you'd be interested in the form and decorum of proper debate. You see, you claimed something (that athiests killed more than anyone else, EVER), now you have to back it up with proof that supports what you said. You can't make a claim and force me to disprove it. If that was the case, I could say, "I AM GOD. PROVE ME WRONG OR BE SMITED!"

I don't care if you believe me, just that my kids and those who actually know me believe me, and being familiar with my wisdom and scholarly nature, they do.

If you're as obstinant with them as you are here, odds are they choose not to argue with you because you'd never admit you were wrong.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide proof for your claim...

DonkeyRidder

America, this Christian-Jewish nation, leads the world in science and technology, and not because the salt-water-bag atheists took the lead.

Me

Mostly because we don't allow Christian bigots to create another Inquisition --

DonkeyRidder

We who?

Most people, including most Christians TODAY -- while your type of Christian was burning scientists at the stake. Buy a history book.

DonkeyRidder

The Christians were such a majority they could have used atheists for fertilizer had they chosen to do so.

Uhhh, you did choose to. But then you got slapped down during what's called the Reformation ... which led to rhe Enlightment ... which led to America

It wasn't atheists who described your era as the Dark Ages, was it?

It wasn't atheists who nailed those 95 theses on the church door --- slapping you down -- it was a priest and theologian.

And the Christian world rejoiced at your fall from grace.

By comparison, your hatred tells me you are Satan in disguise.

But I see you.

Most people, including most Christians TODAY -- while your type of Christian was burning scientists at the stake. Buy a history book.

It was government agents burning scientists at the stake, much like the Obama government wants to burn Christians at the stake. Those defying the state were killed. Read a book.

Uhhh, you did choose to. But then you got slapped down during what's called the Reformation ... which led to rhe Enlightment ... which led to America

Christians and Jews are still a majority and could still use atheists for fertilizer, but being the good people we are, we'll let you live. Enlightenment. Wow, one Ben Stein wow. Same murdering atheist thug liberals, different excuses and rationalizations. They've just decided to exit the church infiltration and go to the unions, schools, and government to do their dirty work. When the believing Christians are a minority, this country is doomed and the dark ages will return.

By comparison, your hatred tells me you are Satan in disguise.

Impossible in liberal atheist world.

Still waiting for you to prove your earlier claims, DR...

Christians and Jews are still a majority and could still use atheists for fertilizer, but being the good people we are, we'll let you live.

The more you talk, the more you sound like the muslim extremists you like to demonize. That, or a slightly more merciful Inquisition.

"There is no such thing as innocence...only degrees of guilt."

You get what you give.

And you got what you gave. You've contributed nothing of value, you seek to undermine America, and your logic is flimsy. You would stifle opinion that interferes with liberal la-la land, disrupts that elusive utopia liberalism seeks with brute force, deception, opponent destruction.

Now what? Your serve.

The more you talk, the more you sound like the muslim extremists you like to demonize. That, or a slightly more merciful Inquisition.

It is my opinion that should atheists gain the majority and gain control, they will use the Christians and Jews for fertilizer and lamp shades. That is the history or their rule, barbarians. That is very amusing, I sound like an extremist. The attacks against Christians and Jews on the Vine are disturbing, an ongoing series of rationalizations to take serious action against them, and very suggestive of the beginnings of the process for their elimination, the final solution II. I'm with the Jews -- never again.

It is my opinion that should atheists gain the majority and gain control, they will use the Christians and Jews for fertilizer and lamp shades.

That sounds really extreme, but so does your idea that we go with a new American Taliban where anyone that disagrees with you is a <venom>liberal<venom>. What do you and your so-called christian values plan to do with those hated liberals?

What do you and your so-called christian values plan to do with those hated liberals?

You slipped up and put "hated" rather than "hater". Watch your typing.

I plan to continue to defend American's right to hold and practice religious beliefs, as well as protecting my family's lives and my country from the inevitable destrctive forces of statism and liberalism.

What do you plan to do to teabaggers, Christians, Jews, conservatives, should you ever control the police and military? It is sincerely a source of worry as we've seen this series of events play out in recent and past history.

inevitable destrctive forces of statism and liberalism.

Are you off your meds or are you this raving paranoid all the time? You do know that statism and liberalism are 180° different from each other. Statism is where 'The State' owns most everything and liberalism is a belief system centered around personal freedom.

I plan to continue to defend American's right to hold and practice religious beliefs, as well as protecting my family's lives and my country

That statement sounds very much like liberalism.

What do you plan to do to teabaggers, Christians, Jews, conservatives,

I don't plan to do anything with any of those groups other than the teabaggers, but that is only because they are the one really in need of help.

I plan to get the teabaggers some much needed help. Some may need psychiatric help but most will just need a little quiet time away from Fox News' screaming heads. Some of the worst may need to be deprogrammed from their teabagging cults.

You do know that statism and liberalism are 180° different from each other. Statism is where 'The State' owns most everything and liberalism is a belief system centered around personal freedom.

Liberalism that can't convert with inate appeal, and it can't, turns to statism to inflict itself upon the masses. You guys don't even know yourselves or why you're doing what you do. That is hilarious!

I plan to get the teabaggers some much needed help.

Of course you do. With the government. Statism. You are a liberal statist, as are all the liberals of the day. The question is how far will you go when the teabaggers reject your "help", as they and anyone else with personal dignity will do? I know how far Obama will go and it isn't pretty. How about you? Reagan predicted liberalism and summed it up with the 9 most dangerous words in the world -- "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". That's you, buddy.

You are apparently privy to a lot more information that the rest of us peons. Do you get daily briefings from the Free Masons or do they just beam all that into your tinfoil beanie?

DR you are the best advocate I have ever witnessed for the argument against Religious bigotry and dogma. Keep up the good work.

And as for your BS Raegan quote.

"After stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences... And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1822.

DR you are the best advocate I have ever witnessed for the argument against Religious bigotry and dogma. Keep up the good work.

For being such a help to your side, there sure are a lot of you trying to shut me down. And we'll see how much I harm the cause of those seeking freedom and liberty in America in November 2010. Meet me back here after the elections and we'll compare effectiveness. We'll do it again in 2012 when you'll be subjected to another butt kicking.

I plan to continue to defend American's right to hold and practice religious beliefs, as well as protecting my family's lives and my country from the inevitable destrctive forces of statism and liberalism.

Freedom of Religion also includes freedom FROM religion, as much as you would like to ignore it. And last I checked, liberalism by definition is tolerance and acceptance of different ways, unlike what you're preaching.

You guys don't even know yourselves or why you're doing what you do. That is hilarious!

What's hilarious is how easy it is to prove you don't know what you're talking about. Definitions from Dictionary.com (which I'm sure you'll try and discredit as a liberal rag):

stat⋅ism /ˈsteɪtɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stey-tiz-uhm]

the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

lib⋅er⋅al⋅ism [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

You are apparently privy to a lot more information that the rest of us peons. Do you get daily briefings from the Free Masons or do they just beam all that into your tinfoil beanie?

Hey, now... Many of the Founding Fathers were Masons (including George Washington). Of course, people will leap forward and try to use this as a "Look, CHRISTIANS!" argument, however, the Masons, contrary to popular belief, are not a Christian organization. Each Mason is required to express a belief in a Supreme Being, however, how that Mason interprets "Supreme Being" is entirely up to him.

Arad, if it is okay with you, I'll stick to the facts on the ground, not the detached words in a book. Today's liberals are statists. You guys are going to throw people in prison if they don't buy your government insurance. What's the matter with you guys, turning America into an oppressive regime imposing micromanagement on the people. Whatever you call yourselves, you are creating a dangerous government, a monster over which the American people, including yourselves, will lose control.

Arad, if it is okay with you, I'll stick to the facts on the ground, not the detached words in a book.

Hilarious!

2+2=5 type logic. Donkey, you're a joke. You remind of the Colbert. You are the person he is pretending to be. Mocking himself, admitting delusion and acting wholeheartedly ignorant. This is becoming comical. Please don't reproduce.

Please don't reproduce.

Too late. 6 kids. All brilliant, all conservative, 6 more objects of hate from the left.

Donkey, you're a joke.

That seems to indicate you have the capacity to engage in and enjoy humor, but that is rare in liberals. I'm glad I can entertain you. And you understand exactly how I feel about dumbbutt liberals and their pseudointellctual narcissism.

Why the personal attacks? Where's all that compassion that exudes from liberals? Now there's a joke for you, compassion coming from liberals. Has that one been on Colbert yet?

Again, thanks guys for the accolades. Remember, I'm just in it for the attention and to aggravate liberals in your malinformed opinions. Your frustrations at your self-inflicted plights are a major reward.

That seems to indicate you have the capacity to engage in and enjoy humor, but that is rare in liberals. I'm glad I can entertain you. And you understand exactly how I feel about dumbbutt liberals and their pseudointellctual narcissism.

Why the personal attacks?

Hypocritical statement of the day.

Remember, I'm just in it for the attention and to aggravate liberals

heehee. I'm glad you finally said what I was thinking yesterday. Mind reader, perhaps?

Quit feeding the troll.

Sorry, couldn't help it

I'm glad you finally said what I was thinking yesterday. Mind reader, perhaps?

I said what you wanted to hear, playing you like a fiddle. I know liberals like I know the back of my hand. I've studies your species for decades.

Quit feeding the troll.

Yep, if you can't beat them in the arena of ideas, and when you lose on the issues, call them a troll -- attack tactic #17 from the liberal play book. Hit the ignore button. Can't just do that, got to stop every other liberal from getting a butt whipping too, stop those not yet decided from hearing the truth before a liberal indoctrination can occur, stop the conservative interfering with the liberal Marxist brainwashings, got to interfere with exposure of the naive to all sides of an issue.

Again, AMFs.

heehee. Calling me a liberal again lol,,,,this is fun

believer, where did you come from? Are you posting under two pen names?

I don't know what you are. If you want bigger government, government forcing tolerance and diversity, government growing and depleting the citizenry of rightfully earned wealth, government suppressing religious freedoms, government infringing on the right to owm and bear arms, government bankrupting the country, government devaluing the dollar, government providing to all according to one's needs and taking from all according to one's ability, then I'm against your philosophy and believe you're a threat to America. If you're not any of those, you're probably okay. Plop whatever label you'd like on your philosophy.

It is fun, watching elitist narcissist heads spin when they lose on the issues.

That's your definition of a liberal?

Interesting.

I don't know anybody like that.

Talking @!$%# and calling everyone a liberal is a side now?

Apparently so.

I believe it is the statists, the liberals, anti-conservatives, anti-Republicans, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, pro-goverment, pro-big-brother left talking ship, posting ship, feigning outrage and feigning sensibility and civility.

It is pleasing to know that Ruah, Hannity, Levin, and Savage have effectively made liberal a dirty word and that liberals will do almost anything to avoid that label, and are trying desperately to change its definition. No one admits being the liberals of today, no, no, no. They are old fashioned liberals, Jeffersonian liberals. They are not liberals, no, no, no. They are progressives, independents, above the common man politics.

Just who is it that supported this creature Obama, the monster Pelosi, the nincompoop Reid, and who is it still supporting the Marxist punk Obama as he massively expands the size and intrusivenesss of government, spends every dime of every living American and then spends trillions of dollars borrowed from China with our kids and grandkids promise to repay, and keeps spending even as his own staff warns him his policies are killing America and tanking the economy?

Attack the label, attack the labeler, but continue harm to America. That seems to be the modus operandi from the left.

massively expands the size and intrusivenesss of government, spends every dime of every living American and then spends trillions of dollars borrowed from China with our kids and grandkids promise to repay, and keeps spending even as his own staff warns him his policies are killing America and tanking the economy?

Sounds like Duh-buh-ya Bush, Darth Cheney and Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove with their Department of Homeland Security creation, warrantless wiretapping, 2 wars with attempts to start 3 more ('Axis of Evil'), deregulation and feebie handouts to corporations ($300+ billion first 1/2 of TARP w/ no records of where it went). You know, your heroes.

Wow, this conversation moved quick. I'll try and catch up.

Arad, if it is okay with you, I'll stick to the facts on the ground, not the detached words in a book.

...

Heheheheh....

Thank you. You've just utterly DESTROYED any argument for using religion in any form of government, life, legislation, or anything at all in the real world. After all, religions are just the detatched words of a book, and we need to concentrate on the facts here.

Today's liberals are statists.

One barks, is man's best friend and chases cats. The other meows, is quite indifferent, and is chased by dogs. Calling them both a duck doesn't make them both a duck.

You guys are going to throw people in prison if they don't buy your government insurance.

Prove it.

What's the matter with you guys, turning America into an oppressive regime imposing micromanagement on the people.

A country where warrantless wiretaps, torture and renditioning to foreign nations without aid of legal counsel is commonplace? I distinctly remember that happening before we took control.

Whatever you call yourselves, you are creating a dangerous government, a monster over which the American people, including yourselves, will lose control.

Like Conservatives were doing, then lost control in 2008?

Remember, I'm just in it for the attention and to aggravate liberals in your malinformed opinions. Your frustrations at your self-inflicted plights are a major reward.

See also: Definition of Troll.

Everything else you've written is merely rehash of what I've already covered.

After all, religions are just the detatched words of a book, and we need to concentrate on the facts here.

Yeah, okay, sure.

One barks, is man's best friend and chases cats. The other meows, is quite indifferent, and is chased by dogs.

No, you've mixed conservatives and liberals. Liberals would be like the dogs, some bark, some yelp, some crap on the rug, some go outside, some are smart, most are dumb, some bite, some wet themselves, etc., but all dogs, nonetheless.

A country where warrantless wiretaps, torture and renditioning to foreign nations without aid of legal counsel is commonplace? I distinctly remember that happening before we took control.

Got any names of Americans that happened to? How about innocent people harmed by these life-saving war actions against our lethal enemies?

Like Conservatives were doing, then lost control in 2008?

Sorry, we haven't had full house conservatives in my lifetime. We currently have full house radical Democrats, i.e. Marxists in power and we have the largest deficit, largest debt, and worst economy in my lifetime. We are living Democrat the Democrat economy, with a foundation of reckless spending and borrowing, just like they do in their personal lives. You should be proud of your team!

See also: Definition of Troll.

I know what they are. I have to battle them here all the time. Have you ever dealt with one?

Why'd you turn this into a dialogue about donkeyridder? Why not go back to persectuting Palin or trying to get Bush and Cheney for war crimes, something more noble and honorable?

Yeah, okay, sure.

So you admit that the premise of this entire seed is false. Good to know. (b")b

No, you've mixed conservatives and liberals. Liberals would be like the dogs, some bark, some yelp, some crap on the rug, some go outside, some are smart, most are dumb, some bite, some wet themselves, etc., but all dogs, nonetheless.

And you've completely ignored the fact that I showed that your comparison holds water like a spaghetti strainer.

Got any names of Americans that happened to? How about innocent people harmed by these life-saving war actions against our lethal enemies?

Why, certainly. Also, just because I'm curious, is torture somehow less horrifying and inmumane if it's done to non-Americans? We convicted Japanese after World War 2 for committing the same kinds of torture that was done to the prisoner's we've taken during the 'war on terrorism.' Hypocracy much?

Sorry, we haven't had full house conservatives in my lifetime.

Sour grapes excuse. "We didn't lose because we weren't really playing."

Have you ever dealt with one?

I'm currently dealing with one now. :P

Why'd you turn this into a dialogue about donkeyridder?

You made it about yourself when you said you only post to elicit a response from people you disagree with.

Why not go back to persectuting Palin or trying to get Bush and Cheney for war crimes, something more noble and honorable?

Because if you don't get any attention, you'd probably get bored and go back under your bridge, and where's the fun in that?

Why, certainly. Also, just

Your link simply describes Americans in a war zone detained by our military. So what? No torture, no harm. Our soldiers put up with worse every day.

Also, just because I'm curious, is torture somehow less horrifying and inmumane if it's done to non-Americans?

What torture? If the lives of my family could be spared by waterboarding KSM, I'd do it and I'd want my government to do it. You feel free to let your own family be murdered because you are so humane and noble, not me. I have no guilt about the actions Bush and Cheney. They are great men, great Americans, in stark contrast to the America-hating Marxist punk Obama.

Because if you don't get any attention, you'd probably get bored and go back under your bridge, and where's the fun in that?

I'm not under a bridge. I've been out riding the back of a feeble liberal Marxist jackass.

I doubt you will ever get the idea that torture yields crappy, or non-existent results. I imagine whereever you did serve you were some peon not entrusted with much other than painting rocks and cleaning pans otherwise you'd have half a clue about things rather than some jingoistic fantasy world bull@!$%#.

Not only are the results of torture craptastic it lowers our own morals to that of our enemy and makes us a rogue state. If the neo nutjob con artists had kept power much longer we'd be getting bombed by other countries soon after our economy had went into the toilet and we became the northernmost banana republic. Not that you give a @!$%# about that as long as brain dead shows like 24 show torture as a family friendly activity and some dumb ass bible thumper kept promising you tax cuts.

Your link simply describes Americans in a war zone detained by our military. So what? No torture, no harm. Our soldiers put up with worse every day.

You're kidding, right? Did you even READ the articles? They WERE tortured, and they WERE innocent.

What torture? If the lives of my family could be spared by waterboarding KSM, I'd do it and I'd want my government to do it. You feel free to let your own family be murdered because you are so humane and noble, not me. I have no guilt about the actions Bush and Cheney. They are great men, great Americans, in stark contrast to the America-hating Marxist punk Obama.

There isn't a speck of proof showing that any lives have ever been saved by torture. And on that note, we have prosecuted, convicted, and executed people for waterboarding Americans. Ronald "THE Republican" Reagan signed an international agreement on torture to make it illegal. Are you saying G-Dub know's better than Ronald?

And while we're on the subject of hypothetical dillemas involving torture and terrorists, would you like your children to be tortured for information? Would you? Keep in mind that innocence means nothing. You or your children will be tortured, regardless of your guilt or knowledge you do or don't have. Do you honestly think that's right? Do you want your eldest son stripped naked and hog tied while a torturer practicies his trade on him? How about your wife? Your daughter?

And last but not least, the sweet gem you tacked at the end of your little rant. Just because Obama does things that you don't like, it doesn't mean he hates you, America, or anything. When your boss puts a policy in place that you don't like, to you think he hates your company? When you do something your children don't like, to they think you hate your family? Well? I'm certain that if your beliefs in torture were to catch up with them, I'm certain they would, but that's beside the point.

I'm not under a bridge. I've been out riding the back of a feeble liberal Marxist jackass.

Mhm, right. Just be sure you brought enough quarters and let your kids have a turn on the coin-operated horsie outside the grocery store before your wife finishes with the groceries.

You're kidding, right? Did you even READ the articles? They WERE tortured, and they WERE innocent.

I read it. The guy was detained. There was country western music in the hallway and his light was on most of the day. Wow. Is imprisonment torture? Is making someone live a regimented life behind bars at the threat of punishment or death torture? How about caning, that punishment some countries still use? Is a government forcing one to workin 7 months of the year in its service torture? Is it torture to put men in the middle of the desert with a bunch of people trying to kill them? Is it torture to be stuck in a building set on fire by an airplane full of people flown into the building? Is it torture to cut the head off Danny Pearl or Nick Berg? Fork your torture allegations and fork Bush and Cheney haters. Yes, you'd let your children and wife die, that is the answer I'm getting. And yes we did get information that saved lives. And frankly I don't care if it got information if there was any, any, possibility it might.

Would you like your children to be tortured for information? Would you?

I don't want them tortured for any purpose. Is that somehow relevant to this discussion. I don't want my children's heads cut off and I don't want my children flying planes full of people into buildings full of people, and I don't want my kids to be liberal Democrat Marxists. Or your kids.

When your boss puts a policy in place that you don't like, to you think he hates your company?

You have twisted analogies. This is my country, not Obama's. We all were to live by the Constitution, not the edicts from "boss" Obama. Obama is trying to get America's mind right, Boss Obama. And yes, I think Obama hates America. His friend Ayers did, his friend Wright did, and that was the common bond that made them friends.

Just be sure you brought enough quarters and let your kids have a turn on the coin-operated horsie outside the grocery store before your wife finishes with the groceries.

So you're disguising youself as a horsie at the grocery store to get kids to sit on you? That's sick. But the Democrats do harbor the wierdos of America so you're at home.

And yes we did get information that saved lives. And frankly I don't care if it got information if there was any, any, possibility it might.

Prove it. Prove we did get information that saved lives. As for the second sentence, it leads into the next part.

I don't want them tortured for any purpose. Is that somehow relevant to this discussion. I don't want my children's heads cut off and I don't want my children flying planes full of people into buildings full of people, and I don't want my kids to be liberal Democrat Marxists. Or your kids.

The government thinks your kids might know where a potential terrorist attack might happen. By your previous sentence, they should be tortured for any information they might have. but your next sentence, you show a double standard.

And, FYI, if being a free thinker makes a person a liberal Democrat Marxist, then I'm glad I'm not related to you. My children will think for themselves, rather than being forced to act as a simple extension of their father's thought processes.

You have twisted analogies. This is my country, not Obama's. We all were to live by the Constitution, not the edicts from "boss" Obama. Obama is trying to get America's mind right, Boss Obama. And yes, I think Obama hates America. His friend Ayers did, his friend Wright did, and that was the common bond that made them friends.

Wrong. This is OUR country. Mine, yours, Obama's, the taxi-cab driver Azziz who was born here but looks foreign. It's EVERYONE'S country. And where was your heartfelt love for the constitution while G-Dub and Darth Vader were treating it like toilet paper to invade countries that don't threaten us, or to spy on this nation's citizens?

Thankfully, what you think has no affect on this nation, since what you say you think has no basis in fact.

So you're disguising youself as a horsie at the grocery store to get kids to sit on you? That's sick. But the Democrats do harbor the wierdos of America so you're at home.

I'm sure once the public option for health care is passed, you'll be able to afford the anti-hallucinagens and other medications you seem to be lacking. Until then, I'll simply smile affably while you continue to ramble on.

Not necessary. Just ask them where the dinosaurs came from, then watch their heads explode.

--And you've seriously never had anyone start talking about the Book of Job (Chapters 40 & 41, I think) on you in response to that question?

Would that include Governments like that of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, The Khmer Rouge, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoute, etc.? Government officials always have, and always will be affected to some degree by their own personal beliefs. When it comes to atrocities, however, it almost always ends up being about power - period. Some may try and dress it up in religious clothing to fool people, but there are also those who follow more atheistic belief systems that stoop to the same tactics. There are also those who will bravely question those who try to cover heinous deeds under the guise of religion, or other rhetoric. Many show themselves to be hypocrites or liars when they deliberately act contrary to the belief system they claim to be following.

Many show themselves to be hypocrites or liars when they deliberately act contrary to the belief system they claim to be following.

Ah, but each one of them does share a religion. It is one they keep secret, claiming the popular religion, until a seat of power is acquired, their real religion not becoming readily apparent until it is impossible to unseat them. But then the faith, the practices, the trappings, and all the adornment of their religion becomes clearly obvious. That religion, called by its proper name, would be megalomania.

Regards

True, and in my opinion, the "worship" (if you choose to use that word) of oneself is the root cause of much of the "evil", and just plain asinine behavior in the world (that sentiment is also echoed in the Bible, I believe). No leader or ruling body will ever be perfect, but if you manage to get one that doesn't think too highly of him/her/it-self and thinks about the welfare of others, you're lucky.

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." -- Edmund Burke

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power." --James Madison