America: Graduating from God? by Chuck Norris - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: America: Graduating from God? by Chuck Norris

  1. Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    You remember the part of the Constitution where our fore fathers said"separation between church and state"? Well, I believe in that separation, but the government seems to want not to believe it. The government does not like it when religious groups influence its policies, so why is it trying to influence the policies of Christian values and beliefs? I tell you why, because it thinks it is beyond God. Silly little human race, it cannot even tell what is going to happen five minutes from now, so how in the hell is it going to get along without its Creator?
    "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

    It does not say "Seperation of Church and State". It says congress shall not establish an official religion, or prevent people from practicing theirs. Every time a court rules school prayer is outlawed, it is preventing the free exercise of the peoples religion. Every time a court rules in favor of an atheist that removes a religious symbol from a public area, they are establishing atheism as the de jure and de facto religion (atheism is just as much a religion as any other). The framers of our Constitution wanted to prevent a theocracy, they did not want to wipe religion from public view.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

    It does not say "Seperation of Church and State". It says congress shall not establish an official religion, or prevent people from practicing theirs. Every time a court rules school prayer is outlawed, it is preventing the free exercise of the peoples religion. Every time a court rules in favor of an atheist that removes a religious symbol from a public area, they are establishing atheism as the de jure and de facto religion (atheism is just as much a religion as any other). The framers of our Constitution wanted to prevent a theocracy, they did not want to wipe religion from public view.
    +1. Good points.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    1961? Try 1802 in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. The Connecticut Baptists were a minority protestant denomination and they were afraid of the prevailing local government might use their legal powers to persecute them for being a minority protestant denomination. Tommy coined the phrase, "There is a wall of separation between church and state" in his reassuring reply.

    Yet, it has often, in my experience, been taken by American religionists that what Jefferson meant to say was that there is a wall of separation between all non-Christian communities and the Government in concert with any and all Christian churches, that Jefferson merely meant to indicate that the government could not tell you how to be a Christian, but that government could tell you that you had to be a Christian. Or, barring such a direct and monstrous claim, that government could simply bar a non-Christian person from enjoying certain rights, privileges, or immunities which Christian Americans enjoyed, or place upon non-Christian persons duties, taxes, or requirements from which Christian persons were immune.

    Indeed, for the longest time in America, an avowed Atheist, such as myself, would not be permitted access to the courts in much of America. Obviously, if the rituals of justice required that a witness place his hand on a Bible and swear an oath to god to tell the truth, no such oath from an Atheist would have meaning, and so he would be free to lie in court, where a good, pious, Christian man could not. If an Atheist's testimony in court could so easily be a lie, then they would just not be allowed to give testimony. But, that meant that they were forbidden from being witnesses to a crime and so help their fellows who were wronged, but more importantly, they could not swear out criminal complaints against those that wronged them, and so could be freely targetted for robbery and violence without recourse to the courts. Lovely bit of Christian charity that was. But, as we all know, America is a Christian Nation.

    What the 1st Amendment says is plain. Congress, and by 14th Amendment incorporation against states and all local units of government, shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, there can be no law, rule, or regulation, of any kind demanding that any people behave with a certain manner of religiosity. Neither pious Christian behaviour, nor non-Christian religious behaviour could be required. A judge demanding the erection of a stone monolith bearing a Biblical inscription is just as wrong in the Establishment Clause sense as a principal at a public school excoriating a child for praying at lunch. Both the pro-Christian and contra-Christian camps are in error in these cases.

    America is to be a religious blank slate, as I've said before. The judge is not permitted to demand the ten commandments be displayed, nor is he permitted to demand that people not display the ten commandments. If some one wishes to display the ten commandments while on court house grounds, that's 110% peachy keen in a Constitutional sense. Likewise, a public school employee cannot lead his school in a prayer, but neither can they prevent a student from engaging in prayer voluntarily. as I've heard it said so wisely, as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.

    The public sphere is to be free of institutional religiosity. The school itself cannot put up displays of Christmas trees and manger scenes, nor can it direct the student population to do so in its stead. However, if the students themselves were to, of their own free will, engage in an art project, using private resources to create individual or collective holiday displays for any religion whatsoever, then the school is not permitted to play favourites and say that one group of students' displays may be put up while another is not. If this means that not everyone can be represented, who want to be represented, in the hallways of a given public school, then it means that no one can be represented. It can also mean that if the Principal wants to just avoid all headaches, he can ban all hallway religious holiday displays whatsoever, but what he is not permitted to ban are personal religious displays, for instance, on notebooks and book bags and inside locker doors, on the basis of religion.

    If the judge wants to carry his stone tablets with him to the court house every day and display them in his court room, only to take them back home with him at the end of the day, I've got no problem with that, because that's an individual act of faith, but to lay claim to square footage on the court house grounds for a permanent display of religiosity is not kosher with the Establishment Clause. Even with a diversity of separate displays of religious laws, there can only be so much footage devoted to such displays, and so it is inevitable that some religion or denomination or sect would make a co-equal claim to demand its ancient list of laws be put on display and be told no on account of physical space limitations. If it's limited due to space where there are demands for equal treatment, then it's limited right off courthouse grounds.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  5. Dear CathyInBlue, you simply don't understand what Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." He stated that there was a wall of separation to protect the church from the government, not the other way around. As usual, the liberals are all a$$ backwards and his statement is used completely outside of its original intent, but that is what they do, what is good is bad, what is bad is good. People like Cathy must really turn inside out trying to understand where all of the religious displays in government buildings came from in the first place. They just don't get it, the amendment was to protect the church fro" but there was no provision against Christianity influencing government. That is why the completely demonize all of the Christian references throughout our history until the early 1960's.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska444 View Post
    People like Cathy...
    Alaska, a little harsh directed at Cathy... You could have made your point without the directed barb...

    Cathy you are either very intelligent or you copy and paste very well from intelligent people. (No slight intended)


    People do not understand (or dis-like) the fact that the country was founded based on Jewish-Christian ethics and references. But because it was, many Jewish-Christian references, statues, and customs were adapted into the government. Rightly or wrongly, it IS the heritage of the nation.. It IS this heritage that has made us a great nation up to this point (well maybe a little short of this point). What is being attempted now is to expunge that heritage from the government; However, the government is NOT an entity unto itself.. As it was said, it is a government by the people, for the people. So long as there are people in the government, the government will take on the personalities of the people within it.. There are those that would do there best to expunge God from Government (restricting the expression of God by those that work within it, despite what was written above). ie: Political Correctness
    Is it true that the government is TOO Christian.. Well maybe, but since the majority of people in this country still claim to be Christian, then it is reflecting the "BY THE PEOPLE" make up of the government. To make it more Godless by force, is to deny the majorities right of free expression. Should the people within the government be more sensitive to others being NON-Christian, well most Americans (Including those in the government) need to be more of a lot of things other than more lazy and more ignorant..

    I do tend more toward Alaska's view, but always want to do my best to preserve the 1st amendment.. Too many people in this country want to shut down opposing views.. To me, that's unAmerican.
    Every person should have the right to express their opinion and prove they are a fool.

    To some, that's exactly what I just did.. But that's true for every post on this forum!!!

    Welcome to America!!

    Gulf Coast, Floriduh
    Sccy is the limit

  7. #16
    I have posted the following site before but now would be a good time to remind anyone that really wants to know what the founding fathers thought about Christianity and its importance in our history Wallbuilders is a good place of reference.

    WallBuilders | Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #17
    CathyinBlue, I am certain, because you are a member here at USACarry, that you support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. As a 2A supporter, it must follow that you also support ALL of the Constitutional Amendments. The 1st Amendment states: "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." IMO, that is crystal clear. The United States, unlike England, HAS NEVER established a "state religion". If you can point out to me "The Church of the United States", similar to "The Church of England", I will admit that I'm wrong. In addition, the government is NOT TO PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION meaning that to erase Christmas, crosses, the Ten Commandments, manger scenes (creches), etc. from public display is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    As a Christian-American, I would NEVER seek to rob anyone of their right to publicly exercise their faith (or lack thereof) and publicly display the symbols of that faith or to celebrate holidays/celebration days connected with their faith. What makes me livid is when Christians and Jews are vilified and persecuted for their faith, but ALL other religions are completely acceptable in the liberal/pc realm. Under the 1st Amendment, you have the freedom and right to be a practicing athiest and I have the freedom and right to be a practicing Christian. It should be that simple...why isn't it?
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    1961? Try 1802 in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. The Connecticut Baptists were a minority protestant denomination and they were afraid of the prevailing local government might use their legal powers to persecute them for being a minority protestant denomination. Tommy coined the phrase, "There is a wall of separation between church and state" in his reassuring reply.

    Yet, it has often, in my experience, been taken by American religionists that what Jefferson meant to say was that there is a wall of separation between all non-Christian communities and the Government in concert with any and all Christian churches, that Jefferson merely meant to indicate that the government could not tell you how to be a Christian, but that government could tell you that you had to be a Christian. Or, barring such a direct and monstrous claim, that government could simply bar a non-Christian person from enjoying certain rights, privileges, or immunities which Christian Americans enjoyed, or place upon non-Christian persons duties, taxes, or requirements from which Christian persons were immune.

    Indeed, for the longest time in America, an avowed Atheist, such as myself, would not be permitted access to the courts in much of America. Obviously, if the rituals of justice required that a witness place his hand on a Bible and swear an oath to god to tell the truth, no such oath from an Atheist would have meaning, and so he would be free to lie in court, where a good, pious, Christian man could not. If an Atheist's testimony in court could so easily be a lie, then they would just not be allowed to give testimony. But, that meant that they were forbidden from being witnesses to a crime and so help their fellows who were wronged, but more importantly, they could not swear out criminal complaints against those that wronged them, and so could be freely targetted for robbery and violence without recourse to the courts. Lovely bit of Christian charity that was. But, as we all know, America is a Christian Nation.

    What the 1st Amendment says is plain. Congress, and by 14th Amendment incorporation against states and all local units of government, shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, there can be no law, rule, or regulation, of any kind demanding that any people behave with a certain manner of religiosity. Neither pious Christian behaviour, nor non-Christian religious behaviour could be required. A judge demanding the erection of a stone monolith bearing a Biblical inscription is just as wrong in the Establishment Clause sense as a principal at a public school excoriating a child for praying at lunch. Both the pro-Christian and contra-Christian camps are in error in these cases.

    America is to be a religious blank slate, as I've said before. The judge is not permitted to demand the ten commandments be displayed, nor is he permitted to demand that people not display the ten commandments. If some one wishes to display the ten commandments while on court house grounds, that's 110% peachy keen in a Constitutional sense. Likewise, a public school employee cannot lead his school in a prayer, but neither can they prevent a student from engaging in prayer voluntarily. as I've heard it said so wisely, as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.

    The public sphere is to be free of institutional religiosity. The school itself cannot put up displays of Christmas trees and manger scenes, nor can it direct the student population to do so in its stead. However, if the students themselves were to, of their own free will, engage in an art project, using private resources to create individual or collective holiday displays for any religion whatsoever, then the school is not permitted to play favourites and say that one group of students' displays may be put up while another is not. If this means that not everyone can be represented, who want to be represented, in the hallways of a given public school, then it means that no one can be represented. It can also mean that if the Principal wants to just avoid all headaches, he can ban all hallway religious holiday displays whatsoever, but what he is not permitted to ban are personal religious displays, for instance, on notebooks and book bags and inside locker doors, on the basis of religion.

    If the judge wants to carry his stone tablets with him to the court house every day and display them in his court room, only to take them back home with him at the end of the day, I've got no problem with that, because that's an individual act of faith, but to lay claim to square footage on the court house grounds for a permanent display of religiosity is not kosher with the Establishment Clause. Even with a diversity of separate displays of religious laws, there can only be so much footage devoted to such displays, and so it is inevitable that some religion or denomination or sect would make a co-equal claim to demand its ancient list of laws be put on display and be told no on account of physical space limitations. If it's limited due to space where there are demands for equal treatment, then it's limited right off courthouse grounds.
    So much to comment on, so little time. Just these two points: 1) A local school, reflecting the will of the local people, which constructs, say a Nativity scene at Christmas, is NOT passing a law; and 2) I cannot see how one could effectively argue that the Framers intent was a "public sphere...free of institutional religiosity". There is just too much argument otherwise by the Founders themselves to suggest this.

    I'll say this for Cathy: unlike some of our other atheist brethren (sistren?) she, so far, argues her point of view without disrespecting or belittling those of us who profess faith in the Almighty. Well done.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  10. #19
    handgonnetoter Guest
    All this back and forth BS. You people know what? What our fore fathers wanted or believed is one thing, they are all gone now so we cannot ask them to clarify can we? I am getting out of this stupid discussion because of the one thing I DO BELIEVE, we will all be judged in the end. I do not have a degree in Theology or Philosophy, so I am not qualified to give a credible statement on the future or the past. Hey, I got an idea, ask Obama - I heard he is a Constitutional Lawyer. See, even the educated pros are f_ _ _ ed up on this one.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    All this back and forth BS. ... I am getting out of this stupid discussion...
    I'm sorry our discussion does not rise to your level of acceptability for your attention. Thank you for removing yourself instead of turning the discussion into something else.

    We will see (read) you on other threads..

    This thread is exactly that.. a Discussion.. Free Speech.. One of the great things about free speech is you don't HAVE to exercise it..

    As for Atheist, I'll fight and die for your right to believe in no God, as I hope that you will fight and die for my (our) right to believe in God... The difference is, in the end, I'll give glory to God (creator) for that "right", and for my life, so I can fight on to preserve that "right". As an Atheist, you will fight for that right because it seems like a good idea to preserve.. To yourself be the glory!!

    Gulf Coast, Floriduh
    Sccy is the limit

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. State of the Union grade: 'F' 2010 by Chuck Norris
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 07:54 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 05:34 PM
  3. CHUCK NORRIS...is such a bad @$$...
    By festus in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 01:39 PM
  4. Chuck Norris for President of Texas
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2009, 06:12 AM
  5. Not all liberals hate guns!
    By gdcleanfun in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 01:44 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast