Obviously, they intended for America to be a Godless, atheist, secular state with transgender bathrooms and open borders
Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Since i see flys post in your response pj, to his question, the intent was that all christian sects could follow their own beliefs without government interference (england had state and government mixed and they didnt want that here, to be told how to worship the Lord), then once here past puritanism, since methodists, catholics, baptists, etc were already clamoring for the state to enforce one or the other it was needed to separate government from state to protect the CHURCH, not the state.
Universalism back then wasnt what it is now, then it was that all christian denominations were equal, now its that all faiths are equal.
So you basically need to know your history and puritan jurisprudence, which is what American law evolved from.
Loads of people to today have poor history knowledge and havent a clue what they speak about.
Universalism back then wasnt what it is now, then it was that all christian denominations were equal, now its that all faiths are equal.
So you basically need to know your history and puritan jurisprudence, which is what American law evolved from.
Loads of people to today have poor history knowledge and havent a clue what they speak about.
The cited comments are not from the Federalist Papers, but Madison did write the Bill of Rights as well; it's hard to make a case that he didn't understand what it means, or why it was written as it is.
Not to say that some people won't try.
Nevertheless, it is discussed in the Federalist Papers.
All of this is very obvious to anyone with the equivalent to a BA in History.
I'm leaving off a few things I noted before about agency as opposed to individual and I won't address what you think I need to be instructed in or what I've had to drink.
I respect your right to hold the position, but I fundamentally disagree with it. If our earlier society was an illustration of faith then it's not much of one. And our former errors are a match for our present ones.
You mean the society that was still a couple of years removed from giving black people essential rights within that formerly God fearing republic? All sorts of people are better off these days. But we can do better. I hope we continue to try. The unborn, by way of. We're continuing to fail them. And it wasn't the Democrats you mistrust who gave us Roe.
Me either. But souls aren't won by Congress, or flags, or monuments or words on coins. They aren't lost by them either.
We know exactly what he was doing. And I set out exactly why that can't be allowed. If that same coach bowed to Mecca with a handful of kids the clamor would be mostly in support of the school system.
I'm knowing that the law is what stands between me and every well intentioned (or otherwise) guy with a different set of beliefs about what he should be permitted to do.
Said every guy with a great idea and every guy with a match in the tender who simply believed he had one.
It's not about need. It's about right. Anyone can choose to be a bigot, but they don't have the right to harm anyone with it. Denying me the right to work, live, eat where anyone else can is causing a harm. It creates ghettos and caste systems. We did a horrible job on that for most of our life as a nation, but it's improving.
It's not about that.
Arguable, but it's not about that either.
Right. White's are the majority and the holders of most wealth and power in our society. Historically we've done most of the discriminating and denial for that reason. I used a representative sample of people to represent those discriminated against.
That doesn't correct any position I've taken.
But not under Christ. That wasn't an accident. They'd seen what a state putting its authority in a particular expression led to and they didn't want to repeat the error.
Replaced with religious institutional instruction? That's just ducky, Lon, until the Adventists run your system, or the Muslims, or JWs and that's the only school you can afford.
Schools shouldn't teach your kid morality. It should teach your kid math, science, reading, civics and history. Art and physical education too. Moral instruction is for the parent or guardian.
After you.
Governments are people. A people without God are lost. We aren't a people without God. We don't have to paint His name on the side of every building we make to remind ourselves of it.
Lon...friend of mine, I advocate an American that stops well intentioned, decent men from recreating the mistakes our forefathers provided a defense against.
There are a huge number of people who aren't Christian in this society, Lon. Neither they, nor the founders want you to order their existence, well meaning and gentle as that might be. Not you and not the fellow whose Christianity looks very different and much less gentle than yours.
Barbarian observes:
The cited comments are not from the Federalist Papers, but Madison did write the Bill of Rights as well; it's hard to make a case that he didn't understand what it means, or why it was written as it is.
I don't think that section shows up anywhere in the Federalist Papers.
Well, it's likely that Hamilton agreed with Madison and the other founders about that wall of separation between Church and state. But I'm not sure that he actually wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. In which of the articles do you think Madison (or Hamilton) wrote about the evils of established religion?
The cited comments are not from the Federalist Papers, but Madison did write the Bill of Rights as well; it's hard to make a case that he didn't understand what it means, or why it was written as it is.
I don't think that section shows up anywhere in the Federalist Papers.
Well, it's likely that Hamilton agreed with Madison and the other founders about that wall of separation between Church and state. But I'm not sure that he actually wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. In which of the articles do you think Madison (or Hamilton) wrote about the evils of established religion?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit observes:
Barbarian must downplay the Declaration of Independence because the author of it expressly contradicts his political position as well as his profession as an employee of a centralized school system.
I dare say the author of the Declaration knew what he was talkin' about.
This discussion would not be taking place if our Independence had not already been usurped by the instituting of a centralized school system.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publ...ions/thomas-jefferson-public-education-part-1
What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.
For Jefferson, the distribution of power among federal, state, county, and local agencies was indispensable to America’s “system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.
” When a person is empowered to control his own destiny at the local level, “he feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs not merely at an election, one day in the year, but every day.” Such a person will defend his liberty; “he will let the heart be torn out of his body, sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte.”
1Mind1Spirit especially likes this one....
A question of some doubt might be raised…as to the rights and duties of society towards its members, infant and adult. Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant Members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? — to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals?
Jefferson answered his own questions thusly:
“It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.”
Barbarian must downplay the Declaration of Independence because the author of it expressly contradicts his political position as well as his profession as an employee of a centralized school system.
I dare say the author of the Declaration knew what he was talkin' about.
This discussion would not be taking place if our Independence had not already been usurped by the instituting of a centralized school system.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publ...ions/thomas-jefferson-public-education-part-1
What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.
For Jefferson, the distribution of power among federal, state, county, and local agencies was indispensable to America’s “system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.
” When a person is empowered to control his own destiny at the local level, “he feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs not merely at an election, one day in the year, but every day.” Such a person will defend his liberty; “he will let the heart be torn out of his body, sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte.”
1Mind1Spirit especially likes this one....
A question of some doubt might be raised…as to the rights and duties of society towards its members, infant and adult. Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant Members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? — to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals?
Jefferson answered his own questions thusly:
“It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.”
Lon
Well-known member
1) It doesn't matter which group gave us Roe. I wasn't a Republican those days, by that token. I've not put much stock in either party. As to rights, you are under the impression that slavery is unbiblical or something. Slavery is bad, but worse? Godlessness. No matter how hard you beat that drum, you are comparing a cold to cancer at that point. It doesn't even compare. There are still racial deaths, turned from a rope to a gun or knife in this country. It is FAR worse that it is happening in schools. You need to remove those glasses, TH. I know you disagree with me, but your glasses aren't 20/20 nor even 20/40
Yes they are! Luke 19:40 Deuteronomy 11:18-28 Proverbs 22:6
I am not the boss of them. You are not the boss of them. There is no way, other than mind reading, you'd even know what they were doing. ALL it does is offend your sensibility. Sorry, Congress shall make no law. You have a right to be offended, not stop it.
I've aced my law classes (not many of them). I do know the law, especially as pertaining to schools. The ONLY prohibition in WA is not to proselytize during school hours.
Yes it is. Ten football players bowing to Mecca is no offense! It is 'their' celebration. Secular denies them inanely. This IS congress making laws about religion! That they cannot practice anywhere they please! The law is "as long as it doesn't interfere with instruction and is not done to convert..." After that, Congress is making laws 'respecting' religion: Atheism. We are NOT a secular people! We are 'becoming' that to some degree and it is government fault.
:nono: Nope. They are given to me by God alone, they are ensured by the Constitution. "Every guy" are judges without God and ACLU lawyers on an atheist crusade, taking my money through teacher union dues, to do so, otherwise they'd be nonexistent. They have to steal money to exist.
And I said it was 'wrong' so it isn't about 'right.' "No soup for you!" or cake, is not a right.
It was a side note. That pendulum swing is too far. I am sympathetic to the need and would have been for it, simply because 'bad' men needed to be set straight. They needed to be strong-armed, but when such laws start strong-arming everybody else, it is no longer a good service. If it were, the BLM group would be right: We need to give up our houses too. Maybe THAT is too far :think:
I know, which carries its own mentality. An ideal society would have no affirmative action, just hiring the right man.
Yes it does. Your 'values' of right and wrong are Christian. The three judges in this case were 'wrong.' They do not have a right to tell anyone they cannot worship. A celebration and thanksgiving after the game is nobody's business but those practice in which Congress shall make NO law.
YET they wanted to encourage religion and its expression. We ran to this country and became a nation so we 'could' worship freely.
All of them more-or-less preferred to atheism (godless instruction). You forgot something: Free means the parents get to decide.
They 'used' to, AND did a better job at it. They still do, btw, just not very good at it. As soon as the 10 commandments came off the walls, the schools quickly started dissolving and de-evolving to the vacuum left in the wake. Yes, it SHOULD teach morality. When you expel a kid, you are teaching morality. When you ask a child not to cuss in class, you are teaching morality. On this, I'm very much your polar opposite. Morality is MORE important than the rest of these. Don't think I don't want them taught as well, as a matter of fact, Christian schools tend to do much better in equipping kids (so do home-schools).
:nono: I have no 'theory' or 'ideal' to govern me. I don't have to explain their quotes away. It is still your turn.
Deuteronomy 11:18-28 :think:
I love you for it. I just believe you are well-intentioned-wrong. You are in the system so subject to it w/o the greater perspective, imho. Imho, yours is the narrower.
Sort of. If every government official and politician were Christian first in their lives, we'd have a different looking country. That isn't a blanket, just an ideal that can't be attained. However, I don't want to 'order' society. I just want government, greatly influence by the ACLU, to stop witch hunts for every expression that has nothing to do with them. A teacher, on his own time, at school, can and should be able to read his bible and pray for his students with no molesting. He/she isn't pushing anything, just 'offending' someone else' sensibilities. They have a right to be offended and not a right not to be offended. They are frankly just busy-bodies. There is NO harm whatsoever in the expression. Laws were never intended to interfere with such. Whether I have it from God or not, my Constitutional rights are guaranteed a faith free from government UNLESS I'm harming another. A 'feigned' harm to sensibility is goofy. If Muslims are practicing love instead of hate, I want to applaud that after a game. If they aren't interfering with the fire marshal, leave them alone. "Congress shall make no law..."
Lon
Well-known member
Freedom, not laws after laws denying them.
Lon, what makes you think atheists or secularists and the Democrats in Washington are "trouncing any show of religious expression in America "?
This simply isn't happening . The majority of Americans are still Christians, and Christians have most of the power, money and influence in America . The overwhelming majority of members of congress and politicians all over America are Christians . All 45 US presidents have been at least nominally, Christian .
And remember - America is now the most religiously diverse nation in world history, with followers of virtually every religion in existence, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and other religions hardly anyone has heard of in this country .
Not to mention millions of atheists and agnostics . There are now more ATHEISTS in America than there were people at the time of our founding, and who knows how many agnostics .
There are many people who call themselves "spiritual but not religious ". What about the rights of all these people ?
And the US Constitution guarantees the right of everyone living in America to follow any religion, as well as the right not to follow any religion at all . IT also states this " There shall be no religious test for public office ".
The founders never anticipated a time when there would be followers of so many different religions as well as many atheists , but if they could come back today, they would be overjoyed to see such religious diversity in America and would have absolutely no problem with atheists and agnostics .
And they would have no problems with Muslims settling in America and becoming US citizens as long as they were peaceful and law-abiding . And the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America ARE peaceful and law-abiding .
Religious diversity actually makes America a better country ! Christians have every right to be Christian , but they MUST respect the rights of all non-christians in America . Unfortunately, not all of hem do .
This simply isn't happening . The majority of Americans are still Christians, and Christians have most of the power, money and influence in America . The overwhelming majority of members of congress and politicians all over America are Christians . All 45 US presidents have been at least nominally, Christian .
And remember - America is now the most religiously diverse nation in world history, with followers of virtually every religion in existence, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and other religions hardly anyone has heard of in this country .
Not to mention millions of atheists and agnostics . There are now more ATHEISTS in America than there were people at the time of our founding, and who knows how many agnostics .
There are many people who call themselves "spiritual but not religious ". What about the rights of all these people ?
And the US Constitution guarantees the right of everyone living in America to follow any religion, as well as the right not to follow any religion at all . IT also states this " There shall be no religious test for public office ".
The founders never anticipated a time when there would be followers of so many different religions as well as many atheists , but if they could come back today, they would be overjoyed to see such religious diversity in America and would have absolutely no problem with atheists and agnostics .
And they would have no problems with Muslims settling in America and becoming US citizens as long as they were peaceful and law-abiding . And the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America ARE peaceful and law-abiding .
Religious diversity actually makes America a better country ! Christians have every right to be Christian , but they MUST respect the rights of all non-christians in America . Unfortunately, not all of hem do .
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Doesn't this mean there is no Article granting Congress the right to spend money on the charitable kindhearted ideas of our deluded leftist citizens?
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
― James Madison
be·nev·o·lent
[bəˈnevələnt]
ADJECTIVE
well meaning and kindly:
"a benevolent smile"
synonyms: kind · kindly · kindhearted · big-hearted · good-natured · good · benign · [more]
(of an organization) serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose:
"a benevolent fund"
synonyms: charitable · nonprofit · not-for-profit · noncommercial · [more]
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
― James Madison
be·nev·o·lent
[bəˈnevələnt]
ADJECTIVE
well meaning and kindly:
"a benevolent smile"
synonyms: kind · kindly · kindhearted · big-hearted · good-natured · good · benign · [more]
(of an organization) serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose:
"a benevolent fund"
synonyms: charitable · nonprofit · not-for-profit · noncommercial · [more]
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
As far as wedding cakes go....
1Mind1Spirit thinks it's up to the proprietor what the definition of "wedding cake" is.
After all it is his/her product idn't it?
I personally have never seen a bakery claiming to be Burger King....
:crackup:
1Mind1Spirit thinks it's up to the proprietor what the definition of "wedding cake" is.
After all it is his/her product idn't it?
I personally have never seen a bakery claiming to be Burger King....
:crackup:
Where you mostly say, "No" I'm going to leave it at what I set out prior to avoid repetition to no particular advance.
I wrote: souls aren't won by Congress, or flags, or monuments or words on coins. They aren't lost by them either.
Sorry about going on, but when anyone who hasn't had that says, "I know the law" it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. You were saying.
I wrote: Schools shouldn't teach your kid morality. It should teach your kid math, science, reading, civics and history. Art and physical education too. Moral instruction is for the parent or guardian.
Better yet, be a teacher at school who conducts himself in a Christ like fashion. Something for every Christian to consider.
It galls those in the midst of proclaiming Democrats baby killers (despite there being a pro life camp within the party and a pro choice contingent in the Republican midst). It invites a certain sobriety into debates about political partisanship. I think that has value.
How's this, when I write that feel free to correct me on the point. Fair enough?
I wrote: souls aren't won by Congress, or flags, or monuments or words on coins. They aren't lost by them either.
That's not talking about the state.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. We know the facts and what was being done by the coach. There's no mystery in it. Just as there's no real mystery in the ruling.
I congratulate you. But it's a long way from knowing the law. That involves a breadth of particular education in applying well honed critical thinking skills, along with an enormous amount of reading, both in case law and theory that ends in a particular and broader way of thinking about the law nothing short of it will tend to accomplish.
Sorry about going on, but when anyone who hasn't had that says, "I know the law" it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. You were saying.
I think the notion here follows that for the reasons I noted prior regarding agency and coercion. Or that's the difference between black letter and application.
Did anyone actually deny the kids the right to pray? My understanding was that the singular objection here was the coach's involvement for the reasons set out prior.
Answered as to the impact of authority inherent in the coach by position and the subtle nature of coercive influence, coupled with agency. We are a secular government and a largely religious people. The former state protects the latter freedom. What we become we are responsible for and just as a flag won't make you more or less patriotic, words on paper won't do much for you unless you value them.
And ideal society wouldn't need it, because it wouldn't have racist, artificial barriers.
No, it doesn't.
Not a point of any confusion with me, Lon.
That wasn't the ruling. I've noted what this was about, a bit above and largely prior.
The pilgrims, to be sure. A lot of people came for a lot of different reasons. Freedom of conscience has always been high on that list, I'd imagine. And we don't need the state stamping its authority on any particular church, encouraging the nightmare of war and persecution that flowed from that. Just so. The rest goes back to the coach's authority, the reasonable concern over coercion and his role as an agent of the school, which is a state school.
For their children in their homes. Sure. I didn't forget. I encourage it. I think it's a moral obligation that needs to be taken seriously.
I wrote: Schools shouldn't teach your kid morality. It should teach your kid math, science, reading, civics and history. Art and physical education too. Moral instruction is for the parent or guardian.
Which group?
You actually can have the 10 Commandments on a school wall, so long as it isn't for religious purposes. You could use it for historical, civic, or other lessons. And within the strictures of a comparative religion course you could have it and other emblems of religious thought on the wall. In the Kentucky case that got to the S. Ct. the problem was the state was requiring a posting of it in every classroom without any pretext of it being set there to advance an academic end. That's proselytizing.
There's a moral or at least ethical component to any rule, but I'm talking about a system of moral valuation that comes with a religious context and the school has no business instructing anyone's child in it.
You can as easily frame it as contract and ethic. You attend subject to these rules and abrogating them puts you in breach of your agreement as a participant, subject to redress as set out in the regulations controlling. Is running in the hall a moral issue?
That's not our difference. I think morality is so important I insist on being in charge of it and resist the school/state's interference as unlawful.
Right. That's not writing them on a wall. That's not the state again, either. I completely agree with the scripture. I just don't agree with how you're trying to use it.
Right back at you on every count, which is a good foundation, I think. I wish more people approached more differences that way...I wish I did it more often than I do. Anyway...
If we didn't think we had the better perspective it would be a peculiar thing to argue. It's equally self serving and peculiar to note you think you know better, or that God needs to teach me a lesson you have under your belt, etc. I mean, it's entirely possible, but it's also entirely possible you're wrong. But when you put it out there without that caveat you just look a little...unhumble?
The ACLU has made its share of mistakes, but it has also fought for religious freedom, including that expression in schools. It has a good aim. And I don't believe many want a witch hunt, but who gets to decide what constitutes that and by what means?
Aloud? Absolutely not. Leading? Absolutely not. In front of his class? Absolutely not. That's precisely the sort of thing we came here to get away from, being induced, coerced or indoctrinated at close distance. Who knows, get enough kids to see the example of the teacher reading his Bible next to the atheist or Jewish kid and someone might get an idea, or two. Not all of them godly.
Better yet, be a teacher at school who conducts himself in a Christ like fashion. Something for every Christian to consider.
You've just finished saying pulling out the visible signs of connection to the faith undermines the institutions, that even fundamental, rudimentary rules are morality plays, that public schools should be abolished and replaced by Christian ones. So which is it?
This was never about being offended. It was always about keeping proselytization out of the classroom, both the obvious and the sneaky.
I don't believe you'd get any support from parents who had a Muslim reading the Koran in class and praying to Allah for his students.
Sure they were. The fundamental interference begins with the state being forbidden to establish a state religion, or promote it de facto through agency.
A harm would be present in the indoctrination of students who are not there to attend church, or mosque, etc. It is an interference with the parent's right to instruct their children in the way they should go.
We aren't talking about kids praying after a game. They can go on and do that.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
This guy really should take me off ignore.
He uses ignore? Well my my.
Why does Town have you on ignore?This guy really should take me off ignore.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I probably offended him.