The post above was courtesy of Wikipedia. As you read through that, you will again see that the prevailing theme is to keep the government unentangled or separate from the free exercise of religion or religious practices. The whole idea and premise that promotes the current definition of "separation of church and state" is a relatively new one dating back to around 1947 as best I can determine. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for religious services, prayer and prayer meetings to be conducted IN CHAMBERS, especially by the founding fathers and their successors. The Ten Commandments being prominently placed in court houses and the Congress, the swearing in of public servants with the Holy Bible, the use of the Holy Bible as a primer and textbook in the original public schools all give evidence to the fact that religion was not only allowed but encourage in multiple areas of government.
As to my comment on "retarded fools", perhaps I was being a little bit harsh. Time will tell. One of the drawbacks of forums is that I am limited to comments posted. When I see an uneducated/uninformed comment posted as dogma, it leads to those conclusions.
That being said, I will always welcome the opportunity to discuss the topic with you and I promise to TRY to curb my arrogance and conceit provided that we both agree that TRUTH and historical accuracy is the basis for right. Not political ideology, platform or talking points.
Thought I would refresh this for VeggieMeat just in case you didnt see it earlier.
So does that mean no, you can't get us in?
What's the use of having friends in low places if you can't get invited to the victory dance?
Who said we were friends? The Koch brothers are both Libertarians who only support the GOP because they are not stupid enough to support the Dems.
Yes. My family is very moralistic and it's all done without belief or support in any church, religion, or deity. Morals do not always equal religion and religion does not always equal morals. We're good, caring, honest people because that's the right way to live. In fact, other than going to church or saying prayers, I'd bet that there isn't much difference between your family and mine.
First, Wikipedia is not a valid source. It is openly edited by many uneducated people, and many of the sources cited across the site tend to be non-existent or misused.
I am well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, as well as the famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that they would not be treated negatively simply because another religious organization had a strong majority in government at the time with a very public near-theocratic agenda.
The Lemon test cited is only seen by the SCOTUS as a mere utility test, and not really a true test of Constitutionality. Just because a test is widely cited does not mean that it was a real factor in the decision. In fact, in 1993 it gave us this great passage from Justice Scalia:
(I love Supreme Court humor, by the way. Although, there is a lot better humor in oral argument transcripts. For example)
As to your "refresh[ed]" post, what is "moral" to one religious group may be "immoral" to another. So who is to define the measure of morality? Just because a specific group says that something is right or wrong does not mean that it is right or wrong.
I am well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, as well as the famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that they would not be treated negatively simply because another religious organization had a strong majority in government at the time with a very public near-theocratic agenda.
The Lemon test cited is only seen by the SCOTUS as a mere utility test, and not really a true test of Constitutionality. Just because a test is widely cited does not mean that it was a real factor in the decision. In fact, in 1993 it gave us this great passage from Justice Scalia:
(I love Supreme Court humor, by the way. Although, there is a lot better humor in oral argument transcripts. For example)
As to your "refresh[ed]" post, what is "moral" to one religious group may be "immoral" to another. So who is to define the measure of morality? Just because a specific group says that something is right or wrong does not mean that it is right or wrong.
Still waiting on the proof to back up your original statement. "Religion has no place in government"
When religion influences Government and law, The People are then forced to vote in favor of certain religious beliefs. This is fine within a church, where everybody is the same religion, but not in a country with countless different religions (including those of us with no religion) which hold contradicting beliefs.
The golden principle. Treat people as you would be treated. As simple as that.
This principle existed WAY before Christ.
Religion's monopoly on morality has been very harmful to the field of morality/ethics. In ancient Greece and Rome, morality and ethics were serious fields of philosophical inquiry as to how man should act. This was rarely the case in the mysticist-dominated Eastern world, which mostly defined "morality" as either what some ancient manuscripts say, or what some thug and his sponsored witch doctors say (or some variation of both). Invariably, mysticist religions propagated a moral code which required that man not live for his own interests, but must always place the interests of others above his own. A consistent practice of this form of morality invariably results in the death of the practitioner, and the only reason adherents of this view of morality manage to live is through by exercising whatever forms of self-interest their own repressed survival instincts allow them. When faced with the fact that their "morality" is not compatible with the requirements of man's survival, rather than concede that they were wrong, the witch doctors rebel against reality and answer that this world is evil, that man is evil and corrupt by nature, and that his only hope for happiness is in renunciation of happiness in this world for the hope of happiness in the next. Adherents to this sort of philosophy are always plagued by chronic guilt and insecurity... which make them easy to keep in line, which is why thugs who rule with brute force have always found it convenient to sponsor the propagators of such forms of morality.
Unfortunately this Eastern (or more specifically middle-eastern) mysticist notion of morality came to dominate the Western world after the fall of Rome, resulting in the Dark Ages. Though mankind has achieved a great increase in his standard of living since then, thanks to the advent of capitalism, both man and capitalism are stymied by mysticist religion's stranglehold on the field of morality and ethics. This will be the case as long as man turns to ancient scriptures and the babblings of witch doctors as the source of morality, rather than on his capacity for perceiving reality and his capacity for applying reason to it.
I would kill for it.
Unfortunately this Eastern (or more specifically middle-eastern) mysticist notion of morality came to dominate the Western world after the fall of Rome, resulting in the Dark Ages. Though mankind has achieved a great increase in his standard of living since then, thanks to the advent of capitalism, both man and capitalism are stymied by mysticist religion's stranglehold on the field of morality and ethics. This will be the case as long as man turns to ancient scriptures and the babblings of witch doctors as the source of morality, rather than on his capacity for perceiving reality and his capacity for applying reason to it.
justanotherpatriot said:
I would kill for it.
