Statue of Satan unveiled

[DieHardBrownsFan]

For pointing out that the constitution demands equality between religions? Does being religious make you oblivious to that?

Yes.

[gftChris]

Yes.

That's not a good thing...

[StinkHole]

For every quote from our Founding Fathers that discredits religion or belief in a God in some way, you could find many more that prove these men were deeply religious. Therefore to discount the belief that these men were not influenced by Christianity would be silly.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

 

There is a reference to a God is in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence...you know, those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

But because God isn't splattered all over the Constitution doesn't debunk the suggestion that this country was founded upon Christian principles. The Founders after all were not interested in writing a religious piece.

 

Yes Satanism qualifies as a religion, but since you anti gun leftists love to argue that the only guns around when the First Amendment was written were muskets, wouldn't it be fair to say that the Founders never conceived that a group of fucktard demon worshippers would want to place a statue of satan on government property? I would bet that the belief in a God or religion back then implied only goodness, not a cult or something representative of evil.

 

Thomas Jeffersons coined "wall of separation" did not imply that religious icons could not be placed on public property (among other leftist claims} as those ignorant motherfucking liberal judges interpret it to be. That phrase was meant as a wall of separation between the Federal govt and the states regarding religious matters. I believe it was in Delaware where the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson asking him to help resolve a dispute regarding which denomination should be the "official religion" of Delaware. Jefferson responded saying the Feds cant be involved, that there must be a "wall of separation" regarding states religious matters.

 

 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

First of all "respecting" here means "in relation to"...that the Govt will make no law in relation to establishing an official religion. It implies nothing beyond that...nothing about the 10 Commandments not being allowed in a judges courtroom.

 

That said, this is a Christian nation period...not by decree but by population, just as India is a Hindu nation, and China is a Buddhist nation. We respect the cultures of those nations majorities...so any Muslim or Satanist that is "offended" by Christian symbols placed on public property or anywhere else can go fuck yourselves.

[calfoxwc]

to answer JBL -

 

I disagree with you. "Based" on, doesn't mean precisely a reflection of.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

As historian John Fea notes, “If the Treaty of Tripoli is correct, and the United States was not ‘founded on the Christian religion,’ then someone forgot to tell the American people… The idea that the United States is a ‘Christian nation,’ has always been central to American identity.” But debate rages over whether the Founders were Deists and why the Constitution bears no mention of God.

Like today, the Founding elites were less spiritually pre-disposed than the overall populace. Then, as now, politicians appropriated Christian themes. Obama even invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage. The Founders knew the talk too. But as Gregg Frazier illustrates, when Washington, Adams and Franklin appealed to Almighty God they didn’t necessarily mean Jehovah.

In The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, (which I’ve not yet read) Dr. Frazier suggests designations of Deist or Christian are too simple. He describes the primary beliefs of core Founders as “theistic rationalism.” Frazier notes, “They took elements of Christianity and elements of natural religion and then, using rationalism, they kept what they thought was reasonable, was rational, and rejected what they considered to be irrational.”

All thought the Bible essential for just and harmonious society. Washington’s Farewell Address neatly summarized, “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensible supports.” Franklin warned the irreligious Thomas Paine, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”

Far from uprooting our cultural moorings, the Forefathers embraced heritage. Historian Larry Schweikart notes, “The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveal them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.”

John Adams noted, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” Citing Calvinist doctrine, Adams credited the widely read Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos as affirming that Christians could rightly revolt against ungodly despotism if led by lower magistrates.

When the Redcoats embarked to confiscate the colonial armaments, war commenced. The Patriots recognized disarmament as the necessary precursor to oppression. Minuteman Levi Preston later described the impetus behind the Battle of Concord, “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

Per Paul Johnson, “The Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act, and the Revolutionary War has the approbation of divine providence.” The Declaration contains four clear references to God. Independence was predicated on the “laws of nature and nature’s God” because men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Continental Congress thought success dependent on “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” to whom they relied on for “the protection of divine Providence.”

John Locke, whose influence was indisputable, clarified that natural rights need to “be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” And that legislation must be “without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

[Clevfan4life]

Yes Satanism qualifies as a religion, but since you anti gun leftists love to argue that the only guns around when the First Amendment was written were muskets, wouldn't it be fair to say that the Founders never conceived that a group of fucktard demon worshippers would want to place a statue of satan on government property? I would bet that the belief in a God or religion back then implied only goodness, not a cult or something representative of evil.

 

 

 

Fuck, having you on ignore only works when i'm signed in...saw this stupid post before I was signed in..so here goes. I'm not looking for an answer from you so don't bother..i'm signed in now so I wont' see it.

 

Are you really so utterly myopically stupid that you think "devil worship" or satan loving in general is a modern derivation of religion? Are you really this historically illiterate? Does not even the frickin bible talk about people who worship lesser and evil, in the minds of the bible writers, religions? And not that I shill for Satanism or whatever, but talk to them and they consider themselves the 'good" religion. I think you're all hokey spritual con artists but that's just my opinion.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1298911/posts

Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . .

and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People.Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S.Constitution.

As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers." Note 3.

The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.

(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.

(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.

(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . .' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).

[calfoxwc]

It's nonsense to make the liberal claim that Christianity had nothing to do with

America's Founding Fathers, and the Founding of our country.

 

To base the claim on the lack of God in our Constitution is silly. Dramatic, sure, but silly.

 

And, reading above, the idea of "separation of church and state" is completely bogus.

 

The Founders didn't NOT want the government to install a particular religion. Why expect them to

do the opposite?

 

But, " By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. "

 

Doesn't establish a religion, (see definition of 'religion'..... but allows the free expression of their spiritual beliefs.

 

So too, a city gov building has every right to put up a nativity scene if they want to. They are people.

If there are Jewish folks, etc. working in that building, and they want to express that, fine.

 

The asinine idea that one "satanist", disregarding the idea that that is a religion, can force the entire city and

the entire city government to be barred from expressing their holiday religion settings, or should also include

a minority of one "satanist" to have an equal disply is stupid.

 

Show me a city where the majority of people in the city are satanic, and hence, the workers in the city hall, too,

and I don't care if they put up sick satanic stuff.

 

99.999999999999999999 percent of Americans will refuse to live there, or travel there, or do business there.

[StinkHole]

Fuck, having you on ignore only works when i'm signed in...saw this stupid post before I was signed in..so here goes. I'm not looking for an answer from you so don't bother..i'm signed in now so I wont' see it.

 

Are you really so utterly myopically stupid that you think "devil worship" or satan loving in general is a modern derivation of religion? Are you really this historically illiterate? Does not even the frickin bible talk about people who worship lesser and evil, in the minds of the bible writers, religions? And not that I shill for Satanism or whatever, but talk to them and they consider themselves the 'good" religion. I think you're all hokey spritual con artists but that's just my opinion.

 

The English language escapes you doesn't it you illiterate moron? Personally I don't categorize Satan worshipping as a religion..satan worshippers do you obese half wit mouth breather.. But by its definition, Satanism is a religion

 

 

The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe: respect for religion.

 

b. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice: the world's many religions.

 

c. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

 

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order: a widow who went into religion and became a nun.

 

3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion: a person for whom art became a religion.

Idiom:

 

A simple Google search would have saved you from looking like a asshole again.

 

Continue ignoring me pussy, it'll save you from me having to embarrass you again.

[jbluhm86]

As I seem to have had overwhelming response to my first reply, I suppose that means that I did not show enough clarity about my position, and that I should further refine my argument. Instead of posting a long, rambling diatribe, as some of the opposition have done, I have decided to reply to my detractors' argument's directly:

 

 

 

to answer JBL -

 

I disagree with you. "Based" on, doesn't mean precisely a reflection of.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

As historian John Fea notes, “If the Treaty of Tripoli is correct, and the United States was not ‘founded on the Christian religion,’ then someone forgot to tell the American people… The idea that the United States is a ‘Christian nation,’ has always been central to American identity.” But debate rages over whether the Founders were Deists and why the Constitution bears no mention of God.

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." -- Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, "something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell." -- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5, 1817

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." - Barry Schwartz, New York Press. [1987, pp. 174-175]

Funny ideas to be had by believers of an exclusively Christian God, with the intention of establishing a Christian nation, are they not? Very funny indeed...

Like today, the Founding elites were less spiritually pre-disposed than the overall populace. Then, as now, politicians appropriated Christian themes. Obama even invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage. The Founders knew the talk too. But as Gregg Frazier illustrates, when Washington, Adams and Franklin appealed to Almighty God they didn’t necessarily mean Jehovah...if that is the case, then you are making my argument for me. If the Founding Fathers had intended to create the United States as a Christian nation, then they would have specifically appealed to the Christian God or Jesus. There were many other forms of government around at that time who did directly cite their specific Gods in their governmental framework, so why would the US be any different? Unless, the Founding Fathers, of which many were atheist or Deist rather that strictly Christian, made a concerted effort to draft a secular Constitution which framed a secular Government separate from any specific religion; which would, as a result of it being separate, have the ability to ensure the right and protections of all religious viewpoints., not just the Judeo-Christian ones.

In The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, (which I’ve not yet read) Dr. Frazier suggests designations of Deist or Christian are too simple. He describes the primary beliefs of core Founders as “theistic rationalism.” Frazier notes, “They took elements of Christianity and elements of natural religion and then, using rationalism, they kept what they thought was reasonable, was rational, and rejected what they considered to be irrational.” If, by elements, Dr. Frazier means the elements of liberty espoused by the Constituition, these are not soley belonging to the domain of Christianity. All religions, to various degrees, express these virtues. Which leads one to wonder, are these universal morals exclusive to the one true religion while being invalid in the other, false religions, or is it rather more likely that these are secular virtues indelible to all of humanity, regardless of their practice of a specific religion? Hmm...

All thought the Bible essential for just and harmonious society. Washington’s Farewell Address neatly summarized, “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensible supports.” Franklin warned the irreligious Thomas Paine, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”

Far from uprooting our cultural moorings, the Forefathers embraced heritage. Historian Larry Schweikart notes, “The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveal them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.”

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams

John Adams noted, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” Citing Calvinist doctrine, Adams credited the widely read Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos as affirming that Christians could rightly revolt against ungodly despotism if led by lower magistrates.

If so, then I guess that explains the general Christian principles of slavery and suppression of women's rights found in the Bible, and that were prevalant after the Constitution's ratification. In that case, I suppose those "heretical" amendments (13th, 14th, and 19th), should be immediately removed, since, as a "Christian" nation, they go against the teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

When the Redcoats embarked to confiscate the colonial armaments, war commenced. The Patriots recognized disarmament as the necessary precursor to oppression. Minuteman Levi Preston later described the impetus behind the Battle of Concord, “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.” (This paragraph does not really pertain to the subject of our debate, which is religion in the Constitution and the meaning behind the Separation of Church and State, which leads me to conclude that either your argument had devolved into senseless babble by this point, or that you have directly copied and pasted this from some article without directly reading and comprehending what it actually means. I haven't decided which is more likely).

Per Paul Johnson, “The Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act, and the Revolutionary War has the approbation of divine providence.” The Declaration contains four clear references to God. Independence was predicated on the “laws of nature and nature’s God” because men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Continental Congress thought success dependent on “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” to whom they relied on for “the protection of divine Providence.”

Again, "Laws of Nature", "Nature's God". the "Creator", and others of their ilk are references of the Deist view, not the specific Christian deity or Jesus. If the Founding Fathers were intending to create a Christian nation, derived from strictly "Christian" values, then wouldn't it be pertinent to mention them directly as such, and to avoid any potential confusion?

John Locke, whose influence was indisputable, clarified that natural rights need to “be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” And that legislation must be “without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

 

 

 

It's nonsense to make the liberal claim that Christianity had nothing to do with

America's Founding Fathers, and the Founding of our country. It is not nonsense to make such a claim; it is actually a rational hypothesis supported by empirical evidence. I tend to not make a claim without at least attempting to present data in such a way to support my claim. Or, to put it another way, just because you claim that the United States is a Christian nation, founded upon soley Christian values, that does not mean that I have to accept that view on "faith" alone.

 

To base the claim on the lack of God in our Constitution is silly. Dramatic, sure, but silly. See above

 

And, reading above, the idea of "separation of church and state" is completely bogus.

 

The Founders didn't NOT want the government to install a particular religion. Why expect them to

do the opposite? Ok, so you claim that the Founders did not want the government to install a particular religion. Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical, then, to try to establish a "Christian" nation founded on so called "Christian" values? What I would expect is that if the Founders intended to establish a Christian nation, they would, at the very least, invoke the Christian God or Jesus Christ in the very document which establishes the structure and laws of their Christian nation.

 

But, " By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. "

 

Doesn't establish a religion, (see definition of 'religion'..... but allows the free expression of their spiritual beliefs.

 

So too, a city gov building has every right to put up a nativity scene if they want to. They are people.

If there are Jewish folks, etc. working in that building, and they want to express that, fine. They do indeed have that right, if the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State were not established to prohibit the expression of religious ideas an iconography within the government. If that is true, then Satanists are equally entitled to place a Satanic display in the same city building. The practice of all religion is guarenteed by the First Amendment. Just because, as a Christian, you do not believe that Satanism is a real religion, that the US government does not as well. The US Government has declared Satanism a valid and legal religious entity, as such, it has equal rights to display its iconography on federal, state and city property just as much as Christians do. This right is protected by the First Amendment as you have defined it, not I.

 

The asinine idea that one "satanist", disregarding the idea that that is a religion, can force the entire city and

the entire city government to be barred from expressing their holiday religion settings, or should also include

a minority of one "satanist" to have an equal disply is stupid. No, what is really asinine is your view that since you and a majority of Americans are Christian, that that somehow gives you claim over the US government and that you can impose and express your religion's values and ideals within the workings of our government, while simultaneously denying those rights to those of other religions and those who do not practice any religion. After all, the Declaration of Independence which you so fervently espouse claims that "All men are created equal" King George III would be proud.

 

Show me a city where the majority of people in the city are satanic, and hence, the workers in the city hall, too,

and I don't care if they put up sick satanic stuff.

 

99.999999999999999999 percent of Americans will refuse to live there, or travel there, or do business there.

 

 

For every quote from our Founding Fathers that discredits religion or belief in a God in some way, you could find many more that prove these men were deeply religious....Being "religious" or "spiritual" does not necessarily imply an inclination towards Christianity. Indeed, most of the Founding Fathers were in fact Deists, not Theists....Therefore to discount the belief that these men were not influenced by Christianity would be silly.
http://www.wallbuild...les.asp?id=8755

 

It would not be silly; it would be a well-reasoned hypothesis, based upon empirical evidence of the ideas of the Founders, provided by their own writings. As this link describes:

 

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#Adams

 

many of the Founding Fathers were not exclusively Christian. They were Deists who, while professing the belief in a Creator of the Universe, often did not believe that the Creator was specifically the Judeo-Christian God or Jesus. Indeed, as referenced by the article, many of the Founding Fathers abhorred many of the precepts of orthodox Christianity and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ (which, i'm assuming, are prerequisites of belonging to the Christian faith, and establishing the United States as a Christian nation). Also you seem to assume that morality is strictly a Christian concept, but many other religions both much older and younger than Christianity expound the very same morals. As such, is it necessary to believe ina specific religion to know to not be a shitty person and to treat your fellow humans with respect and dignity? Or, rather, are these secular concepts applicable to everyone, regardless of religion?

There is a reference to a God is in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence...you know, those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.
But because God isn't splattered all over the Constitution doesn't debunk the suggestion that this country was founded upon Christian principles...Nor, by this same token logic, does it imply that it was founded on Christian principles and that, by extension, the United States is a Christian nation...The Founders after all were not interested in writing a religious piece...I couldn't agree with you more. That is why they wrote a secular Constituiton.

Yes Satanism qualifies as a religion, but since you anti gun leftists (I don't know how this is relevant to our discussion, but to humor you, I have owned guns and I tend to vote independent, without preference to Democrat or Republican, but I digress...) love to argue that the only guns around when the First Amendment was written were muskets, (I assume you're referring to the Second Amendment, which is completly off the topic of our discussion, and which makes your attempted argument look both disjointed and foolish)... wouldn't it be fair to say that the Founders never conceived that a group of fucktard demon worshippers would want to place a statue of satan on government property?...Perhaps not Satanism specifically, since I assume that it was not as prominant or well known of a religious practice back in the superstitious 18th century as it is in the 21st, but the Freedom of Religon clause of the First Amendment drafted by these same Founders guarentees those "fucktard demon worshippers" equal protection to practice their faith as Christians nonetheless, rendering this a moot point... I would bet that the belief in a God or religion back then implied only goodness, not a cult or something representative of evil...If you are implying that "goodness" in this instance, is distinctly Christian, then you shouldn't forget to mention the institution of slavery and relegation of women among these "virtues", supported by the Bible and Jesus, and that the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments which directly oppose this are "representative of evil" and should be discarded

Thomas Jeffersons coined "wall of separation" did not imply that religious icons could not be placed on public property (among other leftist claims} as those ignorant motherfucking liberal judges interpret it to be. That phrase was meant as a wall of separation between the Federal govt and the states regarding religious matters...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

First of all "respecting" here means "in relation to"...that the Govt will make no law in relation to establishing an official religion. It implies nothing beyond that...nothing about the 10 Commandments not being allowed in a judges courtroom.

 

So, by your own logic, the First Amendment does not explicitly imply that religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments are to be seperated away from government buildings and institutions such as courtrooms. If this is indeed the case, then I fail to see why yourself and others such as calfoxwc are so offended when other religious symbols such as the Baphomet statue for Satanism are allowed equal footing on government property along with the Ten Commandments. After all, in your own words, Satanism is considered a religion by the United States Government, so there should be no problem in allowing them to represent themselves on public property, nullifying your argument. As such, we can interpret the ideas found in First Amendment and the concept of Seperation of Church and State in this case in only one of two ways:

 

1) The First Amendment and the Seperation of Church and State do not claim that religious icons have to be seperated/ removed/ disassociated away from govermental functions and institutions, such as federal or state courtrooms. If this is the case, all religions, in this case Satanism. have equal claims to put their respective icons, the Baphomet statue, into that courtroom. Allowing the Ten Commandments to be on government property, while disallowing Satanists would set a precident of favoritism towards one religion over another, i.e. establishing an official religious ideology, which is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment (again, your own interpretation of the First Amendment, not mine). As such, neither the Ten Commandments, the Baphomet statue, nor any other religious icon can be removed from that courtroom without removing them all. Or,

 

2) The First Amendment and the Seperation of Church and State do indeed mean that the functions and institutions of the federal goverment are to be disassociated away from religious institutions and ideologies. Since the Ten Commandments are explcitly a religious ideology derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs, they, and other religious iconography, are to be kept seperate away from the State, and must be removed from institutions which represent the State, i.e. federal courtrooms. By extension, this would mean that the First Amendment is a secular idea, regardless of the particular religous faith of its authors.

 

In a nutshell, its either all or none. All religous icons are to be allowed to be equally represented on federal property, or none at all. You cannot simply cherry-pick which religious icons are allowed to remain at the expense of others.

That said, this is a Christian nation period...not by decree but by population, just as India is a Hindu nation, and China is a Buddhist nation. We respect the cultures of those nations majorities...so any Muslim or Satanist that is "offended" by Christian symbols placed on public property or anywhere else can go fuck yourselves.

 

This idea is, by its very nature, laughably un-American. Indeed, the majority of the American population may represent themselves as Christians. However, this does not mean that the United States as a whole is obligated to identify as a Christian nation by extension. What you are suggesting is that since the majority of the population is Christian, this means that their views have an incommensurate value, ie "Might Makes Right". This foolish line of thinking is decidely un-American, and flies against everything in which the Founders stood for in the terms of liberty. But since you mentioned the Declaration of Independence earlier in your argument, let us further examine it:

 

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I assume that this is one of the phrases of the Declaration that you mentioned above which validates your opinion of the Founders basing their ideas off of Christianity. If so, your are mistaken. The terms "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" are decidedly Deist terms, and not Theist Christian. As mentioned in the link I posted above, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Deist, which, while exposing belief in the idea of a creator God, does not mean that this entity is the God of the Christian Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, whom are specifically Judeo-Christian artifacts. If, as you say, the Founders wrote the Constitution based off of Christian morals and with establishing the United States as a Christian nation as a goal, then why didn't they bother to use Christian terminolgy such "Our Lord Jesus Christ" or "The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit", which were prevelant at that time?

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

As above, the idea of a "Creator" in this case is strictly Deist, not Jehovah or Jesus, and are representative of the Deist phenomenon and the concepts of rationality and Reason specific to the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed, if ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, then everyone's preference to a specific religion or lack thereof are to be equally respected. This can only be accomplished with rights guarenteed by a secular Constitution that creates a secular Government, seperated from religion, which protects the right to practice those religions. Or, more simply put:

 

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

 

[calfoxwc]

If that is true, then Satanists are equally entitled to place a Satanic display in the same city building J

************************************************************

NO, no, NO.

 

I clearly said that elected and hired employees are people, and if they want to put up

a Nativity for Christmas, and most everybody in town is happy with that, or simply

accepting of that,

 

it is not against the law. It isn't the state or city that is putting it up - it is the employees there.

 

I clearly also said, the satanists have no right to force the employees there, to allow the satanist to

force them to put up a satanic display. It has no season, it has no holiday, it has no general acceptance or

enjoyment, and frankly, the satanist is worshipping evil, which is not condoned by most all people in any town,

and is flat out a seriously offensive attempt to offend 99.9 percent of any town/city. There is no justification

to destroy citizens celebration of Christmas, with anti-Christmas, extremely evil displays.

 

Go ahead, have the citizens vote as to whether or not the satanists can destroy their CHRISTMAS holiday.

It's a bs conclusion you keep drawing on the matter.

 

And I didn't make any point for you - you wish it to be true. You are arguing RELIGION, whereas I am referring to

Christain principles. As in Joseph Campbell's "Hero of a Thousan Faces"... his amazing theory on the adventure patterns

and elements of the monomyth - being found throughout literature around the world, historically - I would say, the book

is fascinating, and those elements occur to various impressive degrees.... All those legends and works of fiction throught the

ages reflect the monomyth - it seems to me, that the adventure literature is based on elements of the monomyth.....

obviously not based on his book on the subject.

IOW's, sure, there were various beliefs on Christianity, deism, etc... but our country was founded on Christian principles,

albeit inadvertently, perhaps, and NOT with the Christian RELIGION involved.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith orset of duties;^[2] however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".^[3]

 

You need to differentiate between religion as "people's organized activities",

and inherent spiritual beliefs by individuals who have a disdain for said

group activities.

 

I'm like that. Not religious one iota. And my Wifie is a pastor's kid. We never go to church.

But we have our understanding that God is there, and Jesus died for our sins.

 

That's all. We had both been in churches that had terrible church splits.

That's religion.

 

But the spiritual beliefs of different Founding Fathers most certainly reflected their

ideas on freedom. They had a disdain for state coerced religion. It was a big reason

they fled from England's shores.

 

I've said for many years, though it rarely comes up, that "religion is one of the worst

things that ever happened to Christianity"...

 

That usually got me picked on by my friends, after they had to spit their coffee back out

into napkins, and laughed. You are flippyfloppying the issues. Religion, not the issue.

Christian principles, regardless of a denial that it was intentional by all Founding Fathers,

some of them having had a disdain for religion, most certainly did become a foundation

for the development of our country.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

One nation, UNDER GOD. Enough said.......

[BaconHound]

One nation, UNDER GOD. Enough said.......

 

Exactly, not One Nation, UNDER JESUS, mic drops

[Clevfan4life]

As I seem to have had overwhelming response to my first reply, I suppose that means that I did not show enough clarity about my position, and that I should further refine my argument. Instead of posting a long, rambling diatribe, as some of the opposition have done, I have decided to reply to my detractors' argument's directly:

 

Stuart, on 31 Jul 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

 

For every quote from our Founding Fathers that discredits religion or belief in a God in some way, you could find many more that prove these men were deeply religious....Being "religious" or "spiritual" does not necessarily imply an inclination towards Christianity. Indeed, most of the Founding Fathers were in fact Deists, not Theists....Therefore to discount the belief that these men were not influenced by Christianity would be silly.

http://www.wallbuild...les.asp?id=8755

 

It would not be silly; it would be a well-reasoned hypothesis, based upon empirical evidence of the ideas of the Founders, provided by their own writings. As this link describes:

 

http://freethought.m...hers.html#Adams

 

many of the Founding Fathers were not exclusively Christian. They were Deists who, while professing the belief in a Creator of the Universe, often did not believe that the Creator was specifically the Judeo-Christian God or Jesus. Indeed, as referenced by the article, many of the Founding Fathers abhorred many of the precepts of orthodox Christianity and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ (which, i'm assuming, are prerequisites of belonging to the Christian faith, and establishing the United States as a Christian nation). Also you seem to assume that morality is strictly a Christian concept, but many other religions both much older and younger than Christianity expound the very same morals. As such, is it necessary to believe ina specific religion to know to not be a shitty person and to treat your fellow humans with respect and dignity? Or, rather, are these secular concepts applicable to everyone, regardless of religion?

There is a reference to a God is in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence...you know, those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

But because God isn't splattered all over the Constitution doesn't debunk the suggestion that this country was founded upon Christian principles...Nor, by this same token logic, does it imply that it was founded on Christian principles and that, by extension, the United States is a Christian nation...The Founders after all were not interested in writing a religious piece...I couldn't agree with you more. That is why they wrote a secular Constituiton.

Yes Satanism qualifies as a religion, but since you anti gun leftists (I don't know how this is relevant to our discussion, but to humor you, I have owned guns and I tend to vote independent, without preference to Democrat or Republican, but I digress...) love to argue that the only guns around when the First Amendment was written were muskets, (I assume you're referring to the Second Amendment, which is completly off the topic of our discussion, and which makes your attempted argument look both disjointed and foolish)... wouldn't it be fair to say that the Founders never conceived that a group of fucktard demon worshippers would want to place a statue of satan on government property?...Perhaps not Satanism specifically, since I assume that it was not as prominant or well known of a religious practice back in the superstitious 18th century as it is in the 21st, but the Freedom of Religon clause of the First Amendment drafted by these same Founders guarentees those "fucktard demon worshippers" equal protection to practice their faith as Christians nonetheless, rendering this a moot point... I would bet that the belief in a God or religion back then implied only goodness, not a cult or something representative of evil...If you are implying that "goodness" in this instance, is distinctly Christian, then you shouldn't forget to mention the institution of slavery and relegation of women among these "virtues", supported by the Bible and Jesus, and that the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments which directly oppose this are "representative of evil" and should be discarded

Thomas Jeffersons coined "wall of separation" did not imply that religious icons could not be placed on public property (among other leftist claims} as those ignorant motherfucking liberal judges interpret it to be. That phrase was meant as a wall of separation between the Federal govt and the states regarding religious matters...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

First of all "respecting" here means "in relation to"...that the Govt will make no law in relation to establishing an official religion. It implies nothing beyond that...nothing about the 10 Commandments not being allowed in a judges courtroom.

So, by your own logic, the First Amendment does not explicitly imply that religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments are to be seperated away from government buildings and institutions such as courtrooms. If this is indeed the case, then I fail to see why yourself and others such as calfoxwc are so offended when other religious symbols such as the Baphomet statue for Satanism are allowed equal footing on government property along with the Ten Commandments. After all, in your own words, Satanism is considered a religion by the United States Government, so there should be no problem in allowing them to represent themselves on public property, nullifying your argument. As such, we can interpret the ideas found in First Amendment and the concept of Seperation of Church and State in this case in only one of two ways:

1) The First Amendment and the Seperation of Church and State do not claim that religious icons have to be seperated/ removed/ disassociated away from govermental functions and institutions, such as federal or state courtrooms. If this is the case, all religions, in this case Satanism. have equal claims to put their respective icons, the Baphomet statue, into that courtroom. Allowing the Ten Commandments to be on government property, while disallowing Satanists would set a precident of favoritism towards one religion over another, i.e. establishing an official religious ideology, which is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment (again, your own interpretation of the First Amendment, not mine). As such, neither the Ten Commandments, the Baphomet statue, nor any other religious icon can be removed from that courtroom without removing them all. Or,

2) The First Amendment and the Seperation of Church and State do indeed mean that the functions and institutions of the federal goverment are to be disassociated away from religious institutions and ideologies. Since the Ten Commandments are explcitly a religious ideology derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs, they, and other religious iconography, are to be kept seperate away from the State, and must be removed from institutions which represent the State, i.e. federal courtrooms. By extension, this would mean that the First Amendment is a secular idea, regardless of the particular religous faith of its authors.

In a nutshell, its either all or none. All religous icons are to be allowed to be equally represented on federal property, or none at all. You cannot simply cherry-pick which religious icons are allowed to remain at the expense of others.

That said, this is a Christian nation period...not by decree but by population, just as India is a Hindu nation, and China is a Buddhist nation. We respect the cultures of those nations majorities...so any Muslim or Satanist that is "offended" by Christian symbols placed on public property or anywhere else can go fuck yourselves.

 

This idea is, by its very nature, laughably un-American. Indeed, the majority of the American population may represent themselves as Christians. However, this does not mean that the United States as a whole is obligated to identify as a Christian nation by extension. What you are suggesting is that since the majority of the population is Christian, this means that their views have an incommensurate value, ie "Might Makes Right". This foolish line of thinking is decidely un-American, and flies against everything in which the Founders stood for in the terms of liberty. But since you mentioned the Declaration of Independence earlier in your argument, let us further examine it:

 

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I assume that this is one of the phrases of the Declaration that you mentioned above which validates your opinion of the Founders basing their ideas off of Christianity. If so, your are mistaken. The terms "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" are decidedly Deist terms, and not Theist Christian. As mentioned in the link I posted above, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Deist, which, while exposing belief in the idea of a creator God, does not mean that this entity is the God of the Christian Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, whom are specifically Judeo-Christian artifacts. If, as you say, the Founders wrote the Constitution based off of Christian morals and with establishing the United States as a Christian nation as a goal, then why didn't they bother to use Christian terminolgy such "Our Lord Jesus Christ" or "The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit", which were prevelant at that time?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

As above, the idea of a "Creator" in this case is strictly Deist, not Jehovah or Jesus, and are representative of the Deist phenomenon and the concepts of rationality and Reason specific to the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed, if ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, then everyone's preference to a specific religion or lack thereof are to be equally respected. This can only be accomplished with rights guarenteed by a secular Constitution that creates a secular Government, seperated from religion, which protects the right to practice those religions. Or, more simply put:

 

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

 

 

 

 

 

my goodness Stuart, you're not gonna shit right all week. Did he at least give you a courtesy reach around? I mean that was just all wrong all the way up the ass. We all know you're a little fgt and such and would love it under normal circumstances...but that couldn't have felt good. I mean that looked up to the elbow and beyond. Internal bleeding is no joke dude go have that looked at.

[gftChris]

One nation, UNDER GOD. Enough said.......

Except, that's only, what, 60 years old? I know the US is a young country, but it's older than that, right?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Jesus is referred to as "equal" with God by both John and Paul. In John 5:18, the author comments on why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus: "Because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul refers to Jesus when he was "in the form (Gk. morphe; in Greek usage this word means the set of characteristics that makes a thing what it is) of God" thinking "his equality with God" not something to be g.asped onto, but emptying himself and becoming man (cf. Phil. 2:6-10). Paul assumes his readers already knew Jesus to be equal with God, the Father.

Jesus is referred to in the New Testament with the title Lord as it is uniquely applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Jesus calls himself "the Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28. The Sabbath is referred to as the "Sabbath of Yahweh" in the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 20:10; see also Is. 8:13, referred to in 1 Peter 3:15; and Joel 2:31-32, quoted both in Acts 2:20-21 and in Rom. 10:13).

The First and Last Point

The final proof of Jesus’ divinity we will consider can be found in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: "And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’"

But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, we find Jesus revealing himself to be "the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end":

And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . . I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."

Jesus is God.

[StinkHole]

my goodness Stuart, you're not gonna shit right all week. Did he at least give you a courtesy reach around? I mean that was just all wrong all the way up the ass. We all know you're a little fgt and such and would love it under normal circumstances...but that couldn't have felt good. I mean that looked up to the elbow and beyond. Internal bleeding is no joke dude go have that looked at.

 

This pussy has me on ignore and I'm still in his head...isn't that right tubby?

 

Stifle your childish exuberance thinking jbluhm86 "got me". All his replies amounted to nothing but face palming "nuh-uhs".

 

It is a myth the Founders were deists, I grow weary of explaining this to you assholes

 

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, all of them were Christians:

 

Episcopalian/Anglican - 28

Congregationalist - 11

Presbyterian - 12

Quaker - 2

Unitarian/Universalist - 2

Catholic - 1

TOTAL - 56 - 100%

 

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/07/myth-15-founding-fathers-were.html

 

Again, the Founders quotes regarding God, the Bible, and Jesus.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

[MLD Woody]

"The final proof..." *uses Bible*

 

 

Love that

[gftChris]

It's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true because the bible says so and god wrote the bible so it's true...

[MLD Woody]

I'm convinced.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Sound proof.

[BaconHound]

 

Jesus is referred to as "equal" with God by both John and Paul. In John 5:18, the author comments on why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus: "Because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul refers to Jesus when he was "in the form (Gk. morphe; in Greek usage this word means the set of characteristics that makes a thing what it is) of God" thinking "his equality with God" not something to be g.asped onto, but emptying himself and becoming man (cf. Phil. 2:6-10). Paul assumes his readers already knew Jesus to be equal with God, the Father.

Jesus is referred to in the New Testament with the title Lord as it is uniquely applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Jesus calls himself "the Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28. The Sabbath is referred to as the "Sabbath of Yahweh" in the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 20:10; see also Is. 8:13, referred to in 1 Peter 3:15; and Joel 2:31-32, quoted both in Acts 2:20-21 and in Rom. 10:13).

The First and Last Point

The final proof of Jesus’ divinity we will consider can be found in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: "And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’"

But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, we find Jesus revealing himself to be "the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end":

And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . . I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."

Jesus is God.

 

 

 

Good for you but that's not true for all Americans