"Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" pg. 43. by Gregg Jackson.
"The liberal left has quoted the phrase "separation of church and state" so often the majority of American public believe the words actually appeared in the Constitution.
They don't.
That phrase doesn't exist in our Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence. Rather, the phrase first appeared in a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote on January 1, 1802...eleven years after the First Amendment was ratified. By improperly attributing Jefferson's private words to the Constitution, the left has attempted to revise history and the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Their hope, it would seem, is to dismantle the religious underpinnings of America by distorting and manipulating the First Amendment to justify their staunch opposition to conservative federal court nominees, school choice, faith-based initiatives, traditional marriage, voluntary school prayer, recitation of the pledge of allegiance, the flying of the American flag and the posting of the Ten commandments in schools and courthouses.
A more thorough examination of the First Amendment and those who authored and debated it reveals the Founders never intended there be a wall between church and state. The intent was for individual American citizens to be assured of uninhibited freedom to practice their religion, unencumbered by the constraints of the federal government."
I have read recently that in Jefferson's letter, he was trying to explain the exact opposite of the way the left is trying to spin it today. In other words, that no single church (or denomination) should have a place in running our government. The intent was to avoid the situation in England when King Henry the 8th and the Anglican Church were running the country.
It never intended that individuals could not worship in public or display religious symbols. It clearly was the intent in the Constitution when it mentions "freedom of religion" to free people in America to be able worship in their own way in this country with out government interference or interruption as we are seeing happening from the liberal/progressives today.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
if a person is a;ive, he's entitled to certain rights --
Right, CP, if a person is lucky enough to be alive, that person has INALIENABLE, inherent rights given by a transcendent authority, not by governments. The government is to serve the people and not people serve the government. Man is not the end in all but is created to serve for the good of all without exception.
quote:
Would you have the official US religion to be Christianity?
Christianity is not relative and based upon situational ethics. It is based upon a truth that never changes. We are after all, "One Nation Under God." Remove God and this great nation as all other nations have proven by removing Judeo Christians values, will surely collapse. If morality collapses in a nation that nation will disappear. Islamofascism is moving across and taking over the European continent killing the local cultures. Is that what you want in America?
Just to nitpick, it's UNalienable rights. (They actually argued about that word in committee. "IN" or "UN"? They decided at the last minute to go with "UN".)
You realize that across the span of time, a democracy with universal suffrage has been around for only a very short time? We have spent the bulk of that time under monarchies asserting "Divine Right". Most of the planet is still NOT under any government utilizing democracy with universal suffrage. For being posited as a preference of God's that Mankind should heel to democracy with universal suffrage is rather contradictory. There isn't a single solitary religion that operates under a democracy, utilizing universal suffrage. Sort of God saying, "Do as I say, not as I do"?
Did you ever wonder why, when you've got the shining example of America's democracy right there to be seen, the majority of the world's population _still_ have not risen up to install their own democracies? That, further, so many of the people in monarchies and communist regimes and other forms of government insist that _their_ system is superior to ours?
It just **might** be that people tend to think of _their_ government as being better than any other -- otherwise they would have already switched to the superior form.
Sort of like how Americans automatically insist democracy is superior. Despite the corruption. Despite the scandals. Despite the boondoggles. Despite....
Question: I know that this will probably be a total impossibility for you to deal with, but please try. You're an intelligent person, capable of playing a little "waht if".
Imagine that there is no God. (You can wash your hands and use mouthwash later.) In the absence of God, would people _still_ be entitled to those basic rights, with their government serving them instead of the other way around? If "No", why not, and _who_ would have the right to direct them to serve his/their requirements? And why would that necessarily be so?
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
Did you ever wonder why, when you've got the shining example of America's democracy right there to be seen, the majority of the world's population _still_ have not risen up to install their own democracies?
C P, when you were a child you thought like a child; now you are a man your thinking has evolved. Nations and corporations are no different. I won't do well with an explanation that democracy is not for all, but freedom to be all that one was meant to be must never be harmed. Have you noticed that tyrannical take over regimes always target the Christians first. More than any other force, Christianity is the one feared by marxist/communists/Islamofascists - - - .
quote:
That, further, so many of the people in monarchies and communist regimes and other forms of government insist that _their_ system is superior to ours?
Russia is begging its people to have more children and will pay a stipend to families having the next child(ren). You know why that is. Many other countries are losing its greatest resource - people; therefore they have no future. See Map of Shame thread I've not had time to keep up with.
Communism/socialism/monarchies go the way of the dinosaur. No, not one can compete with the U.S. in strength, benevolence, prosperity, growth and development, yet in spite of that, some Americans are turning against the very sovereignty that has given them what no other nation would have allowed - prosperity, freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, life (??) and the right to form the government that will be as a servant to its people. Socialism will break this nation and all the world's people will suffer for the treasons committed within our own borders.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Originally posted by GG: "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" pg. 43. by Gregg Jackson.
"The liberal left has quoted the phrase "separation of church and state" so often the majority of American public believe the words actually appeared in the Constitution.
I was actually hoping you'd go there!
**************
The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)
****
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1,The Constitution of the United States.)
****
Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2, 1776-1818, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 365. From George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45. According to Paul F. Boller [George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 87-88] the treaty was written by Joel Barlow, negotiated during Washington's administration, concluded on November 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate in June, 1797, and signed [see below] by John Adams [2nd U.S. President] on June 10, 1797. Boller concluded that "Very likely Washington shared Barlow's view, though there is no record of his opinion about the treaty ..." [p.88]. Jefferson was Secretary of State in Washington's first administration but had resigned when the treaty was written. Jefferson was Vice-President when the treaty was ratified and signed. Barlow, identified in The American Heritage Dictionary as an American "poet and diplomat," 1754-1812, knew and corresponded extensively with Jefferson. Among many letters Jefferson wrote Barlow was one written on March 14, 1801, just ten days after Jefferson's first inauguration as President.)
Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. ("Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2. 1776-1818. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 383; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45.)
****
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; author, Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809)
Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)
....
"I know," Jefferson had written, ... "that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his [George Washington's] secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system [Christianity] than he himself did." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 85. Jefferson's comments were written in his journal, Anas, in February, 1800, according to Boller, p. 80.)
****
James Madison (1751-1836; principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; 4th U.S. President, 1809-1817)
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.)
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460. According to Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff., Madison's "Remonstrance" was instrumental in blocking the multiple establishment of all denominations of Christianity in Virginia.)
*****
George Washington (1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)
The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...." He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, "a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118. According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)
Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others. (George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28, 1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
******************
I've got a whole LOT more, if you'd like to see them. Just let me know.
As I said before, the Founders very definitely intended for there to be a separation between Church and State. That is not to say that they were trying to block religious practices in their new country; they made a concerted effort to assert that the US would welcome ALL religions, with none preferred above any others. But they didn't want to go anywhere near endorsing any given religion, or showing it preference. By the same token, they didn't want any religion trying to tell the government what to do.
You tend to your flock and we'll tend to our business. And never the twain shall meet.
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
Imagine that there is no God. (You can wash your hands and use mouthwash later.) In the absence of God, would people _still_ be entitled to those basic rights, with their government serving them instead of the other way around? If "No", why not, and _who_ would have the right to direct them to serve his/their requirements? And why would that necessarily be so?
No, because there would be no human beings made in His image - (that's not a physical image I'm referring to)and there would not be a purpose for the pilgrim journey we live for the "life hereafter." (Civic laws are not to be in contradiction to natural Divine Law. Without a Divine law there is no science, no geology, no physics, math, no conscious, no reasoning - - - - no music!!! Imagine a world without music!!) No truth, no goodness, and no beauty.
Hey, for that matter NOTHING would exist for only God could call into existence what never existed. Actually, that's a prayer I've had on my mind recently that God would call into existence what none could ever imagine to thwart the enemy(s). We are indeed need of rescue for what we are doing to the progeny of our GREAT nation.
Rest yourself, C P. I've read the last Chapter and I KNOW Who wins.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
As I said before, the Founders very definitely intended for there to be a separation between Church and State.
Better minds than me have refuted that. Once again, that thinking is straight out of the ACLU American documents destroyers and by the "Indoctrinated U" professors who hate this nation because it prevents the advancements of the one worlders and the globalist's new world religion ideology.
Whose side you on??
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, A FIRST-CENTURY JEW >Jewish Light on the Risen Lord >By Frederick W. Marks April 2006 > One of the most valuable testimonies to Christ's Resurrection comes from the pen of a first-century Jew by the name of Flavius Josephus (b. A.D. 37). His original name was Joseph Ben Matthias. Priest and general, as well as historian par excellence, Josephus was one of the great lights of his age, and in one of the best-known passages of his marvelous work, The Antiquities of the Jews, he not only treats the Resurrection as a fact, but also calls Jesus "the Messiah" and refers to Him as "a wise man, if indeed he should be called a man" (18.4).
How a Jew could have written such things has been the subject of much speculation. Some would argue that Christians must have tampered with the passage in question. But, as we shall see, such a notion flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Certain members of the early Church regarded Josephus as a Balaam figure who was impelled willy-nilly to say things he didn't believe. This, too, is highly speculative. A third possibility is that he converted to Christianity after witnessing the heroism of the martyrs under Nero. If so, he could have reverted to Judaism during the reign of Domitian, who persecuted the Faith with renewed savagery. He had already distanced himself from Judaism by collaborating with the Romans and accepting Vespasian as the Messiah, and, having accorded Vespasian such a title, it seems reasonable to suppose that he could have bestowed it upon Jesus. Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and The Historian (1929), pp. 137, 149; G.A. Williamson, The World of Josephus (1964), pp. 27, 65, 309.
St. Jerome regarded Josephus's reference to "the Messiah" as simply a common form of parlance similar to the way Catholics might speak of the "Archbishop of Canterbury" or the "Orthodox Patriarch of Istanbul."
Thackeray, Josephus, p. 144. Atheists think nothing of referring to the spiritual leader of the Catholic world as the "Pope" or the "Holy Father," and one does not have to be a Buddhist to use the term Dalai Lama, which means "Head Teacher." In none of these instances does the use of a title imply its acceptance. The word Messiah could even have been used derisively.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Ooooo. Soooo many things to respond to here. It's getting painful.
Idle query: If you were brainwashed, would you know it?
quote:
Originally posted by GG: C P
quote:
Did you ever wonder why, when you've got the shining example of America's democracy right there to be seen, the majority of the world's population _still_ have not risen up to install their own democracies?
C P, when you were a child you thought like a child; now you are a man your thinking has evolved. Nations and corporations are no different.
How long before a nation or corporations hits puberty? How will it know when it did?
quote:
Originally posted by GG: I won't do well with an explanation that democracy is not for all, but freedom to be all that one was meant to be must never be harmed.
"was meant to be" is a tough line to deal with. How do we know what a person was "meant to be"? If you mean that it should be that the government does everything it can to help ALL of its citizens to improve their lot in life, than our government has certainly been neglecting its job.
"While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor, over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty; they don't stay poor for long periods. Poverty is something that happens to the working class, not some marginal 'other' on the fringes of society."
That means that we generally have over 30 million people that are officially classified as "poor". The most productive way of promoting them from that condition -- to help them "be all that they can be" would be to give them a college education. For what we spend in Iraq in one month, we could nearly accomplish that. With what we spend in Iraq in a year, we could definitely accomplish that.
Why aren't we doing it, why haven't we done it, why has the government cut the Education budget so much that it definitively makes it impossible to do it? (Congress recently boosted support of educational _loans_, but that actually is only recovering a small portion of the cuts that have been made over the years.)
quote:
Originally posted by GG: Have you noticed that tyrannical take over regimes always target the Christians first. More than any other force, Christianity is the one feared by marxist/communists/Islamofascists - - - .
Don't feel special. I have colorful (and distasteful) memories of self-immolating Buddhist monks in Saigon. And that was supposedly during a democratic government. And consider what the Chinese have done to the Buddhists in Tibet. And what innumerable governments have done to Jews throughout the ages. Even here in the US, in our early years we made a point of suppressing the Native American religions in favor of Christianity. Especially during the Resident Schools period. Made us nearly as bad as the Spanish during the colonial era: convert or suffer the consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by GG:
quote:
That, further, so many of the people in monarchies and communist regimes and other forms of government insist that _their_ system is superior to ours?
Russia is begging its people to have more children and will pay a stipend to families having the next child(ren). You know why that is. Many other countries are losing its greatest resource - people; therefore they have no future. See Map of Shame thread I've not had time to keep up with.
Well, loss of population has very little to do _with_ religion. I'll grant without the pressure of "Be fruitful and multiply," birth rates are dropping in some places -- thank God!
quote:
Originally posted by GG: Communism/socialism/monarchies go the way of the dinosaur. No, not one can compete with the U.S. in strength, benevolence, prosperity, growth and development, yet in spite of that, some Americans are turning against the very sovereignty that has given them what no other nation would have allowed - prosperity, freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, life (??) and the right to form the government that will be as a servant to its people. Socialism will break this nation and all the world's people will suffer for the treasons committed within our own borders.
Welllll, it's going to be tough to cover some of these items because it's sort of like apples and oranges. Some of those Socialistic states provide free medical care, which in the US is either citizen paid directly or through paying for insurance premiums, plus deductibles and co-pays. That would mean that the Socialist citizens wouldn't be having their buying power diminished as much as in the US. Things such as that seldom get factored into the numbers.
Yup, the US is #1 -- but that wasn't intended to be the case. The Founders actually envisioned a citizen-militia that would only be called up in times of need in order to repel foreign invasion. They felt that if we had a large standing army, there would be a temptation to use it -- like we have been, in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the first time where the US has been blatantly behaving like an imperialistic state bent on conquest.
Not a Good Thing.
The size of the standing army was _supposed_ to be very small. But ever since the Monroe Doctrine and "Walk softly and carry a big stick", the size of our standing military has been climbing. The cost of doing this is that literally 1/2+ of the Federal budget is being spent on the military. One of the things that helped collapse the USSR was that it had a disproportionate percentage of it's GDP dedicated to maintaining a large military.
Let's hope we don't duplicate that mistake.
BENEVOLENCE.
The US government actually encourages charity by making some of it tax-deductible. What most people don't understand is that the transaction is NOT an even exchange. For every dollar contributed, your tax burden is only reduced by the percentage of it that would have gone towards taxes, So if you are paying 28% for your Income Tax, your tax is reduced by only 28-cents. Still, at least it's _something_. Without that deduction, many/most people wouldn't bother.
In terms of the US government being charitable, don't ever make the mistake of thinking that Foreign Aid is a purely charitable gesture. Throughout the Cold War, the bulk of US Foreign Aid was meant to keep foreign governments friendlier with us than with the Soviets. (Recall that at one point we were even giving money to Saddam.) Even after the collapse of the USSR, we _still_ keep on giving money to countries in a blatant attempt to buy their friendship. And we do this knowing that usually more than half is consumed by graft at the receiving end.
PROSPERITY
What would you say if I told you that the US was NOT the most prosperous in the world? I would guess that your hackles would immediately rise in reflex. But, sadly, it's true. On a per capita basis, we are NOT #1:
1 United States 10,040,000,000 2 United Kingdom 8,280,000,000 3 Germany 3,904,000,000 4 France 3,461,000,000 5 Italy 1,957,000,000 6 Netherlands 1,899,000,000 7 Spain 1,591,000,000 8 Japan 1,547,000,000 9 Ireland 1,392,000,000 10 Switzerland 1,077,000,000
It might be worth mentioning that in the year 2000, the US National Debt was only about $5.6 trillion. We've managed to almost double that is less than 7 years. Way to go, team!
GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
Not quite sure what you mean by that. National infrastructure? Population growth rate? Economic investment?
If what your driving at is the rate at which our economy grows, you're going to be disappointed. As of 2006, we were #143 on the list.
(in terms of year 2000 dollars) measurement in billions of dollars
Year Nominal GDP Real GDP GDP Deflator 2000 $9817.0 $9817.0 100.00 2001 $10128.0 $9890.7 102.40 2002 $10469.6 $10048.8 104.19 2003 $10960.8 $10301.0 106.41 2004 $11685.9 $10675.8 109.46 2005 $12433.9 $11003.4 113.00 2006 $13194.7 $11319.4 116.57
In terms of actual numbers of dollars without taking into account inflation, the GDP growth between 2005 and 2006 would look like 3.4%. But in terms of buying power, it actually only grew less than 1%. (waaaayyy less than 1%) And that has been the case _every_ year since 2000.
When you start to think about GDP growth, don't forget just how many jobs left the US. A lot of what we consider "made in the US" is actually stuff made elsewhere and then sent to local facilities in the US for final assembly.
When you consider changes to levels of income, the upper 10% of US incomes have had a HUGE increase, while the remaining 90% have been experiencing negligible or negative growth. Especially when you factor in reduction of buying power. The net effect is to show per capita growth at a snail's pace -- when in fact most of us are losing ground.
*************
Wow. Got carried away. Told you you gave me a LOT of ground to cover!
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
Imagine that there is no God. (You can wash your hands and use mouthwash later.) In the absence of God, would people _still_ be entitled to those basic rights, with their government serving them instead of the other way around? If "No", why not, and _who_ would have the right to direct them to serve his/their requirements? And why would that necessarily be so?
No, because there would be no human beings made in His image - (that's not a physical image I'm referring to)and there would not be a purpose for the pilgrim journey we live for the "life hereafter." (Civic laws are not to be in contradiction to natural Divine Law. Without a Divine law there is no science, no geology, no physics, math, no conscious, no reasoning - - - - no music!!! Imagine a world without music!!) No truth, no goodness, and no beauty.
Hey, for that matter NOTHING would exist for only God could call into existence what never existed. Actually, that's a prayer I've had on my mind recently that God would call into existence what none could ever imagine to thwart the enemy(s). We are indeed need of rescue for what we are doing to the progeny of our GREAT nation.
Rest yourself, C P. I've read the last Chapter and I KNOW Who wins.
Well, you did a crappy job of imagining no God! What you gave was, "Well if He's not here, then no one deserves anything!" Tsk.
Okay. Try this: YOU are dead, gone. MAKE BELIEVE that everyone that remains becomes _AGNOSTIC_. (That is NOT denying the existence of God.) Now, with all those people remaining, within their basic human interactions, as they relate to one another, do they still retain inherent rights to Life, Liberty, and tThe Pursuit of Happiness? With a government that serves The People instead of The People being exploited by their government? (If you kneejerk a "No" because as non-believers we don't deserve _anything_ I **will** refuse to converse with you further because you will have demonstrated that you are NOT discoursing, but rather proselytizing.) [Did my weak attempt at intimidation work?? ]
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
Does that imply at all that you discount the martyrs for the Protestant faith? Or Jewish faith? Or, or, or,...?
Confused
I don't know how to answer that.
Well, you mentioned Catholic martyrs. You seem to attach a value for their sacrifice. Well, the other religions have their martyrs as well. Does the sacrifices of non-Catholic martyrs hold any inherent value? Or would you contend that as non-Catholics, they threw away their lives for nothing?
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
As I said before, the Founders very definitely intended for there to be a separation between Church and State.
Better minds than me have refuted that. Once again, that thinking is straight out of the ACLU American documents destroyers and by the "Indoctrinated U" professors who hate this nation because it prevents the advancements of the one worlders and the globalist's new world religion ideology.
Whose side you on??
You are the epitome of "blind faith".
Those that have attempted to refute these arguments have failed to _prove_ nothing; the debate rages on. We can pretty much go back to the private papers of nearly everyone that worked on the writing of the Constitution and the Amendments and lay out how the clear majority of them specifically intended that Church and State were supposed to stay separate. But Blind Faith stops thinking at "I can't believe that's what they intended!" So all the evidence in the world is not going to open a closed mind.
If you are totally incapable of changing your mind on anything -- because you are absolutely certain that you are infallibly correct -- why are we even having this conversation? You won't alter your opinions one iota, while I'll not accept "evidence" on faith alone (which is any form of "God told me so!").
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
How long before a nation or corporations hits puberty? How will it know when it did?
I'm not good at bantering. Certainly you and others do a much better job at that and would have a cutsy comeback.
quote:
his is the ACLU mission statement:
********* The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. * Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin. * Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. * Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
Could you kindly let me know where you got this.
quote:
"Dan In Real Life"(Not a mention of religion _anywhere_ in the movie, for one thing.)
That's a step up than many movies that purposely bash the Catholic Church and/or Christianity.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds (Sirach).
Mine is not a faith separated from reason and critical scrutiny. The current crises in the world today (as in this thread topic) is absent of “logical and reasonable dimension.” Reason and faith cannot be separated. Unpleasant things need to be spoken in order to bring about humanistic dialogue that REJECTS NOTHING POSITIVE and criticizes those who harm our youth with the humanist religion.
War is waged against youth and you cannot defend those doing the warring and YOU say I have a problem??!!
It is a concrete gesture of good will to stir up the need for these discussions. It is NOT the Catholic Church that supports "SUICIDE" and I implore you, C P, to read what you defend, such as in the ninth declaration of the Humanist Manifesto, "the separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives." Also, in the seventh para., "we would safeguard, extend, implement the principles of human freedom from ...the Declaration of Human Rights," not a United States document.
Will you be defecting anytime soon??
I've defended my position in the thread topic I began, "Separation of 'God' and State." We are coming into the Christmas Season and let's watch once again who creates the controversies. It will not be Christianity railing against others wanting to display publicly their believes or lack thereof.
Abit more about the Humanist Manifesto, 6th para., "..individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire."
Are you aware of the many abuses to youth that go unreported, especially impregnating teen girls by predatory men. That OK with YOU, CP? After all, these men are just expressing their "proclivities." No problem with you that these kinds of sex crimes go UNreported?
Women and children are dying because good men do nothing.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
CP, you posted the following in support of the ACLU:
quote:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
..* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Please = = =show me a court case where the ACLU has come against this atrocity against our black brothers and sisters.
Lynching Is For Amateurs
In America today, almost as many African- American children are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Discussion Community 
No truth, no goodness, and no beauty. 
I'm not good at bantering. Certainly you and others do a much better job at that and would have a cutsy comeback.