Separation of church and state =We need a good revalution,this way,we can keep our religion and kill all there fake codes,fake liberties and stop there theafts on our own lands,we own the land,we the people own the lands,not the goverments,they own nothing becouse they lost all the land when they took My God out of there offices.
When I examine a coin, I can't but help there are two different sides, if I never look at the opposite side of the coin how will I be able to help someone understand everything about the coin. The goes for this video. People who have an agenda, or are history revisionists like to present half-truths as if they are whole truth, without presenting other truthful facts which would give us a less biased picture of history than what is being portrayed in this video.
I would like to know how the phrase " No test of religion shall be required for any public office or public trust" is translated into "religion is barred from govt" Isnt that like saying " no gtest of race is reqired for public office { which it is not} is translated into {race is barred from govt" They dont require a test, but if you are a religous person you are not barred from holding office.
@leo16mmiv Its ashame you sound like a new age believer you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means you just here what the news sais about them.when a country forgets God that country will fall.They want to take easter from us also and esablish Earth day. and what did God say about the earth? do not love the world or anything of the world if you love the world the love of the father is not in you. your so blind you dont even know whats happening right in front of you.
@alhole420 welll. japan has shintoism and they worship many dietys, china has their own similar polytheistic religion and they are very related to shintoism. still, yah. japan is actualy more secural then china.
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters!! they want to take easter from us also and esablish Earth day. and what did God say about the earth? do not love the word or anything of the world if you love the world the love of the father is not in you.. your so blind you dont even know whats happening right in front of you
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters
Google "catholic vs protestant bible riots in u.s." Religious intolerance occurs between christians, as well. Separation of church and state protects christians from each other, as well as the rest of us from them.
I have voted "thumbs-up". I do not however, after much reading & study, agree that the anti-religious test, the fact that our founders did not want our country to be a theocracy & that they desired a country where all religions could be practiced, in anyway eliminates religion from participating in government. Do you forget that several states had a state religions after the Constitution was ratified. That document simply forbids government from establishing a state religion.
@onceuponamidnightdry "Do you forget that several states had a state religions after the Constitution was ratified."
The states were able to deny you any of your federal rights. They could deny you, if their state constitution didn't guarantee it independently, even your right to be armed or your right to free speech. The limits of federal power found in the Bill of Rights weren't limits of the states' until the 14th Amendment.
First off the constitution was created by christians... the sepration of church and state is not to keep the church out of the state.. its to keep the state out of the church... they dont write that in history books anymore to keep the people away form the church. the devil is taking over more everyday.. its ashame that americans dont remember the truth because they are being blinded by enetertainment and T.V.. go to vergina and find out yourselfs!
@7floridaboy "the sepration of church and state is not to keep the church out of the state.. its to keep the state out of the church... they dont write that in history books anymore to keep the people away form the church"
They don't write that in the history books because that's wrong. The framers were clear that the separation goes both ways.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Please Help. Tyranny in the juditial branch of California. Though an act of legislation the California juditial system has admitted to be corrupt and had been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (see) SBX211
the concept was to prevent a religious group from usurping the power of the federal government and setting up a protestant or catholic nation. This does not mean however that christian concepts should be separated from the way in which the nation is governed. There needs to be morals within government otherwise corruption will run rampant.... bribes, secrecy, unjust arrests, murders and eventually a police state..... :(
@FreedomClause You confuse religion with morality--some religious people are moral, some are immoral, some non-religious people are moral, some are immoral. The Constitution says nothing about one religion or belief (or non-belief) system held over the others--it says plainly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No religion means exactly what is says. Thanks for playing.
@BiffWhitebread13 i was trying to respond to a comment, but it didn't post correctly.. out of context it doesn't read right...i agree with you on religion vs morality..
however, if you look closely at the choice of words in the constitution you will see they used ' AN establishment' not 'THE establishment'
the establishment = the act of bringing into law
an establishment= an entity
the constitution bars laws that interfere with religious groups, it does not bar religion based laws
you are trying to interpret a legal document without due care to the specific words being used.....
the constitution was written by a team of lawyers...every word is precise and specific as to ensure clarity of meaning.
if they wanted to say no religion in government, that's what they would have said... but they didn't...they said that congress would make no laws concerning religious groups or prohibit religious practices.
As I said, the "establishment" is a noun of the verb to "establish" which may seem obvious at first but it's the noun of establishing any religion which bars religious law.
If you want more evidence of this (in addition to barring religious qualifications to run for government) the Constitutional Convention struck down a proposal by Franklin to have a morning prayer it was struck down.
And as even more evidence, most of the religious aspects we take for granted ("Under God", "In God We Trust", Breakfast Prayer etc.) was actually established in the 1950s during the religious revival, clearly opposed to what the founders intended.
@FreedomClause If you are saying "an establishment ", is a noun, that is clearly incorrect. It is used meaning the act of establishing something--in this case, religion. The First Amendment makes no mention of religious groups or a national church. It clearly states that religion cannot be established, nor it's free exercise prohibited. Religious groups and individuals have freedom of religion--the government does not. The government is for all citizens, regardless of religious views.
@FreedomClauseThe problem is what does the word "religion" mean in the First Amendment. YOo say it only means national church or denomination. I say it also includes religious practices, rituals and symbols. So let's insert the two different meanings and see what we get--remembering that "thereof" refers back to "religion". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, nor prohibiting the free exercise of a national church" . That makes no sense whatsoever.
@FreedomClause What I say it means--that is, religion, in this context means religious practice. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious practice, nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practice." Say, that makes sense--the government cannot establish, practice or promote the exact same thing it cannot prohibit it's citizens from practicing. Saying which religion is right, if any, is not a legitimate function of government, which the Founds enshrined in the FA.
and yet you forget to mention that the very first time that the supreme court ruled on the basis of separation of church and state was by former clansman hugo black who voted on the basis of that letter taken out of context like you so did because of a bus stop to a catholic school...there are a number of reasons why there is no such thing as separation of church and state
Read any of American founding documents. The phrase "Separation of Church & State" At all.This is an outright liberal lie.The first Amendment means that the US cannot declare Islam, Christianity, etc. the official religion of the land & force everyone to join.It does not prohibit using tax payer dollars for religious institutions or restrict public displays of religion."Our Rights are endowed by our Creator". The Ten Commandments sit outside the Supreme Court.
And read the Constitution, the words "God", "Creator", "Savior", and "Jesus" do not appear. Nor do they appear in the Articles of Confederation. In neither of the documents meant to establish an American government is a divine presence even suggested.
And our rights were not endowed by our creator regardless of what Newt says, our rights were created by the constitutional amendment process. And the amendment process proves all by itself the constitution isn't divine.
If the constitution were written by God or Jesus, that would make it perfect. Since God is perfect. The amendment process, the process by which the constitution is changed, would therefore ascribe the way for changing God's creation and defies God's original intent. Which I think is defined as heresy. So then is just some sort of riddle answer, "Can God himself be a heretic?" Apparently so, let's burn him at the stake like the rest.
@newfrickinshow The Constitution was not written by God or Jesus. And, what is more important, not all Americans believe in God or Jesus. Should WE, as Non-Christian Americans, be subject to religious rules we do not follow? It is very disturbing to me that so many Christians want to impose, much like Nazis, their religious beliefs on Political reality. That is very bizarre.
@newfrickinshow The Constitution was not written by God or Jesus. And, what is more important, not all Americans believe in God or Jesus. Should WE, as Non-Christian Americans, be subject to religious rules we do not follow? It is very disturbing to me that so many Christians want to impose, much like Nazis, their religious beliefs on Political reality. That is very bizarre.
@BlackRepublican2010 If you use tax payers dollars for religious institution then you are forcing American's to pay for a church. If you allow religious rituals into the gov't then the gov't is favoring one group over another. Fact, it would you Xtians who don't get along. What is going to keep all you off eachother's back? Sorry, sick of religious war & we non-religious & secularists are getting a little sick of having to deal with your disagreements.
The Pope is the anti Christ, he changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, he claimed God gave him this right. Daniel said the anti Christ would think to change Gods times and laws. The pope burned and tortured millions of Christians, Daniel said the anti Christ would kill Gods saints and overpower them. The pope came out of the divided Roman empire and called himself God and the vicar of Christ. Daniel said the anti Christ would exault himself as high as JESUS the anointed one.
The Pope is the anti Christ, he changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, he claimed God gave him this right. Daniel said the anti Christ would think to change Gods times and laws. The pope burned and tortured millions of Christians, Daniel said the anti Christ would kill Gods saints and overpower them. The pope came out of the divided Roman empire and called himself God and the vicar of Christ. Daniel said the anti Christ would exault himself as high as JESUS the anointed one.
"We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors [other religions]" US Supreme Court...- The People v. Ruggles -1811
@romansten9 The people v ruggles was a NY state supreme court case, not the federal supreme court. Nor did it actually have anything to do with the first amendment. How about this: the Treaty of Tripolili, ratified by congress and signed by Pres Adams in 1797, Article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is in no way based upon the Christian religion......' You might read what Jefferson had to say about religion and religious freedom too.
@romansten9 Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
(Government) shall not prohibit the free exercise (of religion)
Paraphrase of the 1st Amendment.
Government violates this often. Limitations are placed on worship in certain places. (schools, goverment buildings, etc)Churches are limited in the politicians they may endorse.This wasn't so in previous years.
The founding fathers worshiped God inside the US Capitol building. Schools taught the Bible, students (and teachers)could pray openly.The founding fathers mixed church/state often
@romansten9 Limitations are placed on agents of the goverment--public school teachers, for example. Students are free (and always have been) to pray whenever they want. It just isn't the school's job to tell students to pray. Would you want your kids reciting Muslim prayers in a public school?
@BiffWhitebread13 What do you think about the US adopting Spanish as the official language, because many Spanish speaking people are moving here? Do we flip-flop every so many years to accommodate the latest thing?
@romansten9 Do you mean when the national motto, the one that was picked by Franklin, Washington and Madison, E Pluribus Unum, was changed in 1954 to "In God We Trust"? I agree, that is some egregious changing of what the Founders intended. Also when they put In God We Trust on the currency. We won WWII without it, but it was suddenly changed. Or inserting Under God into the pledge, which did just fine for 60 years without it. And I don't support changing the official language--
@BiffWhitebread13 You said "I don't support changing the official language"
I agree. I don't either.
But, that is something to say for keeping traditions, and not letting each new group that enters the US re-write history. In the past 50-100 years, there has been a move to re-write history and make claims about "separation" that were never there before. What documents (other than Jefferson's private/non-official letter to a church) mention those words: "separation of church/state" ?
@romansten9 When was the current motto adopted? 1954. Revisionism. In God We Trust put on the currency? 1956. More revisionism. The fact is you are the ones trying to change things--the tactic is to pretend the government was something it never was.
@BiffWhitebread13 When was the Bible used in schools? Before, during and after the 1st Amendment. When did Congress attend church inside the US Capitol building? And in the US Treasury? After the 1st Amendment was written, and for another 60 years. Why did these actions occur? You have never answered that.
@romansten9 It was legal for states to use the bible as truth in public schools--until the 14th Amendment made the US Constitution binding on the states. I am aware of church inside the government buildings you describe--I would be willing to look at evidence of this, if you can provide some. But don't send me David Barton garbage, or the website you got your fake Madison quote from.
@BiffWhitebread13 Whats your opinion on why the founders worshiped God inside of these government buildings (after approving of them as churches)? Since this is something that they should have been absolutely, entirely opposed to according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Even after more churches were built to house more people, they continued to encourage this inside of government buildings.
@romansten9 My opinion is I don't know that actually happened. I'll ask you again to provide proof for you claim. Given your history, you'll understand why I won't just take your word for it.
@BiffWhitebread13 I will show you the evidence for Church services in the US Capitol if you need me to. For you to even ask the question suggests that you haven't read the Congressional Record. It also suggests that you haven't read the founder's writings. I assumed you had. I won't pick on you for that, because maybe you read these things and just forgot or something.
@BiffWhitebread13 Here is the website for the US Congressional record. If you haven't read this, and the Court records, and other "old" documentation before, I believe you will finally see the truth for yourself after reading it.
For discussion about the proposal of the US Capitol for church services, "one" page can be found by going to the US Congressional record site, then to: 6th Congress, 2nd Session, in box "turn to image" type the number: 797
@BiffWhitebread13 You do know where to find the US Congressional record, don't you? I hope so, since that would be a good source for you and especially after you have claimed that I have bad sources. I believe in using original sources. If I ever quoted somone second hand, that was my mistake and I try to look up every source to make sure it is correct.
@BiffWhitebread13 Keep in mind that the natural tendency in the US is for people to become less and less involved in Christianity,etc. This has been a trend from the founding of the US until now. It only makes sense that this nation began with a high regard given to God, the Bible, etc. and that this devotion to such things has largely gone away. This pattern matches the true revisionism we see. God has been removed more and more.
And (occasionally)God is put back into public life again.
@BiffWhitebread13 The trend of forgetting God has continued more and more since the founding of the US. Not only in government, but in all of life. That is why the idea that God is now being added to government and life in recent years makes no sense. Yes, there are cases in which God is being added back into the public square, but we are nothing near to what the US was like in the founding years. The only revisionism is claiming that the founders had no faith. That is clearly wrong.
@romansten9 I agree that many of the Founders were deeply religious. That in no way makes the case that they wanted govenment to be involved in religion. They were so religious that they wanted to keep them separate--so that each may exist in greater purity, to paraphrase Madison. They knew that if the government had the right to say there is a god, it also had the right to say which god or gods, or no god at all. I don't want that, neither did they.
@BiffWhitebread13 If you admit that many of the founders were deeply religious, you are ahead of a lot of other people. Thats good.
You say that this fact does not make a case for mixing of church and state.
I wonder why there is such a move to cover up these facts, if they are not threatening to "separation" ?
This is what true revisionism is about. Trying to make the case that God was not important to the founders, or to the US in general. This idea has been pushed recently.
@BiffWhitebread13 I agree that certain parts of separation are important. The founders wanted a certain degree. But nothing near to what we are seeing today. The founders wanted to be able to take their faith and values into their government jobs, and they did often. Now we are seeing some limitations of this, and the founders would be outraged. Freedom of religion is supposed to be everywhere, including inside schools and inside government. And it was for the 1st 100+ years.
@romansten9 There is a huge difference between personal faith and the role of government. Whose religious freedom is lost in a public school? The student have the right to pray--millions of public school students prayed in their schools today. What is the problem? Is the fact that students can't be told to pray by school officials that you consider an infringement? Is determining religious truth really a function of government?
@BiffWhitebread13 There are many belief systems that are given free reign in public schools, while beliefs such as Christianity are suppressed.
Secular humanism (as much a religion as any other )is one such belief system. Students are taught that individuals are essentially the "center of their own universe." at the same time that God is not discussed. Ideas such as premarital sex, abortion and same sex marriage can be encouraged, and what the Bible says about such things is ignored.
@romansten9 No belief systems are taught as fact in public schools. I went to, and my children go to, public schools. We have all missed out on the secular humanism that you speak of. I didn't get a "center of the universe" section in any of my classes. By encouraged perhaps you mean discussed. Students should know the realities of life. All those things happen. By educating students, perhaps the number of abortions could be reduced.
@BiffWhitebread13 Even if students are not told that they are being taught "secular humanist" ideas, they still are receiving this instruction in one way or another. Even the elimination of God from many discussions in schools leaves students to believe in humanism by default. When students discuss moral issues (sex, abortion, homosexuality) they can sense when the teacher is in favor of these ideas, and when the Bible is being ridiculed (if someone mentions what the Bible says).
@romansten9 You seem to be saying that you want all students taught your brand of christianity, that you are the arbiter of truth and morality. I would oppose a public school teacher riduculing the bible in class just as I would oppose them leading the class in prayer. Determining religious truth one way or the other is not the government's job. It's the job of the family, and ultimately, the individual.
@BiffWhitebread13 You make it sound like public schools are all friendly to Christians. Not so. Haven't you seen the cases in which students carrying Bibles were told that this was a violation of "separation"? Students have been stopped from praying, students were suspended for wearing Christian T-shirts, etc. etc etc.
@romansten9 Those case are incredibly rare, given the millions of students in public school everyday. I would say that you couldn't provide more than five in the last year. And no student should be stopped from praying or engaging in religious activity--the school representatives were wrong to do so. I'm not talking about rare abnormalities--I'm talking about official policy. The policy is, students have the right to pray, and millions do everyday. That's just a fact.
@BiffWhitebread13 I agree that students do pray in schools. But this idea is not revisionism. Students have been allowed to pray (in some capacity) all the way back to the founding of the US (and even earlier)
The only thing we see now is that there are limitations placed on freedom of religion in schools that were not there before. One example is the limitation on prayer that was not there before.
@romansten9 Exactly what limitation on prayer? do you mean that school officials can tell students to pray? What if a class has christian, hindu, buddist, jewish, muslim, satanist and atheist students in it?
@BiffWhitebread13 And what if Spanish speaking students enter an English speaking school? Do we need to change the message to include every possible language that may be represented in class? Just a thought to consider.
@romansten9 Not at all--you miss the point entirely. Nice try to change the subject, however. You want your version of religious truth taught to my (and everyone else's) children, it's just that simple. Why do you need the school to teach your kids religion? Can't you teach them yourself?
@BiffWhitebread13 I wasn't changing the subject. Just using an illustration that is a metaphor for what we are talking about. (a mixture of students and needing to conform the message to every type of student)
The founders didn't claim that morality education was only up to parents or churches. There goes your revisionist ideas again. They included morality education in schools so that all students could receive it. We all benefit from this. Its correlated with reduced crime, etc.
@romansten9 Who's morality? Yours? I'll pass. If you are equating religion with morality, epic fail. The vast majority of people in prison (99.9%) believed in god when they commited their crimes.
@BiffWhitebread13 Belief in God has nearly NOTHING in common with morality education. How can you even connect the 2? The Bible says that even demons believe in God. Belief (head knowledge of God) has little to do with faith in God (heart knowledge)
A more accurate survey: Try looking at how many people attend church >twice a week, or volunteer large amounts of time due to their faith. How many of THOSE people are in prisons? Actions speak louder than words. Anyone can make verbal claims.
@romansten9 The true Scotsman fallacy. It must be an awful burden knowing what people you have never even met believe in their hearts. I guess that's why you should be in charge of religious instruction of my and everyone else's kids.
@BiffWhitebread13 I'm talking about the morality outlined in the New Testament. Yes, its true that nobody can follow this level of morality. (especially without God's help) But why not set high standards?
If every person was able to follow the New Testament as a guide, even a little bit, we would see a new nation. Its obvious that if people could follow what the NT says, this would improve life for everyone. Selfishness and crime would diminish, kindness would increase, etc.
@romansten9 You are at liberty to believe whatever you like--and I would fight to defend that liberty. But not everyone chooses to follow your belief system. That they have that choice is the beauty of our country.
@romansten9 the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
@romansten9 Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" *CONTINUED*
@BiffWhitebread13 The majority of people that believe in God don't even attend church. Of those that do, how many actually take God seriously? I think you would agree that there are a LOT of hypocrites in the world that claim to be Christians. The people that do whatever they please all week, get drunk on Saturday, and somehow make it to church on Sunday aren't exactly real Christians. Find out what % of serious, committed Christians are in jail. I'll bet the number is extremely low.
@BiffWhitebread13 For 150 years, the Bible was read in schools. Was there a concern if someone didn't believe the Bible? An atheist was a rare person for many years, and that person would be encouraged to find God, even in school. Court records show us that atheists were prevented from testifying because they were seen as untrustworthy people. In some cases it was because Atheists refused to place their hand on a Bible.
@BiffWhitebread13 Christianity can be attacked and ridiculed in the media, in schools and in public life in general, with very little consequence.
If anyone dared to attack/ridicule another faith, there would be serious consequences.How many people take the name of Jesus and use it as a profanity? What if people started saying Buddha, Mohammad, etc. in a disrespectful way? It wouldn't be allowed. There are many examples of how it is not allowed. But dumping on Christians is seen as good.
@BiffWhitebread13 "To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." - John Witherspoon,
@romansten9 I couldn't care less what John Witherspoon has to say about anything. Sidebar--why hasn't anyone ever been sued for violating the Declaration? Because it has no legal standing. It does not give our government its authority-only the Constitution does that.
@BiffWhitebread13 The Founding Father's quoted the Bible 34% of the time. 4 times more often than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more than the next most influential source - Sir William Blackstone, and 12 time more often than the next most influential source - John Locke. And when you consider that many of the ideas of Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke, came from the Bible, you can easily see that the Bible was the most important document in the founding of the U.S.
@romansten9 You've been reading David Barton garbage again. You are obviously using the Hyneman and Lutz research--the 34% number is accurate if you consider published bible quotes from 1760 and 1805. That part is true. Keep in mind that three-quarters of that figure is from sermons reprinted in newspapers, usually not having anything to do with government.
@romansten9 To continue-- But the same research found that if you consider the period that the Constitution was being written and debated (1788 and 1789) the researchers showed that the number of bible quotes from those who were in favor of the Constitution was exactly 0%. Those opposed to the Constitution (like Patrick Henry) quoted the bible 9% of the time. Barton's selective data mining and omission of embarrassing facts at work. The data he tries to pervert actually supports separation.
@BiffWhitebread13 "Let every student be instructed & earnestly pressed to consider the main end of his life and studies is to know God & Jesus Christ which is eternal life & therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge & learning. ... let everyone seriously set himself by prayer to seek it of Him.Everyone shall exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice/day & be ready to give account of his proficiency therein." Harvard University
@BiffWhitebread13 "The Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble…the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith." Fisher Ames, delegate to the Constitutional Convention and co-writer of the First Amendment
@romansten9 James Madison is the father of the Constitution, not Fisher Ames. If he actually felt that way or had any input of any kind, he should have enshrined that notion into the First Amendment. But he didn't. It expressly prohibits "establishment of religion". Not a religion. Not a state religion. Religion. Period.
@romansten9 Extensive study of all of the centuries of relgious conflict in Europe. Persecutions, torture, executions, burnings, etc. convince me that separation of church and state is a very good thing. Let people have their beliefs and keep government out of it. Also, keep religions out of the funtions of government or government policy.
@romansten9 And a crock of shit, sorry but it is. The Old Testament encourages slavery, poligamy, posession and ownership of women, glorifys murder and war. what kind of pure morals is that?
The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and to the same extent as formerly."
Thomas Cooley --In his General Principles of Constitutional Law 1890
"It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, or that religious worship should never be provided for in cases where a proper recognition of Divine Providence in the working of government might seem to require it, and where it might be done without drawing an invidious distinction between religious beliefs, organizations, or sects. (denominations) " Thomas Cooley --In his General Principles of Constitutional Law 1890
What about freedom of speech? It's the same old story, accept something from the government and they "own you." Maybe churches should pay taxes and become free to say what they want.
How to believe the Myth of Separation: 1. Mis-Interpret a letter by Jefferson 2. Blatantly mis-interpret the 1st Amendment 3. Disregard Congressional record & Court records<1900 4. Read nothing written<1900 5. Believe all teachers&media 6. Ignore numerous mixing of church/state by Founders 7. Get all info 2nd hand, rather than the source 8. Mis-Interpret the Treaty of Tripoli&a small selection of founder's quotes 9. Use revised history books=God/faith have been omitted. 10. Ignore reason
Many people actually believe the "myth of separation" Its been widely spread by the media and schools for many years. Repeated so much, that people now believe it.
It began in 1947 when radical judges began a new interpretation of a letter by Jefferson. They ruled that "separation" would be the new standard, and cited ZERO legal precedents. (how could they find a precedent, there were NONE)
Prior to 1947, church/state were mixed often, for >150 years. Anyone can research and find the truth
Jesus was actually all for Separation of Church and State. See John 18:36, 2 Corinthians 5:20, & Romans 13 for example. I totally agree that Separation of Church and State isn't anti-Christian, anti-Theist, or anti-Religion. Let's keep it this way Christian brothers and Sisters.
@rmsturge Yes, there was a certain (small) amount of "separation" intended by the founders. They made this very clear in their writings, and in the Congressional record, and the Court records, etc. Its a limitation of Government, not religion. (This is what the Bill of Rights is about-limiting Government interference) The founders didn't want the government to create ONE Christian denomination, and wanted freedom of worship protected EVERYWHERE. Including in government and school buildings.
@romansten9 The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819. Emphasis added. Thought you might like an actual Madison quote.
@BiffWhitebread13 When reading Madison, (as well as others) it is important to read what they said in context. Keeping in mind: Who were they speaking (or writing to? What was the purpose?
And: How do these comments fit with other things that this person said?
When a person appears to be pro-religion in some comments and something contradictory to this is found, it emphasizes the need to discover the context.
@romansten9 I'm still waiting for the source of your Madison quote. If it doesn't have one, man up and admit it. We all make mistakes and get suckered by websites with agendas now and then. And it might suprise you, but it is entirely possible to be pro-religion and pro-separationist. The Founders saw that if the government has the right to say "worship god" it has the exact same right to say "worship allah"--they didn't want that.
@BiffWhitebread13 Why would the authors of the constitution violate that very document so many times if they wanted "separation?"
If you think their words were "Godless" then their actions (in private and in office) certainly didn't match their words.
As far as their statements go, the vast majority of the founder's statements regarding religion spoke of religion as a very positive thing for the citizens of the US and the health of the Nation.
@romansten9 The Founders were religious--they wanted to protect government and religion from each othere. And don't get too hung up on the phrase "church/state"--that's just shorthand for the concept. The Constitution doesn't mention "trial by jury" but that concept is there, just the same.
@BiffWhitebread13 I really give a lot of leeway for the phrase "separation of church and state" Even with a lot of leeway, the 1st Amendment doesn't even hint what we are seeing today. And Congress didn't record anything in the Congressional record near what we are seeing today. Their comments during he framing of this Amendment were about a very narrow separation, just as it says in the wording. It talks about ONE specific thing. Now we are seeing countless mis-interpretations of it.
@romansten9 Where does it say narrow? Where does it imply a national church? Let's break it down: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohit the free exercise thereof. As noted before, the 14th Amendment makes the Federal Constitution binding on all the states, that's why Mississippi can't reintroduce slavery, for example--it violates the 13th Amendment. Mississippi passed the 13th Amendment in 1995, BTW. But to continue--
@BiffWhitebread13 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. "Thereof" in the phrase refers back to the word religion. You say "religion" as used in this phrase means "national church" and I say it means "religious expression". Let's test that. Your version--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, nor prohibiting the free exercise of a national church. That makes no sense whatsoever
@BiffWhitebread13 Now my version--Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religious expression, nor prohibiting the free exercise of religious expression. Hey--that makes sense! The exact same thing that cannot be established by the government, cannot be prohibited by the government. That Madison was one smart guy. Speaking of which, are you ready to concede that the Madison quote you used was bogus?
@BiffWhitebread13 The founders chose their words carefully. We know that, and we even know that they didn't discuss "separation of church/state" when they framed the 1st Amendment. We know because this was not recorded in the Congressional record. In contrast, freedom of religion was discussed, and that government would not hinder religion, just like government would not hinder freedom of speech, which is also very clear in the same Amendment.
@BiffWhitebread13 As I stated earlier, the founders chose their words very carefully. If they wanted to say "separation of church and state" they would have. Here is even more leeway. If they wanted to say anything close to that, they would have. They wouldn't have buried a secret meaning in "Congress shall make no law" They wouldn't have done that. They would have said "Government shall not make expressions of religion on government property." They didn't say anything like that.
@romansten9 The Founders said government cannot establish religion. Not a state religion, not a little religion, not the most popular religion. It means exactly what it says. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding what it clearly says. Originally it applied only to the Federal government, but the 14th Amendment has made the US Constitution binding on all the states. Are you saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the states?
@romansten9 They did choose their words carefully. I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend them. We do know from the early drafts of the Constitution that saying the the government cannot establish a national church was originally considered. That idea was rejected, and we have the First Amendment we enjoy now. Why is it so hard to understand that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding religious truth? If the religion being endorsed was Islam you'd be singing a different tune.
@BiffWhitebread13 Even your interpretation of the 1st Amendment still doesn't make sense. You still haven't answered the beginning of the phrase. It is INCREDIBLY CLEAR. "Congress shall make no law"
Scenario: If a school wants to teach the Bible as a class or a teacher wants to pray.
@romansten9 Public schools can teach the bible as literature, I have no problem wth that. Teachers cannot lead students in prayer because it is not a legitimate function of government. Besides, who decides what prayer? Is a muslim prayer okay? A satanic prayer? Who decides? You? Or are you saying religious truth should be determined by vote? As I've pointed out, the 14th Amendment makes the entire US Constitution binding on the states, that's why.
@BiffWhitebread13 "Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly." - John Witherspoon. -Signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Very direct and to the point, like a huge number of other founder's quotes.
@romansten9 "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment of Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precendents' already furnished in their short history." James Madison, Detached Memoranda, primary author of the Constitution.
@BiffWhitebread13 How do you get "Congress shall limit prayer in schools" or "Congress shall limit churches freedom to discuss politics" or "Congress shall not allow students to read the prayers that are prayed in Congress" (that last one is good, Congress can pray, but students can't read those same prayers in school) Ok for Congress, not ok for teachers or schools. How is ANY of that related to "Congress shall make no law" What law has Congress ever made???
@romansten9 Where do you get this stuff? Public school students are at liberty to pray whenever they want. There is no debating that. Teachers cannot tell my children to pray, as it should be. Teachers cannot tell your children not to pray, as it should be. Churches can discuss politics all they want, they just can't do it and be tax-exempt. We do not subsidize political discourse. As you are fully aware, the 14th Amendment makes the Federal Constitution binding on the states.
"It is impossible to build sound consitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history... The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation between church and state.
@romansten9 Rehnpuist is one of the worst Justices to ever sit on the Court. American history is replete with examples--the attempt to xianify the country--inserting under god into the pledge, changing the national motto (you know, the one that was good enough for Franklin and Washington) to in god we trust--putting in on the currency--all have occurred in the last 60 years or so. Read the Constitution--the only document that gives our government its authority--it is completely godless.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." John Adams
"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." President James Madison
"One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations." Joseph Story. U. S. CONGRESSMAN; FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON
@romansten9 "'The Congress of the United States RECOMMENDS AND APPROVES THE HOLY BIBLE FOR USE IN ALL SCHOOLS.' 1782"
1) The US Congress didn't exist in 1782. It first met on March 4, 1789 and first achieved a quorum on April 1 of that year.
2) The US Congress, in fact, never made such a statement.
3) It's likely a distortion of the Robert Aitkin affair, were the Congressional Chaplains (not Congress, having already refused to print it for him) merely confirmed that his Bible is a Bible.
DELAWARE CONSTITUTION:1776 Article XXII: Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath: "I, ___________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ... His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
... was written before the US Constitution and the legal creation of the United States. It was revised in 1792, shortly the US Constitution was written. This revision removed all religious requirements. For example:
"[No] preference be given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship"
"No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State."
My bad. The missing word is "after", reading: "shortly after the US Constitution was written".
And while I'm fixing my mistakes, I should take back calling the 1792 Delaware constitution a "revision". Properly speaking, I suppose, it's an entirely new document. (And to drive home the core point once more, I should repeat that it's this 1792 document which was Delaware's first as a member of the United States.)
“Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”Patrick Henry“
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond; the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams
Thousands more quotes like this. The founders attended church IN CONGRESS, prayed, approved the Bible for schools, and did countless other things that would have been against "separation" if there actually was such a thing.
@BiffWhitebread13 "Patrick Henry was very much against ratifying our Constitution"
Whats your point?
If a person believes in "separation of church and state" and believes thats the meaning of the 1st Amendment, then people opposed to the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) would tend to stand opposed to these ideas.
In other words, if Patrick Henry didn't like the wording, (and you think the wording means "separation") then he was anti-separation, which only supports my case even more.
@romansten9 The point is Patrick Henry was a theocrat, like yourself. He did everything he could do oppose the godless, secular Constitution we now enjoy. His opinion of it means absolutely nothing. And I'm still waiting for the source of the Madison quote you provided. Since he's my favorite Founder, I know most of his quotes and this one goes against everything he ever wrote. You wouldn't be posting fake quotes, would you?
@BiffWhitebread13 Yes, Madison is known for his work with the Constitution. But we are talking about the Bill of Rights, which is a more specific portion of the Constitution, and thats why its important to look at the people that actually wrote the 1st Amendment, and what those people believed.
@romansten9 And Madison believed in a strict separation of government and religion--all his writings show that. Others might disagree, then and now, but the fact is the Constitution says what it plainly says and means.
Words in bold were removed from "The Mayflower Compact" in U.S. History books. "We whose names are under-written having undertaken FOR THE GLORY ...OF GOD, AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND HONOR OF OUR KING AND COUNTRY, A VOYAGE TO PLANT THE FIRST COLONIE IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF VIRGINIA do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence
of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
Nothing like advocating for a theocracy. "The United States of Saudi Arabia."
The separation of church and state is to preserve both the church and the state. And to what "god" is America suppose to be rooting for if it were the theocratic nation that is suggested here.
Seperation of Jesus Christ and state is offensive and ridiculous. The world and everything in it belongs to Jehova. Jesus is in the Father and the Father in him. Hope everyone enjoys the air they breath, the water they drink, the food they eat, etc. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.
@HedeenJeff - Our country has thrived for over 200 years with a separation of church and state. Theocracy is un-American. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
@papafox Hell is seperation from GOD, so no I dont agree with seperation if the "Christian" church and state. Iran? They believe in damning lies, so they can keep their theocracy or what ever it is.
@papafox "Separation of church and state" as we know it today is a myth. A large part of this idea began in 1947. Since this time, History books have removed references to God and the large part that Christianity played in the founding fathers lives, in government and in the foundation of the US. Students have been lied to. Its very easy to prove this. Its necessary to go back to the beginning and look at the original documents and actions of the founders.
You are a traitor - you dare challenge one of the amendments that formed the basis of a free and democratic America, an amendment created by the Founding Fathers! God burns traitors in hell, ya know!
@TheVoiceOfReason93 Your mistake is you dont know what your living in. Presidents have been known to have been taken out to Bohemian grove (youtube it) where there is idol worship, a destible sin to God. there are satanic powers in place. Did you vote for the bilderberg family? well, they tell the president what to do in secret. There si a kingdom of Darkness and a kingdom of light. Im part of the kingdom of Light, the kingdom that Belongs to Jesus Christ.
@TheVoiceOfReason93 There is a war going on and its spiritual, your TV is a weapon, etc. (it swings votes to, etc. it helps blind people and give them violent and evil thoughts, things that are not pleasing to God.
This has been flagged as spam show
Separation of church and state =We need a good revalution,this way,we can keep our religion and kill all there fake codes,fake liberties and stop there theafts on our own lands,we own the land,we the people own the lands,not the goverments,they own nothing becouse they lost all the land when they took My God out of there offices.
mystic81006 1 month ago
When I examine a coin, I can't but help there are two different sides, if I never look at the opposite side of the coin how will I be able to help someone understand everything about the coin. The goes for this video. People who have an agenda, or are history revisionists like to present half-truths as if they are whole truth, without presenting other truthful facts which would give us a less biased picture of history than what is being portrayed in this video.
BT3701 1 month ago
Religion shouldn't interfere in government affairs just like government shouldn't interfere in religious affairs.
CesarManiaX 4 months ago
People with different cultures wanted to keep their darker side to themselves this how we dont humiliate anybody in public
DannyLovesOregon 5 months ago
I would like to know how the phrase " No test of religion shall be required for any public office or public trust" is translated into "religion is barred from govt" Isnt that like saying " no gtest of race is reqired for public office { which it is not} is translated into {race is barred from govt" They dont require a test, but if you are a religous person you are not barred from holding office.
logicnreason1 5 months ago
@leo16mmiv Its ashame you sound like a new age believer you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means you just here what the news sais about them.when a country forgets God that country will fall.They want to take easter from us also and esablish Earth day. and what did God say about the earth? do not love the world or anything of the world if you love the world the love of the father is not in you. your so blind you dont even know whats happening right in front of you.
7floridaboy 9 months ago
@7floridaboy That country will fall ? Really ?!?! What about Japan and China ? China is a superpower and they don't worship your imaginary friend.
alhole420 8 months ago
@alhole420 welll. japan has shintoism and they worship many dietys, china has their own similar polytheistic religion and they are very related to shintoism. still, yah. japan is actualy more secural then china.
gooddarkjedi 8 months ago
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters!! they want to take easter from us also and esablish Earth day. and what did God say about the earth? do not love the word or anything of the world if you love the world the love of the father is not in you.. your so blind you dont even know whats happening right in front of you
7floridaboy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters
7floridaboy 9 months ago
@leo16mmiv you dont even know what a conspracy theorie means.. you just here what the news sais about them.. when a country forgets God that country will fall... listen to your ancesters
7floridaboy 9 months ago
Google "catholic vs protestant bible riots in u.s." Religious intolerance occurs between christians, as well. Separation of church and state protects christians from each other, as well as the rest of us from them.
YY4Me133 9 months ago
I have voted "thumbs-up". I do not however, after much reading & study, agree that the anti-religious test, the fact that our founders did not want our country to be a theocracy & that they desired a country where all religions could be practiced, in anyway eliminates religion from participating in government. Do you forget that several states had a state religions after the Constitution was ratified. That document simply forbids government from establishing a state religion.
onceuponamidnightdry 9 months ago
@onceuponamidnightdry "Do you forget that several states had a state religions after the Constitution was ratified."
The states were able to deny you any of your federal rights. They could deny you, if their state constitution didn't guarantee it independently, even your right to be armed or your right to free speech. The limits of federal power found in the Bill of Rights weren't limits of the states' until the 14th Amendment.
justicecallicles 9 months ago
First off the constitution was created by christians... the sepration of church and state is not to keep the church out of the state.. its to keep the state out of the church... they dont write that in history books anymore to keep the people away form the church. the devil is taking over more everyday.. its ashame that americans dont remember the truth because they are being blinded by enetertainment and T.V.. go to vergina and find out yourselfs!
7floridaboy 10 months ago
@7floridaboy
Kuz, stop trying :P lol
KhaldonB 10 months ago
@7floridaboy Most of the the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.
professornuclearbomb 9 months ago
@7floridaboy WRONG
alhole420 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7floridaboy "the sepration of church and state is not to keep the church out of the state.. its to keep the state out of the church... they dont write that in history books anymore to keep the people away form the church"
They don't write that in the history books because that's wrong. The framers were clear that the separation goes both ways.
justicecallicles 9 months ago
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
alhole420 10 months ago
@alhole420 Great quote.
professornuclearbomb 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I laugh at you and your hypothesis.
BriarsandBrambles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please Help. Tyranny in the juditial branch of California. Though an act of legislation the California juditial system has admitted to be corrupt and had been granted retro active imunity from prosicution. (see) SBX211
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
the concept was to prevent a religious group from usurping the power of the federal government and setting up a protestant or catholic nation. This does not mean however that christian concepts should be separated from the way in which the nation is governed. There needs to be morals within government otherwise corruption will run rampant.... bribes, secrecy, unjust arrests, murders and eventually a police state..... :(
oh well, better luck next time...
FreedomClause 1 year ago
@FreedomClause You confuse religion with morality--some religious people are moral, some are immoral, some non-religious people are moral, some are immoral. The Constitution says nothing about one religion or belief (or non-belief) system held over the others--it says plainly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No religion means exactly what is says. Thanks for playing.
BiffWhitebread13 10 months ago
@BiffWhitebread13 i was trying to respond to a comment, but it didn't post correctly.. out of context it doesn't read right...i agree with you on religion vs morality..
however, if you look closely at the choice of words in the constitution you will see they used ' AN establishment' not 'THE establishment'
the establishment = the act of bringing into law
an establishment= an entity
the constitution bars laws that interfere with religious groups, it does not bar religion based laws
FreedomClause 5 months ago
@FreedomClause
The "establishment" is of religion itself, it doesn't matter whether it's "an" or "the", what the constitution says is no religion in government.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
there is a huge difference between the two....
you are trying to interpret a legal document without due care to the specific words being used.....
the constitution was written by a team of lawyers...every word is precise and specific as to ensure clarity of meaning.
if they wanted to say no religion in government, that's what they would have said... but they didn't...they said that congress would make no laws concerning religious groups or prohibit religious practices.
FreedomClause 5 months ago
@FreedomClause
As I said, the "establishment" is a noun of the verb to "establish" which may seem obvious at first but it's the noun of establishing any religion which bars religious law.
If you want more evidence of this (in addition to barring religious qualifications to run for government) the Constitutional Convention struck down a proposal by Franklin to have a morning prayer it was struck down.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@FreedomClause
(Cont.)
And as even more evidence, most of the religious aspects we take for granted ("Under God", "In God We Trust", Breakfast Prayer etc.) was actually established in the 1950s during the religious revival, clearly opposed to what the founders intended.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Comment removed
BiffWhitebread13 5 months ago
@FreedomClause If you are saying "an establishment ", is a noun, that is clearly incorrect. It is used meaning the act of establishing something--in this case, religion. The First Amendment makes no mention of religious groups or a national church. It clearly states that religion cannot be established, nor it's free exercise prohibited. Religious groups and individuals have freedom of religion--the government does not. The government is for all citizens, regardless of religious views.
BiffWhitebread13 5 months ago
@FreedomClauseThe problem is what does the word "religion" mean in the First Amendment. YOo say it only means national church or denomination. I say it also includes religious practices, rituals and symbols. So let's insert the two different meanings and see what we get--remembering that "thereof" refers back to "religion". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, nor prohibiting the free exercise of a national church" . That makes no sense whatsoever.
BiffWhitebread13 5 months ago
@FreedomClause What I say it means--that is, religion, in this context means religious practice. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious practice, nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practice." Say, that makes sense--the government cannot establish, practice or promote the exact same thing it cannot prohibit it's citizens from practicing. Saying which religion is right, if any, is not a legitimate function of government, which the Founds enshrined in the FA.
BiffWhitebread13 5 months ago
Comment removed
BiffWhitebread13 5 months ago
and yet you forget to mention that the very first time that the supreme court ruled on the basis of separation of church and state was by former clansman hugo black who voted on the basis of that letter taken out of context like you so did because of a bus stop to a catholic school...there are a number of reasons why there is no such thing as separation of church and state
fbi10 1 year ago
"Fortunately the justices have a better understanding of the... spirit of the law"
Thanks. It's always good to have an inbred club with a monopoly on law interpretation. Without them, however would we manage?
fringeelements 1 year ago
I must say your commentary on this issue is very enlightening and you really cut down to the heart of the issue in a way few people can.
In addition your slides really helped drive points home in way that anyone with a shred of intelligence can understand
And not only am I voting this up to dilute any vote-bot (what a spineless asshole), I'm faving this and am going to show it to my friends and family
ThatGUY666666 1 year ago
Read any of American founding documents. The phrase "Separation of Church & State" At all.This is an outright liberal lie.The first Amendment means that the US cannot declare Islam, Christianity, etc. the official religion of the land & force everyone to join.It does not prohibit using tax payer dollars for religious institutions or restrict public displays of religion."Our Rights are endowed by our Creator". The Ten Commandments sit outside the Supreme Court.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010 you're a troll
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010
And read the Constitution, the words "God", "Creator", "Savior", and "Jesus" do not appear. Nor do they appear in the Articles of Confederation. In neither of the documents meant to establish an American government is a divine presence even suggested.
And our rights were not endowed by our creator regardless of what Newt says, our rights were created by the constitutional amendment process. And the amendment process proves all by itself the constitution isn't divine.
newfrickinshow 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010 (damn youtube's 500 character limit)
If the constitution were written by God or Jesus, that would make it perfect. Since God is perfect. The amendment process, the process by which the constitution is changed, would therefore ascribe the way for changing God's creation and defies God's original intent. Which I think is defined as heresy. So then is just some sort of riddle answer, "Can God himself be a heretic?" Apparently so, let's burn him at the stake like the rest.
newfrickinshow 1 year ago
@newfrickinshow The Constitution was not written by God or Jesus. And, what is more important, not all Americans believe in God or Jesus. Should WE, as Non-Christian Americans, be subject to religious rules we do not follow? It is very disturbing to me that so many Christians want to impose, much like Nazis, their religious beliefs on Political reality. That is very bizarre.
bestgodzillaman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@newfrickinshow The Constitution was not written by God or Jesus. And, what is more important, not all Americans believe in God or Jesus. Should WE, as Non-Christian Americans, be subject to religious rules we do not follow? It is very disturbing to me that so many Christians want to impose, much like Nazis, their religious beliefs on Political reality. That is very bizarre.
bestgodzillaman 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010 If you use tax payers dollars for religious institution then you are forcing American's to pay for a church. If you allow religious rituals into the gov't then the gov't is favoring one group over another. Fact, it would you Xtians who don't get along. What is going to keep all you off eachother's back? Sorry, sick of religious war & we non-religious & secularists are getting a little sick of having to deal with your disagreements.
Fishqueen1972 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Pope is the anti Christ, he changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, he claimed God gave him this right. Daniel said the anti Christ would think to change Gods times and laws. The pope burned and tortured millions of Christians, Daniel said the anti Christ would kill Gods saints and overpower them. The pope came out of the divided Roman empire and called himself God and the vicar of Christ. Daniel said the anti Christ would exault himself as high as JESUS the anointed one.
vladimirkovalski 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Pope is the anti Christ, he changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, he claimed God gave him this right. Daniel said the anti Christ would think to change Gods times and laws. The pope burned and tortured millions of Christians, Daniel said the anti Christ would kill Gods saints and overpower them. The pope came out of the divided Roman empire and called himself God and the vicar of Christ. Daniel said the anti Christ would exault himself as high as JESUS the anointed one.
vladimirkovalski 1 year ago
"We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors [other religions]" US Supreme Court...- The People v. Ruggles -1811
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The people v ruggles was a NY state supreme court case, not the federal supreme court. Nor did it actually have anything to do with the first amendment. How about this: the Treaty of Tripolili, ratified by congress and signed by Pres Adams in 1797, Article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is in no way based upon the Christian religion......' You might read what Jefferson had to say about religion and religious freedom too.
xexixk 1 year ago
@romansten9 Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
xexixk 1 year ago
(Government) shall not prohibit the free exercise (of religion)
Paraphrase of the 1st Amendment.
Government violates this often. Limitations are placed on worship in certain places. (schools, goverment buildings, etc)Churches are limited in the politicians they may endorse.This wasn't so in previous years.
The founding fathers worshiped God inside the US Capitol building. Schools taught the Bible, students (and teachers)could pray openly.The founding fathers mixed church/state often
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Limitations are placed on agents of the goverment--public school teachers, for example. Students are free (and always have been) to pray whenever they want. It just isn't the school's job to tell students to pray. Would you want your kids reciting Muslim prayers in a public school?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 What do you think about the US adopting Spanish as the official language, because many Spanish speaking people are moving here? Do we flip-flop every so many years to accommodate the latest thing?
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Do you mean when the national motto, the one that was picked by Franklin, Washington and Madison, E Pluribus Unum, was changed in 1954 to "In God We Trust"? I agree, that is some egregious changing of what the Founders intended. Also when they put In God We Trust on the currency. We won WWII without it, but it was suddenly changed. Or inserting Under God into the pledge, which did just fine for 60 years without it. And I don't support changing the official language--
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 You said "I don't support changing the official language"
I agree. I don't either.
But, that is something to say for keeping traditions, and not letting each new group that enters the US re-write history. In the past 50-100 years, there has been a move to re-write history and make claims about "separation" that were never there before. What documents (other than Jefferson's private/non-official letter to a church) mention those words: "separation of church/state" ?
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 When was the current motto adopted? 1954. Revisionism. In God We Trust put on the currency? 1956. More revisionism. The fact is you are the ones trying to change things--the tactic is to pretend the government was something it never was.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 When was the Bible used in schools? Before, during and after the 1st Amendment. When did Congress attend church inside the US Capitol building? And in the US Treasury? After the 1st Amendment was written, and for another 60 years. Why did these actions occur? You have never answered that.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 It was legal for states to use the bible as truth in public schools--until the 14th Amendment made the US Constitution binding on the states. I am aware of church inside the government buildings you describe--I would be willing to look at evidence of this, if you can provide some. But don't send me David Barton garbage, or the website you got your fake Madison quote from.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Whats your opinion on why the founders worshiped God inside of these government buildings (after approving of them as churches)? Since this is something that they should have been absolutely, entirely opposed to according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Even after more churches were built to house more people, they continued to encourage this inside of government buildings.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 My opinion is I don't know that actually happened. I'll ask you again to provide proof for you claim. Given your history, you'll understand why I won't just take your word for it.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I will show you the evidence for Church services in the US Capitol if you need me to. For you to even ask the question suggests that you haven't read the Congressional Record. It also suggests that you haven't read the founder's writings. I assumed you had. I won't pick on you for that, because maybe you read these things and just forgot or something.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 I need you to. I'd love to see it.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Here is the website for the US Congressional record. If you haven't read this, and the Court records, and other "old" documentation before, I believe you will finally see the truth for yourself after reading it.
For discussion about the proposal of the US Capitol for church services, "one" page can be found by going to the US Congressional record site, then to: 6th Congress, 2nd Session, in box "turn to image" type the number: 797
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 You do know where to find the US Congressional record, don't you? I hope so, since that would be a good source for you and especially after you have claimed that I have bad sources. I believe in using original sources. If I ever quoted somone second hand, that was my mistake and I try to look up every source to make sure it is correct.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Keep in mind that the natural tendency in the US is for people to become less and less involved in Christianity,etc. This has been a trend from the founding of the US until now. It only makes sense that this nation began with a high regard given to God, the Bible, etc. and that this devotion to such things has largely gone away. This pattern matches the true revisionism we see. God has been removed more and more.
And (occasionally)God is put back into public life again.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The trend of forgetting God has continued more and more since the founding of the US. Not only in government, but in all of life. That is why the idea that God is now being added to government and life in recent years makes no sense. Yes, there are cases in which God is being added back into the public square, but we are nothing near to what the US was like in the founding years. The only revisionism is claiming that the founders had no faith. That is clearly wrong.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 I agree that many of the Founders were deeply religious. That in no way makes the case that they wanted govenment to be involved in religion. They were so religious that they wanted to keep them separate--so that each may exist in greater purity, to paraphrase Madison. They knew that if the government had the right to say there is a god, it also had the right to say which god or gods, or no god at all. I don't want that, neither did they.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 If you admit that many of the founders were deeply religious, you are ahead of a lot of other people. Thats good.
You say that this fact does not make a case for mixing of church and state.
I wonder why there is such a move to cover up these facts, if they are not threatening to "separation" ?
This is what true revisionism is about. Trying to make the case that God was not important to the founders, or to the US in general. This idea has been pushed recently.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I agree that certain parts of separation are important. The founders wanted a certain degree. But nothing near to what we are seeing today. The founders wanted to be able to take their faith and values into their government jobs, and they did often. Now we are seeing some limitations of this, and the founders would be outraged. Freedom of religion is supposed to be everywhere, including inside schools and inside government. And it was for the 1st 100+ years.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 There is a huge difference between personal faith and the role of government. Whose religious freedom is lost in a public school? The student have the right to pray--millions of public school students prayed in their schools today. What is the problem? Is the fact that students can't be told to pray by school officials that you consider an infringement? Is determining religious truth really a function of government?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 There are many belief systems that are given free reign in public schools, while beliefs such as Christianity are suppressed.
Secular humanism (as much a religion as any other )is one such belief system. Students are taught that individuals are essentially the "center of their own universe." at the same time that God is not discussed. Ideas such as premarital sex, abortion and same sex marriage can be encouraged, and what the Bible says about such things is ignored.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 No belief systems are taught as fact in public schools. I went to, and my children go to, public schools. We have all missed out on the secular humanism that you speak of. I didn't get a "center of the universe" section in any of my classes. By encouraged perhaps you mean discussed. Students should know the realities of life. All those things happen. By educating students, perhaps the number of abortions could be reduced.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Even if students are not told that they are being taught "secular humanist" ideas, they still are receiving this instruction in one way or another. Even the elimination of God from many discussions in schools leaves students to believe in humanism by default. When students discuss moral issues (sex, abortion, homosexuality) they can sense when the teacher is in favor of these ideas, and when the Bible is being ridiculed (if someone mentions what the Bible says).
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 You seem to be saying that you want all students taught your brand of christianity, that you are the arbiter of truth and morality. I would oppose a public school teacher riduculing the bible in class just as I would oppose them leading the class in prayer. Determining religious truth one way or the other is not the government's job. It's the job of the family, and ultimately, the individual.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BiffWhitebread13 I would like to hear your opinion on this question that I had asked you earlier:
Why would the authors of the constitution violate that very document so many times if they wanted "separation?"
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 You make it sound like public schools are all friendly to Christians. Not so. Haven't you seen the cases in which students carrying Bibles were told that this was a violation of "separation"? Students have been stopped from praying, students were suspended for wearing Christian T-shirts, etc. etc etc.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Those case are incredibly rare, given the millions of students in public school everyday. I would say that you couldn't provide more than five in the last year. And no student should be stopped from praying or engaging in religious activity--the school representatives were wrong to do so. I'm not talking about rare abnormalities--I'm talking about official policy. The policy is, students have the right to pray, and millions do everyday. That's just a fact.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I agree that students do pray in schools. But this idea is not revisionism. Students have been allowed to pray (in some capacity) all the way back to the founding of the US (and even earlier)
The only thing we see now is that there are limitations placed on freedom of religion in schools that were not there before. One example is the limitation on prayer that was not there before.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Exactly what limitation on prayer? do you mean that school officials can tell students to pray? What if a class has christian, hindu, buddist, jewish, muslim, satanist and atheist students in it?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 And what if Spanish speaking students enter an English speaking school? Do we need to change the message to include every possible language that may be represented in class? Just a thought to consider.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Not at all--you miss the point entirely. Nice try to change the subject, however. You want your version of religious truth taught to my (and everyone else's) children, it's just that simple. Why do you need the school to teach your kids religion? Can't you teach them yourself?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I wasn't changing the subject. Just using an illustration that is a metaphor for what we are talking about. (a mixture of students and needing to conform the message to every type of student)
The founders didn't claim that morality education was only up to parents or churches. There goes your revisionist ideas again. They included morality education in schools so that all students could receive it. We all benefit from this. Its correlated with reduced crime, etc.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Who's morality? Yours? I'll pass. If you are equating religion with morality, epic fail. The vast majority of people in prison (99.9%) believed in god when they commited their crimes.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Belief in God has nearly NOTHING in common with morality education. How can you even connect the 2? The Bible says that even demons believe in God. Belief (head knowledge of God) has little to do with faith in God (heart knowledge)
A more accurate survey: Try looking at how many people attend church >twice a week, or volunteer large amounts of time due to their faith. How many of THOSE people are in prisons? Actions speak louder than words. Anyone can make verbal claims.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The true Scotsman fallacy. It must be an awful burden knowing what people you have never even met believe in their hearts. I guess that's why you should be in charge of religious instruction of my and everyone else's kids.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I'm talking about the morality outlined in the New Testament. Yes, its true that nobody can follow this level of morality. (especially without God's help) But why not set high standards?
If every person was able to follow the New Testament as a guide, even a little bit, we would see a new nation. Its obvious that if people could follow what the NT says, this would improve life for everyone. Selfishness and crime would diminish, kindness would increase, etc.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 You are at liberty to believe whatever you like--and I would fight to defend that liberty. But not everyone chooses to follow your belief system. That they have that choice is the beauty of our country.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@romansten9 the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
xexixk 1 year ago
@romansten9 Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" *CONTINUED*
xexixk 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The majority of people that believe in God don't even attend church. Of those that do, how many actually take God seriously? I think you would agree that there are a LOT of hypocrites in the world that claim to be Christians. The people that do whatever they please all week, get drunk on Saturday, and somehow make it to church on Sunday aren't exactly real Christians. Find out what % of serious, committed Christians are in jail. I'll bet the number is extremely low.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 For 150 years, the Bible was read in schools. Was there a concern if someone didn't believe the Bible? An atheist was a rare person for many years, and that person would be encouraged to find God, even in school. Court records show us that atheists were prevented from testifying because they were seen as untrustworthy people. In some cases it was because Atheists refused to place their hand on a Bible.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Christianity can be attacked and ridiculed in the media, in schools and in public life in general, with very little consequence.
If anyone dared to attack/ridicule another faith, there would be serious consequences.How many people take the name of Jesus and use it as a profanity? What if people started saying Buddha, Mohammad, etc. in a disrespectful way? It wouldn't be allowed. There are many examples of how it is not allowed. But dumping on Christians is seen as good.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 "To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." - John Witherspoon,
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 I couldn't care less what John Witherspoon has to say about anything. Sidebar--why hasn't anyone ever been sued for violating the Declaration? Because it has no legal standing. It does not give our government its authority-only the Constitution does that.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The Founding Father's quoted the Bible 34% of the time. 4 times more often than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more than the next most influential source - Sir William Blackstone, and 12 time more often than the next most influential source - John Locke. And when you consider that many of the ideas of Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke, came from the Bible, you can easily see that the Bible was the most important document in the founding of the U.S.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 You've been reading David Barton garbage again. You are obviously using the Hyneman and Lutz research--the 34% number is accurate if you consider published bible quotes from 1760 and 1805. That part is true. Keep in mind that three-quarters of that figure is from sermons reprinted in newspapers, usually not having anything to do with government.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@romansten9 To continue-- But the same research found that if you consider the period that the Constitution was being written and debated (1788 and 1789) the researchers showed that the number of bible quotes from those who were in favor of the Constitution was exactly 0%. Those opposed to the Constitution (like Patrick Henry) quoted the bible 9% of the time. Barton's selective data mining and omission of embarrassing facts at work. The data he tries to pervert actually supports separation.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 "Let every student be instructed & earnestly pressed to consider the main end of his life and studies is to know God & Jesus Christ which is eternal life & therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge & learning. ... let everyone seriously set himself by prayer to seek it of Him.Everyone shall exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice/day & be ready to give account of his proficiency therein." Harvard University
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 "The Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble…the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith." Fisher Ames, delegate to the Constitutional Convention and co-writer of the First Amendment
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 James Madison is the father of the Constitution, not Fisher Ames. If he actually felt that way or had any input of any kind, he should have enshrined that notion into the First Amendment. But he didn't. It expressly prohibits "establishment of religion". Not a religion. Not a state religion. Religion. Period.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@romansten9 Extensive study of all of the centuries of relgious conflict in Europe. Persecutions, torture, executions, burnings, etc. convince me that separation of church and state is a very good thing. Let people have their beliefs and keep government out of it. Also, keep religions out of the funtions of government or government policy.
xexixk 1 year ago
@romansten9 And a crock of shit, sorry but it is. The Old Testament encourages slavery, poligamy, posession and ownership of women, glorifys murder and war. what kind of pure morals is that?
rokee1979 1 year ago
The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and to the same extent as formerly."
Thomas Cooley --In his General Principles of Constitutional Law 1890
romansten9 1 year ago
"It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, or that religious worship should never be provided for in cases where a proper recognition of Divine Providence in the working of government might seem to require it, and where it might be done without drawing an invidious distinction between religious beliefs, organizations, or sects. (denominations) " Thomas Cooley --In his General Principles of Constitutional Law 1890
romansten9 1 year ago
What about freedom of speech? It's the same old story, accept something from the government and they "own you." Maybe churches should pay taxes and become free to say what they want.
vechorik 1 year ago
romansten9 1 year ago
Many people actually believe the "myth of separation" Its been widely spread by the media and schools for many years. Repeated so much, that people now believe it.
It began in 1947 when radical judges began a new interpretation of a letter by Jefferson. They ruled that "separation" would be the new standard, and cited ZERO legal precedents. (how could they find a precedent, there were NONE)
Prior to 1947, church/state were mixed often, for >150 years. Anyone can research and find the truth
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Jesus was actually all for Separation of Church and State. See John 18:36, 2 Corinthians 5:20, & Romans 13 for example. I totally agree that Separation of Church and State isn't anti-Christian, anti-Theist, or anti-Religion. Let's keep it this way Christian brothers and Sisters.
rmsturge 1 year ago
@rmsturge Yes, there was a certain (small) amount of "separation" intended by the founders. They made this very clear in their writings, and in the Congressional record, and the Court records, etc. Its a limitation of Government, not religion. (This is what the Bill of Rights is about-limiting Government interference) The founders didn't want the government to create ONE Christian denomination, and wanted freedom of worship protected EVERYWHERE. Including in government and school buildings.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819. Emphasis added. Thought you might like an actual Madison quote.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 When reading Madison, (as well as others) it is important to read what they said in context. Keeping in mind: Who were they speaking (or writing to? What was the purpose?
And: How do these comments fit with other things that this person said?
When a person appears to be pro-religion in some comments and something contradictory to this is found, it emphasizes the need to discover the context.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 I'm still waiting for the source of your Madison quote. If it doesn't have one, man up and admit it. We all make mistakes and get suckered by websites with agendas now and then. And it might suprise you, but it is entirely possible to be pro-religion and pro-separationist. The Founders saw that if the government has the right to say "worship god" it has the exact same right to say "worship allah"--they didn't want that.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Why would the authors of the constitution violate that very document so many times if they wanted "separation?"
If you think their words were "Godless" then their actions (in private and in office) certainly didn't match their words.
As far as their statements go, the vast majority of the founder's statements regarding religion spoke of religion as a very positive thing for the citizens of the US and the health of the Nation.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The Founders were religious--they wanted to protect government and religion from each othere. And don't get too hung up on the phrase "church/state"--that's just shorthand for the concept. The Constitution doesn't mention "trial by jury" but that concept is there, just the same.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I really give a lot of leeway for the phrase "separation of church and state" Even with a lot of leeway, the 1st Amendment doesn't even hint what we are seeing today. And Congress didn't record anything in the Congressional record near what we are seeing today. Their comments during he framing of this Amendment were about a very narrow separation, just as it says in the wording. It talks about ONE specific thing. Now we are seeing countless mis-interpretations of it.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Where does it say narrow? Where does it imply a national church? Let's break it down: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohit the free exercise thereof. As noted before, the 14th Amendment makes the Federal Constitution binding on all the states, that's why Mississippi can't reintroduce slavery, for example--it violates the 13th Amendment. Mississippi passed the 13th Amendment in 1995, BTW. But to continue--
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. "Thereof" in the phrase refers back to the word religion. You say "religion" as used in this phrase means "national church" and I say it means "religious expression". Let's test that. Your version--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, nor prohibiting the free exercise of a national church. That makes no sense whatsoever
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Now my version--Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religious expression, nor prohibiting the free exercise of religious expression. Hey--that makes sense! The exact same thing that cannot be established by the government, cannot be prohibited by the government. That Madison was one smart guy. Speaking of which, are you ready to concede that the Madison quote you used was bogus?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The founders chose their words carefully. We know that, and we even know that they didn't discuss "separation of church/state" when they framed the 1st Amendment. We know because this was not recorded in the Congressional record. In contrast, freedom of religion was discussed, and that government would not hinder religion, just like government would not hinder freedom of speech, which is also very clear in the same Amendment.
romansten9 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 As I stated earlier, the founders chose their words very carefully. If they wanted to say "separation of church and state" they would have. Here is even more leeway. If they wanted to say anything close to that, they would have. They wouldn't have buried a secret meaning in "Congress shall make no law" They wouldn't have done that. They would have said "Government shall not make expressions of religion on government property." They didn't say anything like that.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The Founders said government cannot establish religion. Not a state religion, not a little religion, not the most popular religion. It means exactly what it says. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding what it clearly says. Originally it applied only to the Federal government, but the 14th Amendment has made the US Constitution binding on all the states. Are you saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the states?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@romansten9 They did choose their words carefully. I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend them. We do know from the early drafts of the Constitution that saying the the government cannot establish a national church was originally considered. That idea was rejected, and we have the First Amendment we enjoy now. Why is it so hard to understand that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding religious truth? If the religion being endorsed was Islam you'd be singing a different tune.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Even your interpretation of the 1st Amendment still doesn't make sense. You still haven't answered the beginning of the phrase. It is INCREDIBLY CLEAR. "Congress shall make no law"
Scenario: If a school wants to teach the Bible as a class or a teacher wants to pray.
1. Congress isn't even involved.
2. Congress isn't making a law
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Public schools can teach the bible as literature, I have no problem wth that. Teachers cannot lead students in prayer because it is not a legitimate function of government. Besides, who decides what prayer? Is a muslim prayer okay? A satanic prayer? Who decides? You? Or are you saying religious truth should be determined by vote? As I've pointed out, the 14th Amendment makes the entire US Constitution binding on the states, that's why.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 "Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly." - John Witherspoon. -Signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Very direct and to the point, like a huge number of other founder's quotes.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment of Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precendents' already furnished in their short history." James Madison, Detached Memoranda, primary author of the Constitution.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Which Madison quote are you referring to? If you let me know, then I can answer your question.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The one that says something about the Constitution being based upon god's laws. I'd like to see the source on that one.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 How do you get "Congress shall limit prayer in schools" or "Congress shall limit churches freedom to discuss politics" or "Congress shall not allow students to read the prayers that are prayed in Congress" (that last one is good, Congress can pray, but students can't read those same prayers in school) Ok for Congress, not ok for teachers or schools. How is ANY of that related to "Congress shall make no law" What law has Congress ever made???
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Where do you get this stuff? Public school students are at liberty to pray whenever they want. There is no debating that. Teachers cannot tell my children to pray, as it should be. Teachers cannot tell your children not to pray, as it should be. Churches can discuss politics all they want, they just can't do it and be tax-exempt. We do not subsidize political discourse. As you are fully aware, the 14th Amendment makes the Federal Constitution binding on the states.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Justice William Rehnquist
Wallace v. Jafree 1985
"It is impossible to build sound consitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history... The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation between church and state.
He is correct. The myth began in 1947.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Rehnpuist is one of the worst Justices to ever sit on the Court. American history is replete with examples--the attempt to xianify the country--inserting under god into the pledge, changing the national motto (you know, the one that was good enough for Franklin and Washington) to in god we trust--putting in on the currency--all have occurred in the last 60 years or so. Read the Constitution--the only document that gives our government its authority--it is completely godless.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and it re-enforces our right to freedom of religion. That is hardly "Godless"
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Where does the Bill of Rights mention God? If it doesn't mention god, it is therefore godless, by definition.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Comment removed
romansten9 1 year ago
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." John Adams
romansten9 1 year ago
"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." President James Madison
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Perhaps you could provide the letter or speech this quote comes from?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
"One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations." Joseph Story. U. S. CONGRESSMAN; FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON
romansten9 1 year ago
“The Congress of the United States RECOMMENDS AND APPROVES THE HOLY BIBLE FOR USE IN ALL SCHOOLS.” 1782
romansten9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romansten9 "'The Congress of the United States RECOMMENDS AND APPROVES THE HOLY BIBLE FOR USE IN ALL SCHOOLS.' 1782"
1) The US Congress didn't exist in 1782. It first met on March 4, 1789 and first achieved a quorum on April 1 of that year.
2) The US Congress, in fact, never made such a statement.
3) It's likely a distortion of the Robert Aitkin affair, were the Congressional Chaplains (not Congress, having already refused to print it for him) merely confirmed that his Bible is a Bible.
justicecallicles 9 months ago
DELAWARE CONSTITUTION:1776 Article XXII: Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath: "I, ___________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ... His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 "DELAWARE CONSTITUTION:1776"
... was written before the US Constitution and the legal creation of the United States. It was revised in 1792, shortly the US Constitution was written. This revision removed all religious requirements. For example:
"[No] preference be given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship"
"No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State."
But they did bar clergy from office.
justicecallicles 9 months ago
@justicecallicles "shortly the US Constitution was written"
My bad. The missing word is "after", reading: "shortly after the US Constitution was written".
And while I'm fixing my mistakes, I should take back calling the 1792 Delaware constitution a "revision". Properly speaking, I suppose, it's an entirely new document. (And to drive home the core point once more, I should repeat that it's this 1792 document which was Delaware's first as a member of the United States.)
justicecallicles 9 months ago
“Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”Patrick Henry“
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond; the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams
Thousands more quotes like this. The founders attended church IN CONGRESS, prayed, approved the Bible for schools, and did countless other things that would have been against "separation" if there actually was such a thing.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 Patrick Henry was very much against ratifying our Constitution. Quoting him is like quoting George III.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 "Patrick Henry was very much against ratifying our Constitution"
Whats your point?
If a person believes in "separation of church and state" and believes thats the meaning of the 1st Amendment, then people opposed to the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) would tend to stand opposed to these ideas.
In other words, if Patrick Henry didn't like the wording, (and you think the wording means "separation") then he was anti-separation, which only supports my case even more.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 The point is Patrick Henry was a theocrat, like yourself. He did everything he could do oppose the godless, secular Constitution we now enjoy. His opinion of it means absolutely nothing. And I'm still waiting for the source of the Madison quote you provided. Since he's my favorite Founder, I know most of his quotes and this one goes against everything he ever wrote. You wouldn't be posting fake quotes, would you?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Yes, Madison is known for his work with the Constitution. But we are talking about the Bill of Rights, which is a more specific portion of the Constitution, and thats why its important to look at the people that actually wrote the 1st Amendment, and what those people believed.
romansten9 1 year ago
@romansten9 And Madison believed in a strict separation of government and religion--all his writings show that. Others might disagree, then and now, but the fact is the Constitution says what it plainly says and means.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Example of God removed from History Books:
Words in bold were removed from "The Mayflower Compact" in U.S. History books. "We whose names are under-written having undertaken FOR THE GLORY ...OF GOD, AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND HONOR OF OUR KING AND COUNTRY, A VOYAGE TO PLANT THE FIRST COLONIE IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF VIRGINIA do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence
of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil body politick."
romansten9 1 year ago
Great vid!
komododr 1 year ago
Stoplight: First Capitol Church
M30WM3 1 year ago
oooh ... you just earned my sub :-).
logicbloke 1 year ago
Nothing like advocating for a theocracy. "The United States of Saudi Arabia."
The separation of church and state is to preserve both the church and the state. And to what "god" is America suppose to be rooting for if it were the theocratic nation that is suggested here.
biped19 1 year ago
@biped19 - "And to what "god" is America suppose to be rooting for if it were the theocratic nation that is suggested here."
Confused - Are you responding to someone in particular?
papafox 1 year ago
Seperation of Jesus Christ and state is offensive and ridiculous. The world and everything in it belongs to Jehova. Jesus is in the Father and the Father in him. Hope everyone enjoys the air they breath, the water they drink, the food they eat, etc. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@HedeenJeff - Our country has thrived for over 200 years with a separation of church and state. Theocracy is un-American. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox Hell is seperation from GOD, so no I dont agree with seperation if the "Christian" church and state. Iran? They believe in damning lies, so they can keep their theocracy or what ever it is.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@papafox; that is an ignorant comment.
sweetadeline003 1 year ago
@papafox "Separation of church and state" as we know it today is a myth. A large part of this idea began in 1947. Since this time, History books have removed references to God and the large part that Christianity played in the founding fathers lives, in government and in the foundation of the US. Students have been lied to. Its very easy to prove this. Its necessary to go back to the beginning and look at the original documents and actions of the founders.
romansten9 1 year ago
@HedeenJeff
You are a traitor - you dare challenge one of the amendments that formed the basis of a free and democratic America, an amendment created by the Founding Fathers! God burns traitors in hell, ya know!
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
@TheVoiceOfReason93 Your mistake is you dont know what your living in. Presidents have been known to have been taken out to Bohemian grove (youtube it) where there is idol worship, a destible sin to God. there are satanic powers in place. Did you vote for the bilderberg family? well, they tell the president what to do in secret. There si a kingdom of Darkness and a kingdom of light. Im part of the kingdom of Light, the kingdom that Belongs to Jesus Christ.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@TheVoiceOfReason93 There is a war going on and its spiritual, your TV is a weapon, etc. (it swings votes to, etc. it helps blind people and give them violent and evil thoughts, things that are not pleasing to God.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago