The federal First Amendment was only applied to the states via the post-civil-war 14th Amendment. The same applies to most of the bill of rights. So we really should be looking at 19th and 20th century jurisprudence to determine the scope of American freedom, not just statements written at a time when 19% of the population was enslaved, women were second-class citizens, and many states legally enforced religious oaths to keep Catholics/Jews/atheists (and others) from office.
The Puritans fled religious persecution... and then set up their own oppressive theocratic government. Besides the Salem witch trials, they also persecuted and exiled religious dissenters. In the various States generally, there were cases of violence or persecution against Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, non-monotheists...
The First Amendment means that you can't use the government as a carrot or stick to enforce your religious rules upon others. And that has always been absolutely vital.
US liberty is grated first by a creator at birth and only recognized and upheld by the US constitution as a birth-right as such. Why, because if mere men or documents alone granted you liberty only a mere man or document can take it away! This is the distinction from American Liberty & why all men are created equal, evolution surly does not teach this but Christianity does. The basic notion of American liberty & freedom for all is by a God-given birth-right & a non-secular view historically.
Its interesting to listen to Christians rally around and support the First Amendment like true Americans should. The truth is most of them support the First Amendment only to the extent that it allows them to freely express their religious beliefs. Anything more than that, especially anything critical of Christianity, all you will find will be plenty of dissatisfaction from them, you certainly wont find any support for YOUR freedom of speech from the majority of Christians.
Puritans/Pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution (do google search). The Church of England was the only sanctioned church.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to keep government out of church business, not religion out of government. Most of the Fathers attended church, and many were pastors.
The First Amendment doesn't mention separation of church and state. It simply states that Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, or prohibiting it's free exercise!
Wrong. You can't keep government out of church or out of people's lives unless religion is kept out of government. Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Religion has no place in government at all. You would be singing a different tune if Muslims were enacting laws and meddling in our government affairs as much as Christians are.
A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805) reported that 94 percent of the periods documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible.
Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.
You've just proven my point. The First Amendment is about keeping the government from making any laws or restrictions regarding religion. Our Founding Fathers didn't want religion confined to just one denomination as it had been in England.
I stand by my question, "When are Americans going to get this straight"? When are you going to get this straight?
I believe in the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights; they are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church, such as the Church of England)
to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our right to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The Framers were seeking to guarantee a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. Chuck Norris (4/7/09)
The FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT KEEPING RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT, it's about keeping government out of religion!
The first amendment is not about keeping religion out of government? While you've got the free exercise part of the first amendment down, what of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." don't you understand?
"No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy."
[James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787]
". . .practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
This is the full section:
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
And the Legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatever; nor confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any one sect or denomination; nor pass any law requiring or authorising any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry;
". . .nor shall any NATIONAL religion be established."
From: Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - full section.
"Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
I don't think so. If I am correct you are saying that government needs to stay out of religion, but religion does not need to stay out of government. That is not my understanding.
A woman has the right to control her own body. If she is forced into birth, or even a horrendous cesarian section, she can suffer life-changing issues, resulting in lifelong illness, and even death.
And what about rape victims that become pregnant? It was not under their choice to become impregnated, they reserve the right to an abortion!
Those who are against abortion, are against individual liberty. I rest my case.
A very small percent of all abortions are due to health risks and rape. The problem is the sex promoting media and resulting promiscuity. Since when is it normal and acceptable to murder babies for convenience? It has nothing to due with liberties abortion is an issue of clouded morals and an increasing lack of human importance.
great slideshow, love the music. But it's a great, common sense approach to spread the fact, and it is a fact, that we cannot establish religion on the federal level, at the least, and atheism has been considered by the courts a religous viewpoint, so we also cannot establish atheism as a "religion", but I don't know any atheist who is trying to do that. We all just want religion left out of the government, and notice i didn't say morals, just religion
Only Absolutists believe that. Most of us have moved on. We believe that the Bible says that the world was created in a week to give people of the time a better time scale in which it happened. To them, about six thousand years ago, billions of years would have been impossible to comprehend.
I take it you've also moved on from the Earth sitting on four pillars, and being flat as well. Another passage that evidences a book written by bronze age sheep herders, and not a divine creator.
Billions of years is still "impossible to comprehend" for us today. we have a hard time comprehending thousands, let alone millions, let alone billions
John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 years the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."
John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds." William Jay, The Life of John Jay.
Congress set aside December 18, 1777 as a day of thanksgiving so the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance."
A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the periods documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.
If that is the case, then okay. Christianity was quite woven into the customs, traditions, social norms, etc in the founding era (1760-1805), so I think it's safe to say that the results of that report are probably what one would expect. Just to give three examples of religion's role in the origin of some of the American colonies, Massachusetts was founded by Puritans, Mayland by Catholics, and Pennsylvania by Quakers. (continued)...
However, this video is specifically about the free exercise clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Free exercise of religion. (continued)...
I don't think I'm being unreasonable for holding the notion that free exercise of religion is a personal choice. If an American wants to freely exercise his/her own religion, then fine. But that is his/her own religion, not necessarily the religion of other religious people nor the stance of non-religious people. Having said all that, why should this one particular individual's own religion be imposed by law on those other kinds of people?
The Provincial Congress issued a Resolution to Massachusetts Bay,1774: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual...Continue steadfast, and with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
Philippine General Carlos Romulo:"Never forget Americans, that yours is a spiritual country. Yes, I know you're a practical people. Like others, I've marveled at your factories, your skyscrapers, and your arsenals. But underlying everything else is the fact that America began as a God-loving, God-fearing, God-worshipping people."
I would have no problem with reading that book. It's just that this guy, having become religious, has a bias in his position. And do I need to repeat my point? I have been talking about the right itself to have an abortion, not, say, the financial aspects that are related to the actual operation. Principle is different from practice. (continued)...
Concerning Bernard Nathanson, it was not his religion that changed his mind. It was technology.When he started seeing "fetus's" through a sonogram he KNEW he was looking at a BABY. As far as financial gain he has lost a lot of money since he stopped doing abortions. Read the book.
Firstly, I don't recall saying that it was his religion that changed his mind if you're trying to claim that that was what I had said. Secondly, concerning the technology, sonograms deal with a "baby" that hasn't been born. Once the "baby" has developed everything that it requires to survive in the outside world, birth happens. (continued)...
If it's born and has a chance of survival, then I'll consider it a baby. If it can survive after birth, then I'll consider it a human. But I'm certainly not going to consider a fetus that is only a few weeks old a baby.
And how many times do I have to say that I don't consider a fetus a baby? Why do you insist on using that word with me? Having said that, I don't think that a mother is being selfish if she wants to terminate something that is not a baby. (continued) ...
just because you don't "consider" it a baby doesn't change the fact that it is a baby.Slave holders never considered slaves human beings. Did that make them any less human?
I don't consider a fetus to be a baby for what I see to be some quite rational reasons. I try to avoid saying that a fetus is a fetus for a fact. If I have said that in the past, then that was my fault. But for you to say "doesn't change the fact that it is a baby" sounds quite serious. Having said that, I can also add that slavery throughout history has taken people who have survived birth and considered them to be property. (continued)...
There would have been no purpose to slavery if the slave wasn't able to live in the outside world because the slaves were required to do hard work and labor, such as digging for stone in ancient Roman times and picking cotton during the African Slave Trade.
If anybody here is being selfish, it's probably you because clearly you don't think that a woman should be able to make her own choices and decisions about her own body. If you really are like that, then that makes you a fascist control freak who wants to dominate and control women.
the argument about abortion is identical with slavery. "it's a woman's body","it's a slave holer's property", "you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body","you have no right to tell someone what they can do with their property", "it's not a baby" "it's not a human".The same arguments being made about abortion were the same ones being made about slavery. Do you support slavery?
If you want the facts on the abortion industry please read "The Hand of God" by Bernard N. Nathanson. He knows first hand how the business that makes a huge profit by killing works.
Firstly, I don't consider abortion as killing. Secondly, I have been talking about a woman's right to have an abortion, which is an entirely different issue from the financial aspect of an actual abortion operation. Just because doctors can be greedy and all for the money, that doesn't mean that for a woman the right itself to choose to have an abortion should be taken away. Women shouldn't be punished for the selfishness of doctors.
But did Lucifer really bear or bring light considering that he did rebel? Perhaps not if God was the good guy. Perhaps yes if he didn't want to prostrate himself before a totalitarian dictator named Yahwehdolf Hitler and give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil so that they could make moral decisions and choices, instead of Yahwehdolf commanding the two to burn books.
Why would somebody such as the angel of light rebel against God? Wouldn't you expect that from the angel of darkness?
Personally, I have never seen a sonogram face to face. I have, however, seen videos and images of sonograms. But my personal experiences are irrelevant because a fetus is still a "human" in development. That is why birth happens, it's because the fetus has fully developed; the "fetus" now has the biological ability to survive in the outside world. That's when I start calling them babies.
Also, there are premature births and I don't deny that. Since premature births can result in either survival or death, I personally prefer the word infant because it is in the outside world, but it may or may not end up surviving (in the outside world), so I personally don't prefer to use the word baby.
Abortion was never illegal because it says so in the Bible. It was illegal because it kills a human life. And until liberal judges rewrote the constitution it was legal in about half the states. It was a state issue where each state's citizens decided how they wanted to live.
Child abuse and spousal abuse are acts of violence, so I don't think one should have the right to do these things. I do think that one should have the right to an abortion if they choose to do so because it doesn't involve harming or taking away human life, it just involves taking away a part of you that doesn't have the necessary qualifications for being a human being because it's just biological material that isn't biologically fit to survive in the outside world like a baby can.
People who require machines in order to live should have those machines. It's just that machines require a certain amount of biology in order to work. A fetus doesn't necessarily have enough biology for a machine to serve a purpose. If you had a premature birth and the infant required a machine in order to live until it could survive without the machine, then great. (continued) ...
But as for a much younger fetus, if taken out of the womb and put into the outside world, a machine wouldn't be able to help it survive because there is not enough biology for the machine to serve a purpose; the fetus has not developed enough for a machine to help out.
Abortion is the act of aborting a fetus from developing into a human. A fetus isn't a human because a human is actually capable of living in the outside world.
Lucifer is Latin for "light bearer" or "light bringer", but I doubt that you think that the Devil had anything to do with bringing about light. Darkness perhaps, but probably not light.
Also, abortion is not black and white if that is what you think. What if a pregnant woman is having fetal complications, and is advised by her doctor to abort the fetus in order to preserve her own health and well-being, and perhaps even to prevent her from possible death? If the recently would-be mother agreed to this advice, then shouldn't she have the right to choose to abort? Should the fetus be aborted if the pregant woman's health or even life is at risk?
Religion is a private matter, so I'm saying that to make a law that has no justification other than a religious one is tyranny. Government by the people is one thing. Human rights, on the other hand, is another thing. Are you trying to tell me that the majority of Americans should be allowed to dictate any private views that they might have to those who don't share those private views?
Fair enough, so I'll grant you immunity on this one. However, it's only fair for me to point out that not all beliefs require you to believe in something that is "out of this world," so to speak, such as a supernatural entity, one of which being the Judeo-Christian God. Some citizens might find it difficult to abide by a law that was passed solely on the basis of an invocation of a supernatural entity.
Also, my question's actual intent was to address human rights violations and civil liberties/rights violations by means of tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is a concept about democracy. Perhaps you have heard of it?
blessedvic, clearly, you have misunderstood my point or are refusing to acknowledge it. Honestly, I don't think I can say anything else to you at this point.
All legislation is based on someone's belief system.All laws force everyone to behave in certain ways. When the laws are rewritten to redefine marriage someone is forcing me to accept their belief system.When killing babies becomes a "right" that belief system is forced on me. You're right,it is tyranny. It's tryanny from unelected judges acting illegally to do things they have no right to do. So much for representative government!
no one is forcing you to marry the same gender, no one is forcing you to have abortions... you have the right to do so or not do so... see the difference. Now what you keep suggesting on this video and mine is that your religious views be forced on others, no choice but mandate. No one is suggesting that you be FORCED to be atheistic, why do you feel we should be FORCED the be christian? also, where in the bible does it say "trinity, second coming or a list of words that you use in your dogma"
Basing legislation merely on religious opinion is to force others to abide by something that should be kept at a personal level. It is to strip others of their rights to live as they choose. I also consider it to be a form of tyranny. Yes, tyranny, that nasty old thing that you guys fought against so many years ago.
As for the question of separation of church and state, if I may add, I think that the concept of a medieval United States is always a tragedy.
blessedvic, for all practical reasons, why should I care about personal religious beliefs (from over 200 years ago) when I am simply making a point about the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
This video of mine makes a very good point. It points out that practicing a religion is a matter of choice, and choices are made at an individual level.
"I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
Ben Franklin,after living 81 yrs. and learning from life.
Franklin:"And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'
Ben Franklin:"He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.
George Bancroft, known as the "father of American history" for compiling the nation's first comprehensive record, wrote in Progress
of Mankind:"The Divine Being should...be known, not as a distant Providence...but as God present in the flesh...The consciousness of an incarnate God carried peace into the bosom of humanity."
"Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence." —Thomas Jefferson
religious people have the constitutional right to vote. If I want to vote only for Christians,or muslims,or Jews,or atheists that is my God given right.Not my government given right.What we don't have a right to do is to force other people to believe what we believe.
There are two seperate issues. Does the legislature in and of itself have the right to pass laws based on religion? No. And it has become too common a practice. Do I as a voter have the right to vote for or against laws based on my conscience (i.e. moral compass or religious beliefs)? Yes. Do I have the right to elect representatives into office (since we are not a direct democracy) that represent my views? Yes. To deny me that is to deny me. Don't dog me for being religious.
Beginning APRIL 25, 1789, every session of the U.S. Senate has opened with prayer.
This was a continuation of the Continental Congress' practice during the Revolution, as Franklin remarked in 1787:"In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection."
"I have sometimes thought there could be no stronger testimony in favor of Religion or against temporal Enjoyments even the most rational and manly than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent Advocates in the cause of Christ,..."
The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." --Justice Joseph Story
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." —John Adams
Madison then proclaimed a National Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting&Prayer to Almighty God on November 16, 1814.Two weeks after the War ended, Madison proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving & Devout Acknowledgment to Almighty God, March 4, 1815
On August 25, 1814, as the British burned the White House,Capitol and public buildings, dark clouds began to roll in. A tornado sent
debris flying, blew off roofs and knocked chimneys over on top of British troops. Two cannons were lifted off the ground and dropped
yards away.A British historian wrote:"More British soldiers were killed by this stroke of nature than from all the firearms the American troops had mustered."British forces fled in confusion and rains extinguished the fires.
William Prescott:"We consider that we are all embarked in (the same boat) and must
sink or swim together. Let us all be of one heart, and stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. And may He, of His infinite mercy, grant us deliverance of all our troubles."
William Prescott, born FEBRUARY 20, 1726,A Revolutionary War Colonel,he built the fortifications at Breed's Hill and commanded the militia at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.He fought in the Battle of Long Island in 1776 and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777
This amendment has no religious implication whatsoever. If a same sex couple were to enter a relationship they want to be recognized by the state than they can have a "civil union" or whatever name they want to call but they cannot have "marriage". Basically what the amendment does is copyright the term marriage and apply it to opposite sex relationships.
jeremhguru: the definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Anything else is trying to redefine marriage, something that liberals have been trying to do for a very long time.BYW, free people have a right to vote according to their beliefs.
Why do you wish to restrict the potential for a word's definition? The word gay has different definitions. Many other words have developed new definitions over time, so why can't that be the case with marriage? You speak of liberals redefining marriage. I, on the other hand, see non-traditional definitions of marriage as being progressive and tolerant. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
tothboy: words mean things. The word gay is a perfect example. The original meaning has nothing to do with what kids see it as today as a result the word gay is not used as much.
Secondly, you have spoken of Christianity as having laid the foundations for the Common Law by quoting Joseph Story. I personally wonder if Joseph Story, at the very least, took into consideration Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper (dated February 10, 1814) regarding the matter. Christianity lying the foundations for the Common Law? I think Jefferson would have disagreed.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that what I said concerning Joseph Story is, of course, under the assumption that he actually had access to that letter, or a copy of it, I think I should say.
Judge Joseph Story:On Christianity and Laws in America:"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 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 its foundations."
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; and 1829 speech at Harvard]
William Henry Harrison,son of Benjamin Harrison signer of the Dec. of Ind.,:"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion, and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness."
Why did the Constitutional framers set aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America.
"The New England Primer, 1777 edition". If America was not a Christian nation why was this the book used in public schools to teach children to read and the alphabet?
Bla bla, yeah, politicians always wear religion on their sleeves, because they know that the majority of voting citizens are religious. Many politicians, however, seem less "religious" in their private lives. Read the personal writings/letters of Washington or Jefferson and it will be obvious.
In laymans terms what the Constitution says is that the government cannot create a religion (ex the church of the united states of america) and make everyone worship it. The US is based on Judeo Christian values. This is why many of the colonists fled their home country, to get out from under religious persecution. The Constitution does not say that religion cannot influence decisions while made in office. Sorry atheists but no one is trying to make you go to church.
I was not talking about religion influencing decisions while made in office, but rather about how a law should not be made if its only justification is religious. For example, marriage should not be defined as being between one man and one woman merely because that is what the Christian Bible teaches.
This is not a religious example. The marriage example is social. Marriage can be performed at your house of worship not matter what the denomination or city hall.
The example that I gave was in regards to a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. I think I mentioned this earlier in my conversation with blessedvic. If you didn't see it, then that's okay because it's probably a few pages back.
sorry about that. I can see how that would be confusing. What I meant was I disagree with changing the laws to redefine marriage. What I should have said was that homosexuals already have the same right to marry as anyone else.Any man can marry any woman. But saying a man can "marry" another man is redefining what marriage is. I hope that's a little clearer.
Now that I can reply honestly, I think that if marriage can be demonstrated etymologically to be defined as being between one man and one woman, which I think can probably be done, then it should or it should not remain as such. What I mean by that is, the meaning of a word can change over time, regardless of the change being considered to be a beneficial one or not.
As for my problem with the amendment, it rests solely with the Christian right trying to deal with the issue on Biblical grounds. "It's what the Bible teaches" or anything else along those lines shouldn't solely justify the amendment. That is my stance.
Marriage by definition is one man and one woman. Anything else is trying to redefine marriage just so homosexuals can appear to be normal. The reason people want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage is because of liberal judges who make up rights out of then air. BTW, homosexuals have every right to get married just as all adults have.
Unless your last sentence was only describing the current state of affairs? I just want to be sure of what you meant by that, so I can leave a comment regarding your position on marriage more honestly.
relax dude. I'm not going to tell anyone with the U.S. government you lied about your age. However I disagree with the idea that homosexuals have the right to marry. And it's not based on any kind of hatred. It's based on the definition of marriage.
The original intent of the 1st amend. establishment clause was to make sure the fed. gov. did not create a national church. That worked good until the mid 20th cent. when liberal judges took a private letter from Jefferson and decided to use it to create a new version of the 1st amend. One that they agreeded with. Today's interpretation has nothing to do with what the founders intended.
tothboy01: I agree that no one should have religion imposed on them. In the same way if people in Texas want to start a football game with a prayer that is not unconsitutional. If a city wants to put up Christmas decorations on public property they have that right. If a student wants to pray in school they have that right.The courts have violated Christians rights by saying we can't practice our faith because one person may complain.
blessedvic, I don't think that saying a prayer before a football game should be made official, if that is what you meant. I personally think that one has a right to say a prayer before a football game, but only if it's kept private.
Secondly, if a city wants to put up Christmas decorations on public property, how are those decorations any different from decorations associated with a religion other than Christianity? I think that for a city to put up religious decorations on public property is tyranny, for public property should be left open to the public, and religion left up to the individual.
If it was ok for the founding fathers shouldn't it be ok for us. They decorated public property for Christmas, they had prayer in public and government buildings, they spent public money on Christian endeavours. Other than judges rewriting the 1st amend. nothing in the Constitution has changed.
No, I do not think it to be okay for us to do such things simply because the Founders did. I think that we can respect the fact that the Founders made possible the founding of the U.S., and respect the fact that they went to war in order to defend its sovereignty, while still being able to progress towards making America a more fair and equal country.
I think that one can pray on public or government property as is guaranteed by the free exercise clause. If a prayer is said on public or government property voluntarily, then I have no problem with that. The expression of religious faith is vital, in my opinion, to fairness and equality in the U.S..
As for spending public money on Christian endeavors, they may have done it back then, but we should know better nowadays to not tolerate public funding of private matters.
If a land owner wishes to put up a religious decoration on his/her own property, then so be it. But as far as I see fit, no public citizen should have to feel compelled to frequent private matters such as religion, opinions on religion, on politics or on food, etc while on public property.
I agree no one should be compelled to do something they oppose in their religious beliefs. What is being banned is people who voluntarily want to practice their beliefs.
If you believe no one should be compelled to do something against their religious beliefs should the fed. gov. use taxpayers dollars,the majority of which comes from Christians,to support abortion and other things Christians oppose?
No, I do not think that Christians should have to pay taxes for things that they oppose, such as abortion. I think that if an abortion clinic is going to be set up, it should be done as a business. If one is licensed to perform an abortion, then that person can set up a clinic as a business. Abortion is a choice, and thus a private matter.
I am deeply sorry, but I cannot do that because I am not a U.S. citizen. I reside in Canada, and am turning 18 quite soon. You see, the day I signed up for youtube, the sign up page was acting quite strange, so I decided to claim that I was an American, and that I was 21 years of age, which was, if I recall correctly, the default age on the page. Whether or not it was, I think I forgot to put my true age.
Now perhaps you're now thinking something like, "Damn this Canadian! I don't want him trying to tell people what he thinks my country should be like!". If so, then you have that right.
I may be a Canadian citizen, but one of the reasons why I created this video was to express my own personal concern for American gays and lesbians. I know about the issue dealing with a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
I think that all Americans have a right to vote as citizens. However, I also think that religion should be left for the individual to decide.
This video simply addresses my own opinion that no U.S. citizen should have personal and private matters, such as religion, imposed upon them by the law.
Any law that is made that has no justification other than "it's in the Bible", "it's in the Koran", etc, is, in my opinion, an infringement on the civil liberty of those American citizens who choose not to follow any religious path.
To me, to leave religion as a private matter is to manifest religious purity. For if the law is enforcing a particular religious creed, how can a follower of that particular creed be certain that he/she is adhering to it because of freedom of choice, and not because of legal pressure? Kind of like peer pressure, I suppose, to simply make a comparison.
The federal First Amendment was only applied to the states via the post-civil-war 14th Amendment. The same applies to most of the bill of rights. So we really should be looking at 19th and 20th century jurisprudence to determine the scope of American freedom, not just statements written at a time when 19% of the population was enslaved, women were second-class citizens, and many states legally enforced religious oaths to keep Catholics/Jews/atheists (and others) from office.
quantheory 1 year ago
The Puritans fled religious persecution... and then set up their own oppressive theocratic government. Besides the Salem witch trials, they also persecuted and exiled religious dissenters. In the various States generally, there were cases of violence or persecution against Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, non-monotheists...
The First Amendment means that you can't use the government as a carrot or stick to enforce your religious rules upon others. And that has always been absolutely vital.
quantheory 1 year ago 2
US liberty is grated first by a creator at birth and only recognized and upheld by the US constitution as a birth-right as such. Why, because if mere men or documents alone granted you liberty only a mere man or document can take it away! This is the distinction from American Liberty & why all men are created equal, evolution surly does not teach this but Christianity does. The basic notion of American liberty & freedom for all is by a God-given birth-right & a non-secular view historically.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
Its interesting to listen to Christians rally around and support the First Amendment like true Americans should. The truth is most of them support the First Amendment only to the extent that it allows them to freely express their religious beliefs. Anything more than that, especially anything critical of Christianity, all you will find will be plenty of dissatisfaction from them, you certainly wont find any support for YOUR freedom of speech from the majority of Christians.
AdamTh1 2 years ago 2
@AdamTh1 lol so true, Freedom of speech and religion to a christian is : you have the freedom to believe and say what I tell you to.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Puritans/Pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution (do google search). The Church of England was the only sanctioned church.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to keep government out of church business, not religion out of government. Most of the Fathers attended church, and many were pastors.
The First Amendment doesn't mention separation of church and state. It simply states that Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, or prohibiting it's free exercise!
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
Wrong. You can't keep government out of church or out of people's lives unless religion is kept out of government. Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Religion has no place in government at all. You would be singing a different tune if Muslims were enacting laws and meddling in our government affairs as much as Christians are.
Syrinx69 2 years ago 3
Well said. To avoid discrimination, perhaps we should start providing equal opportunity on our money to all religions:
In Allah we trust
In Buddha we trust
In Poseidon we trust
In Lord Xenu we trust
Every Christian would be with you and me, demanding that the Constitution be upheld. It is a taste of their own medicine that is required.
infinityjrh 2 years ago 4
@infinityjrh Lord Xenu is a bad guy though...
bearchewtoy75 1 year ago
A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805) reported that 94 percent of the periods documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible.
Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
CranesNotSkyHooks
You've just proven my point. The First Amendment is about keeping the government from making any laws or restrictions regarding religion. Our Founding Fathers didn't want religion confined to just one denomination as it had been in England.
I stand by my question, "When are Americans going to get this straight"? When are you going to get this straight?
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
Comment removed
loulou2lou 2 years ago
(1 of 2)
I believe in the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights; they are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church, such as the Church of England)
(See part 2 of 2)
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our right to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The Framers were seeking to guarantee a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. Chuck Norris (4/7/09)
The FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT KEEPING RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT, it's about keeping government out of religion!
When are Americans going to get this straight?
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
The first amendment is not about keeping religion out of government? While you've got the free exercise part of the first amendment down, what of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." don't you understand?
CranesNotSkyHooks 2 years ago
"No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy."
[James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787]
jfsfrnd 2 years ago
James Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights, incl. clause:
It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
His proposed wording for First Amendment shows that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any NATIONAL religion be established.
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
". . .practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
This is the full section:
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
jfsfrnd 2 years ago
End of section 11:
And the Legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatever; nor confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any one sect or denomination; nor pass any law requiring or authorising any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry;
jfsfrnd 2 years ago
--continued
but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
jfsfrnd 2 years ago
". . .nor shall any NATIONAL religion be established."
From: Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - full section.
"Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
jfsfrnd 2 years ago
Are we in agreement or not? I'm not quite sure.
GodsGalaxy 2 years ago
I don't think so. If I am correct you are saying that government needs to stay out of religion, but religion does not need to stay out of government. That is not my understanding.
jfsfrnd 2 years ago 2
To support abortion:
A woman has the right to control her own body. If she is forced into birth, or even a horrendous cesarian section, she can suffer life-changing issues, resulting in lifelong illness, and even death.
And what about rape victims that become pregnant? It was not under their choice to become impregnated, they reserve the right to an abortion!
Those who are against abortion, are against individual liberty. I rest my case.
gamingfan1989 2 years ago
A very small percent of all abortions are due to health risks and rape. The problem is the sex promoting media and resulting promiscuity. Since when is it normal and acceptable to murder babies for convenience? It has nothing to due with liberties abortion is an issue of clouded morals and an increasing lack of human importance.
kyachris 2 years ago
great slideshow, love the music. But it's a great, common sense approach to spread the fact, and it is a fact, that we cannot establish religion on the federal level, at the least, and atheism has been considered by the courts a religous viewpoint, so we also cannot establish atheism as a "religion", but I don't know any atheist who is trying to do that. We all just want religion left out of the government, and notice i didn't say morals, just religion
cdsoder345432 2 years ago
Christianity is near an end.
How long can you claim the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is not real before you get tired of being laughed at?
The ridicule they elicit is well earned.
It is impossible to support the level of ignorance inherant in christianity forever.
I for one say good riddance.
judoyodan 3 years ago
Only Absolutists believe that. Most of us have moved on. We believe that the Bible says that the world was created in a week to give people of the time a better time scale in which it happened. To them, about six thousand years ago, billions of years would have been impossible to comprehend.
englishfrenchgerman 2 years ago 2
I take it you've also moved on from the Earth sitting on four pillars, and being flat as well. Another passage that evidences a book written by bronze age sheep herders, and not a divine creator.
OllyakaEnfillade 2 years ago
Billions of years is still "impossible to comprehend" for us today. we have a hard time comprehending thousands, let alone millions, let alone billions
cdsoder345432 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 years the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."
blessedvic 3 years ago
John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds." William Jay, The Life of John Jay.
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Continental Congress voted September 11, 1777, to import Bibles
from Scotland or Holland into different parts of the Union, stating:
"The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great...it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of
Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible."
That would have been the "Christian" Bible!
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Congress set aside December 18, 1777 as a day of thanksgiving so the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance."
blessedvic 3 years ago
A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the periods documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.
blessedvic 3 years ago
If that is the case, then okay. Christianity was quite woven into the customs, traditions, social norms, etc in the founding era (1760-1805), so I think it's safe to say that the results of that report are probably what one would expect. Just to give three examples of religion's role in the origin of some of the American colonies, Massachusetts was founded by Puritans, Mayland by Catholics, and Pennsylvania by Quakers. (continued)...
tothboy01 3 years ago
However, this video is specifically about the free exercise clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Free exercise of religion. (continued)...
tothboy01 3 years ago
I don't think I'm being unreasonable for holding the notion that free exercise of religion is a personal choice. If an American wants to freely exercise his/her own religion, then fine. But that is his/her own religion, not necessarily the religion of other religious people nor the stance of non-religious people. Having said all that, why should this one particular individual's own religion be imposed by law on those other kinds of people?
tothboy01 3 years ago 3
TRUTH or Biblical-RELIGION, not a subject to ones own PERSONAL opinion. You can not have subjective TRUTH.
Cabanas751Dunhill 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Provincial Congress issued a Resolution to Massachusetts Bay,1774: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual...Continue steadfast, and with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Philippine General Carlos Romulo:"Never forget Americans, that yours is a spiritual country. Yes, I know you're a practical people. Like others, I've marveled at your factories, your skyscrapers, and your arsenals. But underlying everything else is the fact that America began as a God-loving, God-fearing, God-worshipping people."
blessedvic 3 years ago
babies shouldn't be punished for their mothers selfishness. Read the book.
blessedvic 3 years ago
I would have no problem with reading that book. It's just that this guy, having become religious, has a bias in his position. And do I need to repeat my point? I have been talking about the right itself to have an abortion, not, say, the financial aspects that are related to the actual operation. Principle is different from practice. (continued)...
tothboy01 3 years ago
Concerning Bernard Nathanson, it was not his religion that changed his mind. It was technology.When he started seeing "fetus's" through a sonogram he KNEW he was looking at a BABY. As far as financial gain he has lost a lot of money since he stopped doing abortions. Read the book.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Firstly, I don't recall saying that it was his religion that changed his mind if you're trying to claim that that was what I had said. Secondly, concerning the technology, sonograms deal with a "baby" that hasn't been born. Once the "baby" has developed everything that it requires to survive in the outside world, birth happens. (continued)...
tothboy01 3 years ago
If it's born and has a chance of survival, then I'll consider it a baby. If it can survive after birth, then I'll consider it a human. But I'm certainly not going to consider a fetus that is only a few weeks old a baby.
tothboy01 3 years ago
And how many times do I have to say that I don't consider a fetus a baby? Why do you insist on using that word with me? Having said that, I don't think that a mother is being selfish if she wants to terminate something that is not a baby. (continued) ...
tothboy01 3 years ago
just because you don't "consider" it a baby doesn't change the fact that it is a baby.Slave holders never considered slaves human beings. Did that make them any less human?
blessedvic 3 years ago
I don't consider a fetus to be a baby for what I see to be some quite rational reasons. I try to avoid saying that a fetus is a fetus for a fact. If I have said that in the past, then that was my fault. But for you to say "doesn't change the fact that it is a baby" sounds quite serious. Having said that, I can also add that slavery throughout history has taken people who have survived birth and considered them to be property. (continued)...
tothboy01 3 years ago
There would have been no purpose to slavery if the slave wasn't able to live in the outside world because the slaves were required to do hard work and labor, such as digging for stone in ancient Roman times and picking cotton during the African Slave Trade.
tothboy01 3 years ago
If anybody here is being selfish, it's probably you because clearly you don't think that a woman should be able to make her own choices and decisions about her own body. If you really are like that, then that makes you a fascist control freak who wants to dominate and control women.
tothboy01 3 years ago
the argument about abortion is identical with slavery. "it's a woman's body","it's a slave holer's property", "you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body","you have no right to tell someone what they can do with their property", "it's not a baby" "it's not a human".The same arguments being made about abortion were the same ones being made about slavery. Do you support slavery?
blessedvic 3 years ago
No, I don't support slavery.
tothboy01 3 years ago
If you want the facts on the abortion industry please read "The Hand of God" by Bernard N. Nathanson. He knows first hand how the business that makes a huge profit by killing works.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Firstly, I don't consider abortion as killing. Secondly, I have been talking about a woman's right to have an abortion, which is an entirely different issue from the financial aspect of an actual abortion operation. Just because doctors can be greedy and all for the money, that doesn't mean that for a woman the right itself to choose to have an abortion should be taken away. Women shouldn't be punished for the selfishness of doctors.
tothboy01 3 years ago
And I am sorry for taking a long time to reply to this comment of yours. I am usually a very busy person.
tothboy01 3 years ago
lucifer,until he rebeled. was the angel of light.He was known as the morning star.
blessedvic 3 years ago
But did Lucifer really bear or bring light considering that he did rebel? Perhaps not if God was the good guy. Perhaps yes if he didn't want to prostrate himself before a totalitarian dictator named Yahwehdolf Hitler and give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil so that they could make moral decisions and choices, instead of Yahwehdolf commanding the two to burn books.
Why would somebody such as the angel of light rebel against God? Wouldn't you expect that from the angel of darkness?
tothboy01 3 years ago
have you ever looked at a sonogram?
blessedvic 3 years ago
Personally, I have never seen a sonogram face to face. I have, however, seen videos and images of sonograms. But my personal experiences are irrelevant because a fetus is still a "human" in development. That is why birth happens, it's because the fetus has fully developed; the "fetus" now has the biological ability to survive in the outside world. That's when I start calling them babies.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Also, there are premature births and I don't deny that. Since premature births can result in either survival or death, I personally prefer the word infant because it is in the outside world, but it may or may not end up surviving (in the outside world), so I personally don't prefer to use the word baby.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Abortion was never illegal because it says so in the Bible. It was illegal because it kills a human life. And until liberal judges rewrote the constitution it was legal in about half the states. It was a state issue where each state's citizens decided how they wanted to live.
blessedvic 3 years ago
If abortion is a private matter is child abuse a private matter, is spousal abuse a private matter? If not,why is abortion private.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Child abuse and spousal abuse are acts of violence, so I don't think one should have the right to do these things. I do think that one should have the right to an abortion if they choose to do so because it doesn't involve harming or taking away human life, it just involves taking away a part of you that doesn't have the necessary qualifications for being a human being because it's just biological material that isn't biologically fit to survive in the outside world like a baby can.
tothboy01 3 years ago
ripping a baby apart is not an act of violence?
blessedvic 3 years ago
I wouldn't describe an abortion as "ripping a baby apart", so I don't really understand what you mean.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Can we kill any human who is kept alive by a machine since they can't survive outside the machine?
blessedvic 3 years ago
yes actually, we can. the closest living relative can decide to turn off life support.
eddtheman070 3 years ago
Can we kill any human who is kept alive by a machine since they can't survive outside the machine?
blessedvic 3 years ago
People who require machines in order to live should have those machines. It's just that machines require a certain amount of biology in order to work. A fetus doesn't necessarily have enough biology for a machine to serve a purpose. If you had a premature birth and the infant required a machine in order to live until it could survive without the machine, then great. (continued) ...
tothboy01 3 years ago
But as for a much younger fetus, if taken out of the womb and put into the outside world, a machine wouldn't be able to help it survive because there is not enough biology for the machine to serve a purpose; the fetus has not developed enough for a machine to help out.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Abortion is the act of aborting a fetus from developing into a human. A fetus isn't a human because a human is actually capable of living in the outside world.
tothboy01 3 years ago
fetus is latin for baby.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Lucifer is Latin for "light bearer" or "light bringer", but I doubt that you think that the Devil had anything to do with bringing about light. Darkness perhaps, but probably not light.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Also, abortion is not black and white if that is what you think. What if a pregnant woman is having fetal complications, and is advised by her doctor to abort the fetus in order to preserve her own health and well-being, and perhaps even to prevent her from possible death? If the recently would-be mother agreed to this advice, then shouldn't she have the right to choose to abort? Should the fetus be aborted if the pregant woman's health or even life is at risk?
tothboy01 3 years ago
Abortion is a private matter, so what's it to you? How would you like it if a Muslim tried to pass a law just because it says so in the Qur'an?
tothboy01 3 years ago
Religion is a private matter, so I'm saying that to make a law that has no justification other than a religious one is tyranny. Government by the people is one thing. Human rights, on the other hand, is another thing. Are you trying to tell me that the majority of Americans should be allowed to dictate any private views that they might have to those who don't share those private views?
tothboy01 3 years ago
Every law is written according to someone's beliefs.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Fair enough, so I'll grant you immunity on this one. However, it's only fair for me to point out that not all beliefs require you to believe in something that is "out of this world," so to speak, such as a supernatural entity, one of which being the Judeo-Christian God. Some citizens might find it difficult to abide by a law that was passed solely on the basis of an invocation of a supernatural entity.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Also, my question's actual intent was to address human rights violations and civil liberties/rights violations by means of tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is a concept about democracy. Perhaps you have heard of it?
tothboy01 3 years ago
blessedvic, clearly, you have misunderstood my point or are refusing to acknowledge it. Honestly, I don't think I can say anything else to you at this point.
tothboy01 3 years ago
Where on any government document do you find the phrase "sep. of church and state"?
blessedvic 3 years ago
All legislation is based on someone's belief system.All laws force everyone to behave in certain ways. When the laws are rewritten to redefine marriage someone is forcing me to accept their belief system.When killing babies becomes a "right" that belief system is forced on me. You're right,it is tyranny. It's tryanny from unelected judges acting illegally to do things they have no right to do. So much for representative government!
blessedvic 3 years ago
no one is forcing you to marry the same gender, no one is forcing you to have abortions... you have the right to do so or not do so... see the difference. Now what you keep suggesting on this video and mine is that your religious views be forced on others, no choice but mandate. No one is suggesting that you be FORCED to be atheistic, why do you feel we should be FORCED the be christian? also, where in the bible does it say "trinity, second coming or a list of words that you use in your dogma"
java7686 3 years ago
Basing legislation merely on religious opinion is to force others to abide by something that should be kept at a personal level. It is to strip others of their rights to live as they choose. I also consider it to be a form of tyranny. Yes, tyranny, that nasty old thing that you guys fought against so many years ago.
As for the question of separation of church and state, if I may add, I think that the concept of a medieval United States is always a tragedy.
tothboy01 3 years ago
blessedvic, for all practical reasons, why should I care about personal religious beliefs (from over 200 years ago) when I am simply making a point about the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
This video of mine makes a very good point. It points out that practicing a religion is a matter of choice, and choices are made at an individual level.
tothboy01 3 years ago
As U.S. Congressman chairing the Committee on
Appropriations, James Garfield stated July 4, 1876:"If the next century does not find us a great nation...it will be
because those who represent the...morality of the nation do not aid
in controlling the political forces."
Garfield thought the U.S. was a Christian nation. And this quote is prophetic
blessedvic 3 years ago
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it,
derived from our Maker.'
John Adams (A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)
Do deists believe in a personal God? Not according to my dictionary.
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
Ben Franklin,after living 81 yrs. and learning from life.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Franklin:"And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ben Franklin:"He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.
blessedvic 3 years ago
Congressman James Meacham :"It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should
be upheld by a free people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been
strangled in its cradle."
blessedvic 3 years ago
The Journal of the U.S. House of Representatives, March 27, 1854,
recorded the unanimous vote of the 33rd Congress to print Congressman
James Meacham's report, which stated:
"At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State - certainly 10 of the 13 - provided as regularly for the support of the
Church as for the support of the Government...
blessedvic 3 years ago
The U.S. Constitution went into effect JUNE 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratified it.
The 55 writers of the U.S. Constitution consisted of:
26 Episcopalians, 11 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2
Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 2
Quakers and 1 Deist.
blessedvic 3 years ago
George Bancroft:"The idea of GOD WITH US dwelt and dwells in every system of thought
that can pretend to vitality; in every oppressed people, whose
struggles to be free have the promise of success; in every soul that
sighs for redemption."
The father of American history sure thought we were a Christian nation!
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
George Bancroft, known as the "father of American history" for compiling the nation's first comprehensive record, wrote in Progress
of Mankind:"The Divine Being should...be known, not as a distant Providence...but as God present in the flesh...The consciousness of an incarnate God carried peace into the bosom of humanity."
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence." —Thomas Jefferson
blessedvic 3 years ago
A secular nation is helpful to both religious and non religious people.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
JFK,the hero of liberals,actually believed America was founded on Christian ideals! What an idiot....NOT.
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Writing to Brazil's President, Janio da Silva Quadros, January 31,
1961, John F. Kennedy stated:
"Once in every 20 years presidential inaugurations in your country
and mine occur within days of each other. This year of 1961 is
signalized by the happy coincidence.
At this time, each of us assumes challenging duties...To each of us
is entrusted the heavy responsibility of guiding the affairs of a
democratic nation founded on Christian ideals."
blessedvic 3 years ago
using your logic: Jefferson said all people are endowed with rights by their creator. If you don't believe in a creator do you have rights?
blessedvic 3 years ago
religious people have the constitutional right to vote. If I want to vote only for Christians,or muslims,or Jews,or atheists that is my God given right.Not my government given right.What we don't have a right to do is to force other people to believe what we believe.
blessedvic 3 years ago
There are two seperate issues. Does the legislature in and of itself have the right to pass laws based on religion? No. And it has become too common a practice. Do I as a voter have the right to vote for or against laws based on my conscience (i.e. moral compass or religious beliefs)? Yes. Do I have the right to elect representatives into office (since we are not a direct democracy) that represent my views? Yes. To deny me that is to deny me. Don't dog me for being religious.
TracyII77 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
History of the National Day of Prayer
1775 The First Continental Congress called for a National Day of Prayer.
1863 Abraham Lincoln called for such a day.
1952 Congress established NDP as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Truman.
1988 The law was amended and signed by President Reagan, to be the first Thursday in May.
Do deists pray?
blessedvic 3 years ago
Beginning APRIL 25, 1789, every session of the U.S. Senate has opened with prayer.
This was a continuation of the Continental Congress' practice during the Revolution, as Franklin remarked in 1787:"In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection."
Do deists pray?
blessedvic 3 years ago
Madison letter to Bradford,1773:
"I have sometimes thought there could be no stronger testimony in favor of Religion or against temporal Enjoyments even the most rational and manly than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent Advocates in the cause of Christ,..."
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jedediah Morse stated in Charleston, Massachusetts, April 25, 1799:
"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government,and all the blessings which
flow from them,must fall with them."
The father of Samuel Morse thought this was a Christian nation!
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The first African American to have his image on a U.S. coin and postage stamp, Booker T. Washington wrote in Up From Slavery, 1907:
"If no other consideration had convinced me of the value of the Christian life, the Christlike work which the Church of all
denominations in America has done during the last 35 years for the elevation of the black man would have made me a Christian."
Booker T. Washington thought he lived in a Christian nation!
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." --Justice Joseph Story
blessedvic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." —John Adams
blessedvic 3 years ago
Do diests pray to their god and give thanks and fast to a god who doesn't get involved in their lives?
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Madison then proclaimed a National Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting&Prayer to Almighty God on November 16, 1814.Two weeks after the War ended, Madison proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving & Devout Acknowledgment to Almighty God, March 4, 1815
blessedvic 4 years ago
On August 25, 1814, as the British burned the White House,Capitol and public buildings, dark clouds began to roll in. A tornado sent
debris flying, blew off roofs and knocked chimneys over on top of British troops. Two cannons were lifted off the ground and dropped
yards away.A British historian wrote:"More British soldiers were killed by this stroke of nature than from all the firearms the American troops had mustered."British forces fled in confusion and rains extinguished the fires.
blessedvic 4 years ago
During the War of 1812,James Madison proclaimed two National Days of
Prayer.
blessedvic 4 years ago
William Prescott:"We consider that we are all embarked in (the same boat) and must
sink or swim together. Let us all be of one heart, and stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. And may He, of His infinite mercy, grant us deliverance of all our troubles."
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William Prescott, born FEBRUARY 20, 1726,A Revolutionary War Colonel,he built the fortifications at Breed's Hill and commanded the militia at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.He fought in the Battle of Long Island in 1776 and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777
blessedvic 4 years ago
This amendment has no religious implication whatsoever. If a same sex couple were to enter a relationship they want to be recognized by the state than they can have a "civil union" or whatever name they want to call but they cannot have "marriage". Basically what the amendment does is copyright the term marriage and apply it to opposite sex relationships.
hfl2005 4 years ago
It is a religious amendment because virtually all the arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are religion-based.
Jeremyguru 4 years ago
jeremhguru: the definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Anything else is trying to redefine marriage, something that liberals have been trying to do for a very long time.BYW, free people have a right to vote according to their beliefs.
blessedvic 4 years ago
Why do you wish to restrict the potential for a word's definition? The word gay has different definitions. Many other words have developed new definitions over time, so why can't that be the case with marriage? You speak of liberals redefining marriage. I, on the other hand, see non-traditional definitions of marriage as being progressive and tolerant. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
tothboy01 4 years ago
tothboy: words mean things. The word gay is a perfect example. The original meaning has nothing to do with what kids see it as today as a result the word gay is not used as much.
blessedvic 4 years ago
Secondly, you have spoken of Christianity as having laid the foundations for the Common Law by quoting Joseph Story. I personally wonder if Joseph Story, at the very least, took into consideration Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper (dated February 10, 1814) regarding the matter. Christianity lying the foundations for the Common Law? I think Jefferson would have disagreed.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to mention that what I said concerning Joseph Story is, of course, under the assumption that he actually had access to that letter, or a copy of it, I think I should say.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Judge Joseph Story:On Christianity and Laws in America:"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 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 its foundations."
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; and 1829 speech at Harvard]
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
THOMAS JEFFERSON -- Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Jeremyguru 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Trusting in Him who can go with me and remain with you, and be
everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be
well...Let us all pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.."
President Abraham Lincoln.
Oh wait, was he a deist too?
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William Henry Harrison,son of Benjamin Harrison signer of the Dec. of Ind.,:"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion, and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness."
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have lived, Sir, a
long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs
I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men.
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice,
is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?""
-- Benjamin Franklin (To Colleagues at the Constitutional
Convention)
blessedvic 4 years ago
Why did the Constitutional framers set aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America.
blessedvic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The New England Primer, 1777 edition". If America was not a Christian nation why was this the book used in public schools to teach children to read and the alphabet?
blessedvic 4 years ago
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible
hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People
of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced
to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been
distinguished by some token of providential agency." George Washington (First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789)
In other words...God.
blessedvic 4 years ago
Bla bla, yeah, politicians always wear religion on their sleeves, because they know that the majority of voting citizens are religious. Many politicians, however, seem less "religious" in their private lives. Read the personal writings/letters of Washington or Jefferson and it will be obvious.
Jeremyguru 4 years ago
In laymans terms what the Constitution says is that the government cannot create a religion (ex the church of the united states of america) and make everyone worship it. The US is based on Judeo Christian values. This is why many of the colonists fled their home country, to get out from under religious persecution. The Constitution does not say that religion cannot influence decisions while made in office. Sorry atheists but no one is trying to make you go to church.
hfl2005 4 years ago
I was not talking about religion influencing decisions while made in office, but rather about how a law should not be made if its only justification is religious. For example, marriage should not be defined as being between one man and one woman merely because that is what the Christian Bible teaches.
tothboy01 4 years ago
This is not a religious example. The marriage example is social. Marriage can be performed at your house of worship not matter what the denomination or city hall.
hfl2005 4 years ago
The example that I gave was in regards to a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. I think I mentioned this earlier in my conversation with blessedvic. If you didn't see it, then that's okay because it's probably a few pages back.
tothboy01 4 years ago
sorry about that. I can see how that would be confusing. What I meant was I disagree with changing the laws to redefine marriage. What I should have said was that homosexuals already have the same right to marry as anyone else.Any man can marry any woman. But saying a man can "marry" another man is redefining what marriage is. I hope that's a little clearer.
blessedvic 4 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
Now that I can reply honestly, I think that if marriage can be demonstrated etymologically to be defined as being between one man and one woman, which I think can probably be done, then it should or it should not remain as such. What I mean by that is, the meaning of a word can change over time, regardless of the change being considered to be a beneficial one or not.
tothboy01 4 years ago
As for my problem with the amendment, it rests solely with the Christian right trying to deal with the issue on Biblical grounds. "It's what the Bible teaches" or anything else along those lines shouldn't solely justify the amendment. That is my stance.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Marriage by definition is one man and one woman. Anything else is trying to redefine marriage just so homosexuals can appear to be normal. The reason people want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage is because of liberal judges who make up rights out of then air. BTW, homosexuals have every right to get married just as all adults have.
blessedvic 4 years ago
Forgive me for being confused, but didn't your last sentence contradict the position you were upholding beforehand?
tothboy01 4 years ago
Unless your last sentence was only describing the current state of affairs? I just want to be sure of what you meant by that, so I can leave a comment regarding your position on marriage more honestly.
tothboy01 4 years ago
relax dude. I'm not going to tell anyone with the U.S. government you lied about your age. However I disagree with the idea that homosexuals have the right to marry. And it's not based on any kind of hatred. It's based on the definition of marriage.
blessedvic 4 years ago
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time;
the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Summary View of the Rights of British America,
August 1774)
blessedvic 4 years ago
The original intent of the 1st amend. establishment clause was to make sure the fed. gov. did not create a national church. That worked good until the mid 20th cent. when liberal judges took a private letter from Jefferson and decided to use it to create a new version of the 1st amend. One that they agreeded with. Today's interpretation has nothing to do with what the founders intended.
blessedvic 4 years ago
tothboy01: I agree that no one should have religion imposed on them. In the same way if people in Texas want to start a football game with a prayer that is not unconsitutional. If a city wants to put up Christmas decorations on public property they have that right. If a student wants to pray in school they have that right.The courts have violated Christians rights by saying we can't practice our faith because one person may complain.
blessedvic 4 years ago
blessedvic, I don't think that saying a prayer before a football game should be made official, if that is what you meant. I personally think that one has a right to say a prayer before a football game, but only if it's kept private.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Secondly, if a city wants to put up Christmas decorations on public property, how are those decorations any different from decorations associated with a religion other than Christianity? I think that for a city to put up religious decorations on public property is tyranny, for public property should be left open to the public, and religion left up to the individual.
tothboy01 4 years ago
If it was ok for the founding fathers shouldn't it be ok for us. They decorated public property for Christmas, they had prayer in public and government buildings, they spent public money on Christian endeavours. Other than judges rewriting the 1st amend. nothing in the Constitution has changed.
blessedvic 4 years ago
No, I do not think it to be okay for us to do such things simply because the Founders did. I think that we can respect the fact that the Founders made possible the founding of the U.S., and respect the fact that they went to war in order to defend its sovereignty, while still being able to progress towards making America a more fair and equal country.
tothboy01 4 years ago
I think that one can pray on public or government property as is guaranteed by the free exercise clause. If a prayer is said on public or government property voluntarily, then I have no problem with that. The expression of religious faith is vital, in my opinion, to fairness and equality in the U.S..
As for spending public money on Christian endeavors, they may have done it back then, but we should know better nowadays to not tolerate public funding of private matters.
tothboy01 4 years ago
To finish off:
If a land owner wishes to put up a religious decoration on his/her own property, then so be it. But as far as I see fit, no public citizen should have to feel compelled to frequent private matters such as religion, opinions on religion, on politics or on food, etc while on public property.
tothboy01 4 years ago
I agree no one should be compelled to do something they oppose in their religious beliefs. What is being banned is people who voluntarily want to practice their beliefs.
blessedvic 4 years ago
If you believe no one should be compelled to do something against their religious beliefs should the fed. gov. use taxpayers dollars,the majority of which comes from Christians,to support abortion and other things Christians oppose?
blessedvic 4 years ago
No, I do not think that Christians should have to pay taxes for things that they oppose, such as abortion. I think that if an abortion clinic is going to be set up, it should be done as a business. If one is licensed to perform an abortion, then that person can set up a clinic as a business. Abortion is a choice, and thus a private matter.
tothboy01 4 years ago
then call your congressmen and have them stop giving money to planned parenthood.
blessedvic 4 years ago
I am deeply sorry, but I cannot do that because I am not a U.S. citizen. I reside in Canada, and am turning 18 quite soon. You see, the day I signed up for youtube, the sign up page was acting quite strange, so I decided to claim that I was an American, and that I was 21 years of age, which was, if I recall correctly, the default age on the page. Whether or not it was, I think I forgot to put my true age.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Now perhaps you're now thinking something like, "Damn this Canadian! I don't want him trying to tell people what he thinks my country should be like!". If so, then you have that right.
I may be a Canadian citizen, but one of the reasons why I created this video was to express my own personal concern for American gays and lesbians. I know about the issue dealing with a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
tothboy01 4 years ago
If one wants such an amendment to be created merely out of Biblical support, then that would be making a private matter a part of the law.
I don't know how America could still be called the land of the free if its citizens got away with something like that.
Trust me, if I was an American, and was of appropriate age, I would indeed notify my congressmen on that particular issue.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Do Christians have a right to vote?
blessedvic 4 years ago
I think that all Americans have a right to vote as citizens. However, I also think that religion should be left for the individual to decide.
This video simply addresses my own opinion that no U.S. citizen should have personal and private matters, such as religion, imposed upon them by the law.
tothboy01 4 years ago
Any law that is made that has no justification other than "it's in the Bible", "it's in the Koran", etc, is, in my opinion, an infringement on the civil liberty of those American citizens who choose not to follow any religious path.
tothboy01 4 years ago
To me, to leave religion as a private matter is to manifest religious purity. For if the law is enforcing a particular religious creed, how can a follower of that particular creed be certain that he/she is adhering to it because of freedom of choice, and not because of legal pressure? Kind of like peer pressure, I suppose, to simply make a comparison.
tothboy01 4 years ago