You assume that we - as a free country are somehow in control of whether or not the world is, or will be at peace. Wake up! There will NEVER be peace between Isreal and any Islamic country. EVER! Never has been - never will be.

One only has to be a realist to know that. Optimism or pessimism is irrelivant to this equation. I don't find this to be the problem of the one who created - but of the created themselves.

What are you joking? One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. Hmmm, now that sounds familiar huh? Anyone who is the slightest bit interested in history, instead of merely reinventing it or rejecting it like is so often the case on these forums, can discover this information for themselves. I agree with you. "Context-not pretext is the path to truth." I would also reject bold face lies as being the contextual basis for truth, Eljay.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day, giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution, not once.

Not to mention he's like a thousand years old so if he gets in, its very likely that he wont make two terms and then we will have her in there and shes a conservative Christian as far as I know. Im moving to Canada, so help me. Ive been thinking about doing that anyway for quite some time. I have made arrangements for Toronto.

Not to mention he's another idiot puppet on a string.



Just I just say that out loud?

I have to agree - there is nothing stated about Separation of church and state, it was set up to say " the state shall make no Laws governing religion." for the soul reason that england had done just that to them - an english church that governed politics so to say with the aid of the king or visa versa. this was the only reason it it even there.

SKY:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."


TRIBO:

what "LAWS" have we made respecting a establishment of religion? show me a federal law that does such please? the supreme court, the congress, the house are free to worship how they see fit, this has nothing to do with the above. nor does it have anything to do with the emblems or other found in the halls of buildings or on money or anything else - these are not laws respecting the establishment of religion. however englad did just that they set up there own churches and ministers in the anglican church by order of the king!! this is what we were trying to prevent from happening!!

I've done more than a little research into American History. I grew up a mile away from the battle of Lexington and Concord, and have spent as many years s you've been alive studying the Revolution and the founding of this country. Just because I'm not familiar with what happened 5 to 6 thousand years ago - doesn't mean I don't know anything about History. Check your facts. The framers of the constitution ere NOT deists. A few of them were - but they were far out numbered by christians in the continental congress.

I never said there was a reference to God or any religion in the constitution - other than what is stated in the 1st Amendment. I said the Declaration of Independence. Did you read my post? The first amendment was written specifically to prevent a state church - such as the church of England, from having any say over the way in which the citizens of this country chose to worship, nor did the federal government have any jouristiction over what the state or commonwealth charters deemed appropriate for themselves. If a state decided that it was against their common belief to not work on a Sunday - the federal government had no say in the matter. It is why there were still blue laws up until the 20th century. It has only been in the last 30 or so years that the Courts have taken it upon themselves to create laws and rulings that have taken the rights of states to govern themselves as they see fit - away. Despite what the majority wants. And the congress has done nothing to stop it. The constitution was established so that the few would not lord it ovr the masses. Thanks to the courts - they have rendered the constitution meaningless.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I have to concede that, as far as I know, we do not have any laws that were specifically made respecting an establishment of religion.

I can only say that, in my opinion, laws against polygamy, for instance, are specifically intended to control the practice of religion and therefore directly affect the establishment of religion - regardless of how they are worded.

If it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

The original subject was about Sen McCain, No God, country First.
By virtue that we are talking about a presidential candidate we are therefore discussing politics. Because the title includes "No God", therefore, we sre talking about religion. Because the title has "Country First", we are talking about our country. The initiator of the thread have chosen to enter under "Religious Chat", so, yes it is about politics and our country, but mainly it is a religious thread. Everyone that is participating has some interest in religion whether in belief or non-belief, otherwise we would not be exchanging thoughts under "Religious Chat"!
The USA is a deeply religious country. Our Country was born about 232 years ago. Without our acceptance (belief) that there is the creator God that is regarded supreme over our establishment, each of us in every generation will consider self as god, and therefore, will have the urge to shape or force the rest of us to their own ways in living. This is what is happenning in many countries of the world.....a dictatorship. Some dictatorships are religious, some are secular. The beauty of our system is that it recognizes the freedom of the individual within a framework of rules and laws that are based on the commendments given by God to Moses (The Judeo-Christian belief). This makes us have a restricted freedom. This, however is the reason we can have civil discussions even with disagreements. This is why when someone takes property belongging to someone else without paying for it, we call this stealing......
Imagine yourself in a plastic float boat. The main ingridient that makes you float is "air" within the tight plastic walls of this boat. For air to get in these walls it must be placed there thru a plug. You might be sitting on that plug, or it might bother your hands or side, but you know that you should not bother it, else you will drown. For a long time liberal ideologies crept into our government, families, and education that the average citizen does not know the reason for this plug on the boat's walls. These forces have been trying to cut this plug thinking that it should not be there. After all, we should be Free to have a great ride in this boat, in safety. The passion for freedom while safe with the wrong thinking, can get us to eliminate this bump on the wall, we call plug. If this happens the boat will sink! Take God from "In God we trust" you will have "....we trust",......and this is meaningless. It is because we trust in God that respect is given to everyone to believe as they wish to believe, because God whom we trust accepts each of us as we are, and wants us to accept each others. So, if you are offended by God, you have the right to feel this way, just remember Who gave you this right! If we keep accepting liberal ideologies in our government, we will have a different America that may look like other countries in the world, such as those that we are spending trilions of dollars to defend and bring peace to their people. If America goes that way, than who would be able to help the hungry, and defend the opressed, or even discuss peace????
Remember this, when you are talking about the right to freely cast your vote to affect the reforming of our government, instead of the ideology of "change" which is really to change the USA to become like other countries in the globe, not an independent force for good in the world.

There is no reason to be rude or condescending. I to,. as you know, am quite interested in history and that includes US. So I have a basic working knowledge of these components as I have studied them not only in school but also on my own outside of those confines. Just because you are older than me Eljay, does not mean your chronological existence on earth somehow makes your knowledge and understanding superior to that of my own. Let's just get that straight right now shall we?

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy Muslims, they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Treaty with Tripoli 1796

Article 11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Yes of course I read your post. Am I not allowed to elaborate on my own comments? Besides, we were discussing both the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Stop being so restrictive. Just because you personally choose to disagree with my position (even though its based in fact) does not mean I can not discuss it. None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording was "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."

Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence, it is a historical document, not a constitutional one. You dont appear to have a very clear understanding of the distinction drawn between the two if you are going to sit there and throw that one line in people's faces. Pfft.

That's good point Sky and its actually a HUGE problem right now as we discuss this as it relates to those Fundamentalist Mormons in Utah and along the border with Arizona. Im speaking specifically to the FLDS and not the mainstream Mormons.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see no problem there whatsoever as it relates to a person's ability to practice their own form of spirituality no matter how unconventional, BUT, you must also respect the law of the land. The Later Day Saints acquiesce to this and no longer practice polygamy. Im guessing they basically conceded to this at some junction in history because otherwise, it would have held up Utah's ability to entertain statehood. Im not sure on that though but it sounds plausible.

So you can worship ice cream cones as far as the federal government gives a crap but when you begin arranging marriages of children under the age of consent and forcing them into sexual intercourse and having babies at 14 years of age, that wont work at all. The freedom to practice one's course of religion does not include abuse or criminal activity in any way shape or form.

KRIM - "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

that is merely stating that no one holding public office in the 3 branches of government for the country and those of the states also, were to be held to any religious test to qualify for a position, it does not guarantee "equal" citizenship to all, in fact it has nothing to do with equal citizenship.

Tribo, the concept of "equal citizenship" in the context of someone who does not follow or adhere to one spirituality or another would have been a radical divergence at this point in history as COMPARED with the throne of England and the concept of "Divine Authoritarian Rule." They simply did not want to go down that road again and had enough.

Point well taken, and i agree they/we did not want to go down that road ever again, and it that context you are correct.

Yes, the context which I mentioned in my comment initially. I think basically they were hyper paranoid and if the King said black, they would say white. So on and so forth. I do believe this to be the case but of course we can only speculate based on these letters and everything else we have to rely on. It creates a rather clear impression to me as to what their intentions were. You have to remember they were scared ****les- also when drafting this thing. It was high treason. The Declaration of Independence that is. In fact many colonists wanted nothing to do with this. They were English citizens.

It’s easy to get emotional support by objecting to "abuse" or "criminal activity" or "14 year old girls being forced into sexual intercourse".

But that’s not really the issue.

The issue is, why should the state establish any laws regarding marriage at all?

Why should a monogamous relationship be sanctioned and a polygamous relationship be prohibited?

I submit that the answer to that question is based entirely on religious beliefs.

<waddle> <quack>

I dont feel I was appealing to emotion. I was stating in no uncertain terms that the reason why these activities would not be covered under the First Amendment and blanket of "freedom of religion" is because they are criminal in nature. That is the distinction. It is probably one of the main reasons why the LDS go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the fundamentalist Mormon sects.

I would see no problem with consensual polygamy taking place between adults. It is not a lifestyle I would be interested in but I would not consider it unlawful or morally reprehensible on a personal level. Child abuse, I would.

Yeah, it was pretty weak wasn't it.

Sorry. Looking back it didn't come out the way I intended. I just meant to say that emotional arguments are often used to divert attention from the religious nature of some laws, and that the laws regarding marriage are in fact laws regarding the establishment of religion because they have no other basis for support than religious beliefs.

I see your point. I would agree and that is in fact why I responded to your comment. I would consider myself a semi liberal individual. That is why I say if adults want to practice polygamy, then I feel there should not be a state mandated law criminalizing it. In fact, I believe right here local to me in Maine, there is a group of polygamists who live together on Old Orchard Beach. Thats the rumor anyway.

However, that is not always the case. There are various Mormon sects who adhere to the practice of arranged marriages. They generally have a first legal marriage recognized by the state and then continue to have their "spiritual marriages" to very young females. Normally they begin about 13-14 years of age. The reason for this is they want to have as many children as possible. These young women are very often indoctrinated and have little understanding of anything beyond the walls of their communes. This is the situation I take issue with specifically.

Of course in Utah the age of consent is 16 f/18 m. Thats the Mormon historical influence shining through.