Printable View
One of the most important thing in the USoA constitution is the absolute separation between state and religion , it is also a precedent (a good one) .
If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")
It is just a question , not an offence , not a statement , OK ?
If I remember correctly, I believe this was added in the 1950s. It is my understanding, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that the U.S. government's intent was to more distinctly seperate itself from the Soviet Union, which was considered a "godless" evil government.
That is really news for me , I admit
Looks like I am wrong:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...-we-trust.html
In 1954, the One Nation Under God was added to the Pledge (to seperate us from the commies ~D )
But the Constitution doesn't say complete seperation of Church and State. It only says the gov't will not establish a religion.
Crazed Rabbit
This whole issue is a mess IMO.
How I wish people would understand.Quote:
But the Constitution doesn't say complete seperation of Church and State. It only says the gov't will not establish a religion.
Funny how those interpretations work isnt it? The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government". While the right to bear arms now means "you can only have guns that the government approves of and you may only keep them with said governments permission". ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well as an ignorant foreigner confused by the right to bear arms bit, and at the risk of appearing facetious should the right to bear arms include a 155mm howitzer?Quote:
Originally posted by Xiahou.
While the right to bear arms now means "you can only have guns that the government approves of and you may only keep them with said governments permission".
Whoops completly off topic, sorry.
Any mention of a religion would be showing favourtism.Quote:
The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government".
Otherwise which god can you mention?
Hebrew, Chrisitian, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrianism etc
All.Quote:
Any mention of a religion would be showing favourtism.
Otherwise which god can you mention?
Hebrew, Chrisitian, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrianism etc
Also not allowing the mention of god is certainly showing favoritism
Although the founding fathers only recognised Jesus as god if they ackowledeged any. Again their main concern was christain abusing christian not some other religion.
This is an oft-used, but inaccurate, claim by the religious right. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stated that religious displays, where part of an historical or social context, are acceptable, while use of specific religious theories as guiding or overriding legal foundations are inappropriate.Quote:
The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government".
The truth is that in the last 50 years, and especially in the last 10, we have seen a growing influence of Christian religions in government.
Yes, there are groups advocating the elimination of religious references in government, just as there are groups advocating establishment of a Christian government.
Prayer has been determined to be acceptable, when all religions are included. Religious displays are acceptable, except where it connotes establishment. We even take my tax dollars and give them to faith-based organizations.
Pretty much the fine line that the Constitution calls for, but some people want to continue promoting the idea that government is or is about to be purged of religion.
Far from it, thelikelihood is that Christian religious influence in government will grow, possibly to the point of establishment.
ichi :bow:
I'd bet that there are other things they take tax dollars for that people don't agree with...Quote:
Prayer has been determined to be acceptable, when all religions are included. Religious displays are acceptable, except where it connotes establishment. We even take my tax dollars and give them to faith-based organizations.
Its legal in Texas but not in Kentucky. They couldnt even agree on two cases about the samething. Ths sets a very dangerous precedent. This court is a sham. Meanwhile the ten comandment are displayed twice in their own chamber.Quote:
This is an oft-used, but inaccurate, claim by the religious right. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stated that religious displays, where part of an historical or social context, are acceptable, while use of specific religious theories as guiding or overriding legal foundations are inappropriate.
you would prolly win that betQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.
ichi :bow:
That dosent mean their not trying. Theres been plenty of bitching from the left about this.Quote:
regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.
How far do we go in "purging" (not a great choice of words) "religion" (also vague) from the government?Quote:
regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.
and an equal (actually a greater IMO) amount from those who would establish a form of Christianity as our national faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
We're at good place now, allowing reference to an unidentified supreme being and being inclusive of all faiths, allowing leaders to rely on their faith but denying them the ability to impose their faith on the rest of us.Quote:
How far do we go in "purging" (not a great choice of words) "religion" (also vague) from the government?
ichi :bow:
I dont know a one. Me thinks tho art mistaken. Ill bet there are more Muslims who would like to see some form of Islam as our national faith. ~;)Quote:
and an equal (actually a greater IMO) amount from those who would establish a form of Christianity as our national faith.
Just a few weeks ago the thread containing this link was locked, so I may be treading thin ice here posting the link again.
I know you saw the thread and that you are aware of these folks.
It contains a long list of influential people who wish to increase the power of the Christian churches in our government, often to the exclusion (as PJ has called for) of people who think differently than they do.
At any rate, there's as much effort being put forth trying to increase religious influence as there is trying to curtail it.
ichi :bow:
Whoa, I thought I made myself clear when I said I do not support any sort of theocracy.Quote:
It contains a long list of influential people who wish to increase the power of the Christian churches in our government, often to the exclusion (as PJ has called for) of people who think differently than they do.
My fight is with liberals who are intolerant of religion. I really dont care if my elected leaders are Christian or not as long as they arent leftist.
What is so bad with the left?
Asked this question before.
Was Jesus a conservative or liberal Rabbi?
~;) and I saw where you wrote that, I was referring to your statement that some people should be excluded from any sort of power.Quote:
Whoa, I thought I made myself clear when I said I do not support any sort of theocracy.
ichi :bow:
Answered that question before (many times).Quote:
What is so bad with the left?
Asked this question before.
The social and political nature of Jesus' world was so far removed from the modern world its difficult to compare.Quote:
Was Jesus a conservative or liberal Rabbi?
I do not believe Jesus advocated moral relativity though.. but I could be mistaken.
jesus was certainly liberal.
Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me ~:)
Just like everyone else both liberals and conservatives say god is on their side. Theres no right anwer to that question.Quote:
jesus was certainly liberal.
Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Jesus was a reformator ! He did not wanted the religious establishment between the commons and God , that was his main object , the irony is that his followers founded the largest religious establishment ever ! :dizzy2:
Jesus was liberal for his time, just as the Founding Fathers of the US were liberals for their time. However, I suspect both Jesus and the Founding Fathers would shocked and outraged at the ways we've "progressed" today.
I don't know. He certaintly wouldn't be for wars and the death penalty, but he also probably wouldn't have been for free love, or drugs. Which IMO, is a pretty important part of being a hippie... ~;)Quote:
jesus was certainly liberal.
Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me ~;)
Someone needs to read the United States Constitution. Where does it say absolute separation between state and religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
It doesn't say that nor does it imply that.
IT states simply
So Congress will not establish a religion nor will it prohibit the formation of religions by the people. That is all it says.Quote:
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.
'In God we trust' on the dollar notes - I always thought this was a joke from the neocons to declare that money is their god ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Thank you for strengthened my point...
Btw , I sense some arrogance here ? I have read it , the question is , did you understand it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Your point is not strengthen because you have mis-understood what the United States Constitution states.
Some arrogance - try again. Your question and method itself shows how arrogant you are in assuming you understood what the constitution states. Accusing others of what you yourself demonstrated in your opening sentence. Yea right. (BTW - it wasn't some it was a whole lot.)Quote:
Btw , I sense some arrogance here ? I have read it , the question is , did you understand it ?
Sure I understand it completely - probably better then you can image. However you do not understand it or you would not have stated
absolute separation between state and religion.
Here is one that states it much better then I can. To say the constitution speaks in absolutes shows that you have not understood what the document is.
Again nowhere does the Constitution state absolute seperation. It expressly states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Quote:
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it [330 U.S. 1, 15] was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. 21 The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. 22 There is every reason to give the sam application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 23 quoted with approval by this Court, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730: 'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority.'
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.
And you might want to ask yourself - why churches are not taxed if there is suppose to be absolute seperation between church and state?
Then you might want to ask yourself about Thanksgiving Day which was done by congress. It makes for some interesting reading - and again goes to show that absolute seperation is not what the Constitution states.
Then ask yourself why there is a chaplin in Congress - or why a prayer is often spoken aloud prior to the beginning of the Congressional session for that year.
Once again when stating absolute you demonstrated your lack of understanding of what the constitution states.
Other suggested reading is the Federalist Papers - which goes into more detail on what some of the intent of the authors of part of the Constitution and its admendments wanted. In these documents and some of the writtings of Thomas Jefferson you will find that some wanted a metrophocial (SP) wall put between Religious institutions and the Government.
Everyone knows that US is a theocracy.... Democratic one though.... Except in Florida where appointments are according to blood line..... ~;)
Redleg
1. all your examples are not from the constitution !!!!!!!!!!!
2. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no
Do the church is one of the organs of the state ? no
Do the church management is mentioned in the con' ? no
Give one role that the church have in the con' ! nothing , nada , "0" , but you continue to argue with points that have no connection to my post , what do you expect , that the words "absolute separation" be mentioned just for you to understand ? and yes ' you are arrogant for saying that I did not read the con' just because you disagree with my post :wall: :wall: :wall:
Huh? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Someone wanna translate that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Huh? ~:confused:
Read it s l o w l y , I am sure you will understand , or should I to translate it to monkey's language ? ~;)
Hes explaining the 1st amnedment to you . Obviously you still dont understand it. Thats ok liberals here dont understand it either ~;)Quote:
1. all your examples are not from the constitution !!!!!!!!!!
What church? There are many here and thats the way we like it.Quote:
. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no
Look basicly the only thing the first amendment says on religionis the state cant back or attack it. It doesnt even mention seperation of church and state.
No, proper english would be fine. Is it not your first language?Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Obviously not hes Israeli. Funny though how he thinks he can read the constitution better than us americans. ~DQuote:
Is it not your first language?
He , Redleg , was talking about the "church" , just look at his postQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So if the con' dos not mention the separation , there is no separation ? please give me one example about the religion playing any part in the con' ... there is no , that means , religion is not an organ of the state , so it is separated from it , simple as that :book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No , and I said it 10 times now , what is wrong with you ? Is this forum is for English speaking only ???? hell!!! and you know what ? I gets theses remarks only in the backroom !!!!!!!!! my god ...
So , my dear John wain , I expect you not to discus anything but the USoA .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
When reading your post's , I understand the anti Americans in the world .
You know , you there did not invented everything , your nation is only 250 years old and mine 3,200 , I read your con' in Hebrew , and you know what , it was a mistake to try to understand your culture , you are an ultra nationalist , just say it
Want to bet - the first statement is a direct quote of the 1st Admendment, the other quote is from a constitutional lawyer. The first congress passed the national holiday Thanksgiving, and the other two are currently done in congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Again try reading the consitution - it does not say absoluteQuote:
2. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no
That is exactly what the Constitution states - which I have shown with the quote of the 1st Admendment.Quote:
Do the church is one of the organs of the state ? no
Actually it does not mention it the terms that you are thinking. It states that the government shall not establish a church.Quote:
Do the church management is mentioned in the con' ? no
Goes back to your first question and statments -Quote:
Give one role that the church have in the con' ! nothing , nada , "0" , but you continue to argue with points that have no connection to my post , what do you expect , that the words "absolute separation" be mentioned just for you to understand ? and yes ' you are arrogant for saying that I did not read the con' just because you disagree with my post :wall: :wall: :wall:
If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")
Its obvious that you are confusing what the constitution states from what you want it to mean.
And you haven't read the constitution nor have you attempted to understand what it actually states - your are assuming you know what it means. Which means that I am not the only one being arrogant in this thread. Just that I am man enough to admit it. The manner in which you began the thread shows an arrogance on your part. I respond to peoples posts exactly how I percieve them to be. And it seems several others also percieve the same problem of your question and your arguement on this subject as I do.
And then again your lack of understanding is showing - I was not talking about the church - I am talking about the United States Constitution and how it is applied to my country.
He , Redleg , was talking about the "church" , just look at his post
And then you might want to get your facts straight - your nation is not 3000 years old - its less then 60 years of age. The ancient nation of Israel ceased to exist over 1900 years ago.
This thread is about the US constitution ~:confused: Besides I discuss your nation all the time and am a tireless backer of it. Even more one could say than I am of the US.Quote:
So , my dear John wain , I expect you not to discus anything but the USoA
Now your resorting to personal attacks. What if I said "When reading your post's , I understand the anti Semetism in the world" Now that wouldnt be right would it? I could give other examples but I dont wish to offend anyone.Quote:
When reading your post's , I understand the anti Americans in the world .
Nope and Ive never claimed we did though again some here would argue we helped invent Israel.Quote:
You know , you there did not invented everything ,
No your nation is only 57 years old and again many here would argue only exists thanks to US aid and backing. Certainly it only exists as it is because of us.Quote:
your nation is only 250 years old and mine 3,200
Boy Beruit and Tribseman are gonna love this exchange ~D
Much can be lost in translation. You are very thin skinned. Im not making fun of your english hell knows I know nothing of hebrew. Im explaining why its hard to understand you sometimes. It gets frustrating now and then.Quote:
I read your con' in Hebrew , and you know what
Sorry you feel that way. Im still going to try and help you understand though.Quote:
it was a mistake to try to understand your culture
I dont think so. Ive even accused the US of war crimes and Im certainly no more of a nationalist than you.Quote:
you are an ultra nationalist
Now back to the topic at hand. This pretty much says it all. Yes its another long cut and paste but its worth reading.
Quote:
Separation of Church and State
Sam Weaver
Sam Weaver
April 29, 2003
NOTE: This is the seventh in a series of ten essays designed to proffer my peculiar views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.
"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."
This, of course, is the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in its entirety. This is where today’s liberals supposedly find their “wall of separation” between church and state; between God and government, if you will. Modern liberals (many very eloquently—even convincingly) will attempt to tell you that America’s Founding Fathers wanted to keep religious dogma (i. e., religious principles and beliefs) completely out of the affairs of government. If you believe this, then I urge you to search for as many writings (e. g., The Federalist Papers); speeches (George Washington’s Farewell Address is a good place to start); personal letters (these are extremely difficult to come by—today’s “history” books and revisionist school texts rarely mention or reference any of these important epistles, yet they are crucial to the understanding of anyone who wants to know what America’s Founders were really thinking!); and even legislation (e. g., the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Article III) of our Founding Fathers as you can.
In all of my diligent searches of the writings of our Founders, I can find only two instances in which the phrase “separation of (or, between) [the] Church and [the] State” is used. The first is from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. In 1819, Madison wrote:
"It was the Universal opinion of the Century [1600’s] preceding the last [1700’s], that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government...functions with complete success; Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
Secularists and atheists have used this and other statements by Madison to say that The Father of Our Constitution called for a completely secular government and/or a totally secular (atheistic) society. Look very closely at the above statement. If you can read through the archaic prose of Madison’s time, you will see that it says exactly what I have been trying to say in this series of articles: that liberty rests in the hands of the people (not in the hands of some powerful clergy or dictator); but that liberty can only work when the people are both industrious and moral (i. e., moral, educated and informed)!
The second, and perhaps most famous (infamous) instance in which the phrase “separation between Church and State” can be found, is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson (then president of the United States), written in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. A group of liberty-loving Connecticut Baptists were concerned about religious freedom vis a vis old European standards. President Jefferson’s response contained the following words:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people that declared that their Congress should make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
With this statement—coupled at times with Madison’s statement above—modern liberals say, “Aha! SEE, the Founders wanted a wall of separation between church and state! “The Founders,” liberals assert, “wanted both a secular state and a secular society”!
What those same liberals will not tell you, however, is that two days after Thomas Jefferson wrote that letter to the Danbury Baptist Association—before the letter was even delivered—Jefferson attended a Baptist worship service. You may say, “So?! What does that prove?” That worship service was held in the halls of the United States Congress, led by chaplains paid out of the public treasury! You may rest assured that the Danbury Baptists were neither threatened nor dismayed by his attendance. Think about it! Separation of church and state?! Was Jefferson a hypocrite or what?
Just what did Thomas Jefferson mean by that phrase? What did America’s Founders mean by the First Amendment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”?
The answer is really quite simple. Jefferson knew that this “wall of separation” is a one-way street. Government (Congress) must never set (establish) religious dogma to which all people must adhere. Congress must never restrict worship, tax religious institutions, or in any way meddle in the affairs of any church, synagogue, temple or mosque. However, religious (i. e., Judeo-Christian) principles—the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God—were absolutely essential to sound government. In other words, people can be truly free only when they are both responsible and accountable to the rule of Law—not the rule of man!
Our Founders were very wise men. They were also very aware of the events and the progress of human history. They knew that whenever an institution (i. e., a kingdom or an established religion) had acquired the power to both dictate and enact national dogma or some universal set of doctrines, then one powerful man or one relatively small group of powerful men had inevitably seized the power to interpret the Bible and to establish religious dogma and doctrine, basically at his (or their) own whim. Eventually, that one man or group of men always attained the power to punish, to torture, and even to execute any person who was branded a heretic (i. e., one who would not accept or adhere to the established doctrine of the monarchy or the national church). Remember the Inquisition? Remember King Henry VIII? America’s Founders had liberty in mind! Liberty without law—and without a firm understanding that law is derived from the Creator and the Author of Law—is merely license. License leads always to anarchy. Anarchy leads always to dictatorial rule!
America’s Founders believed in the doctrine of the free will of man. No government had any God-given right to force its will upon its citizens. However, the Founders also realized the supreme importance of Judeo-Christian religion and morality in the stable operation and the prosperity of sound government.
The vast majority of the core group of America’s Founders (primarily, but not exclusively, those who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or attended the Constitutional Convention) expressed several times in their writings, speeches and, especially in their personal correspondences, a fear that future generations of Americans would abandon their faith in God and forget the religious principles upon which America was built. When that happened, they warned, American liberty and American culture would be doomed. Despotism would be the only result. America was to be a nation of free people, but with every freedom comes responsibility. The greatest of these responsibilities is to keep oneself moral, educated and informed. It was ultimately up to individuals and their parents to take this responsibility upon themselves; but churches, schools and the press also had an important role in this responsibility.
It was the charge (purpose) of America’s first schools—even the first public schools—to teach religious and moral principle without regard to the doctrine of any particular denomination or sect of Christianity. (NOTE: Remember from my column “On worldview and culture,” that religion is the cornerstone of a nation’s culture [i. e., the most important institution; the institution from which all other worldview or cultural institutions derive].)
If you don’t believe this, then please scan the original charters of America’s first schools, such as Harvard. Delve into their earliest curricula. Read Article III of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Peruse the charters and the constitutions of some of the original thirteen states, or for that matter, many if not most of the later states. If this doesn’t convince you, then take a lesson from Noah Webster—America’s first name in linguistics, the man who gave us the very first American Dictionary of the English Language. Webster’s first dictionary, published in 1828, gives the definition of education for his day:
"The bringing up, as of a child; instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable [indispensable means absolutely required]; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties." (Brackets added)
America’s Founders instinctively knew that any education devoid of even one of the four basic cultural institutions (religion, politics, economics and science), but, most importantly, the institution of religion, was an incomplete and a failed education.
Modern liberals use their contrived and utterly false interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and their highly opinionated view of “religious tolerance” to keep God and Judeo-Christian religious principle out of America’s public schools. In this way, they are keeping the most fundamental institution of American culture out of your (or your children’s) education, thereby making your (or your children’s) education woefully incomplete.
To the liberal (i. e., the humanist; the relativist), all religions are equal. (NOTE: It’s funny though, isn’t it, how modern liberals fight tooth and nail to keep Christianity out but have no problem whatsoever with inserting paganism and secularism wherever they can get away with it?!) “We must, therefore,” say the relativists, “tolerate and accommodate all religions into American culture.” Well, human beings have free will, and America is based, at least in part, upon that fact. So, basically, what the relativists say in this regard is true. We certainly must tolerate all peoples and welcome all who both truly seek and understand liberty.
However, our Founders believed in the supremacy of Judeo-Christianity as the one and only true religion. Judeo-Christianity is the only “religion” that teaches both the free will of man and the fallen nature of man. Does this make our Founders opinionated? If you are a Christian, it makes them right! If you are logical and rational, then you can see that these uniquely Judeo-Christian ideas form the very meaning of liberty! If, on the other hand you are an atheist, an agnostic or a pagan, then you must admit that this country has been blessed (with liberty, with prosperity, with leadership, with military victory, etc., etc.) as no other nation in all of human history has been blessed. Why is this so? I would argue that it is because we built our house upon Solid Rock (See Matthew 7:24-27). Of course, that would be only my opinion; and, unfortunately, for every one of me there are probably at least two who would want to tear down that house and to rebuild it upon sand.
Any way you look at it—provided you are truly educated and informed—America was founded squarely and firmly upon the principles of Judeo-Christianity. To abandon or to forget these principles would be to abandon American culture. To fail to be moral, educated and informed is the first step toward abandoning American culture and the liberty that is the result of that culture.
We may separate God and His Law from both our government and our culture. But we do so at our own peril! Without God and His Law there is no liberty. Without God and His Law there is no American Culture. Without The Creator, there is no America!
Lemurian Link ~D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Ha ? "ceased to exits" just like that ? and you call me an arrogant..... in your mind the Jewish people were dead in 70 ce and came out of knower in 1948 - GIVE ME A BREAK !!! , ah , yes , read , again , my first post , and see how much I was cautious , and you ? wiped out my people history in 10 seconds
be my guest - your country is a republic of churchs - good for you !!!
Is it just me or did someone turn the heat up? :help:
1. You know what , I am happy that my views on your cons' are the same as 50% of the Americans , that is , the "liberals"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
2. "Nation" not as a political entity , but as an ethnic group , yes , 3,200 years , you know , Abraham , Moses , David , Jesus etc'
3. you don't really means that American soldiers were helping us to win 6 wars , don't you ? have not heard about a single American soldier who died for Israel , and that is in contrass with the case of the mighty empires of England , France and so on . there , you see , arrogance again , to say to someone that he exits only because of you , please , you know , in 1948 , we did not waited for an American soldiers to come and save us from the Arabs...
Once again learn to read English - did I say Jewish people - I stated the ancient nation of Israel. Care for a little history lesson on your own people and country now do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
I see in other threads you claim to be both an Israeli and in the United States. Now that is funny coming from you.Quote:
be my guest - your country is a republic of churchs - good for you !!!
Learn history before you attempt such arguements with anyone. Here is a simple and condence one for you.
Quote:
For over 3,000 years, Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised Land. As a result, the Land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations and Judaism's most important sites, including the remains of the Second Temple. The importance of the Land of Israel is not limited to Judaism; it is also the place where Christianity was born, and contains many locations of great spiritual significance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Starting around 1200 BCE, a series of Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for over a millennium until the failure of the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire resulted in widescale expulsion of Jews from the Land of Israel (about 25% of the Jewish population, see Destruction of Jerusalem). After crushing Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135, Emperor Hadrian renamed Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina, a Greek name derived from Philistine (Hebrew פלשת Pəléšeṯ).
Indeed - time to tune it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
The original question has been answered in the first couple of posts. After that we had some interesting information on the US Constitution.
Now it seems that the thread had lived beyond its pretty youth and is turning rather ugly with age (no offense at elderly people intended ~:) ).
Oops ... I think it just died.
Closed