The actions of the Administration, make the constitution seem like a dusty relic, that is becoming a historical curiosity.The idea that the U.S. is a 'Christian country' is being propagated, as some kind of justification for mindless aggression. They have politicized the idea of Christianity, and are making the allusion, that any war effort is on God's behalf. A typical claim from the majority of tyrants in history, The the claims of the neocons make about their faith, and it's distance from the truth means they are bringing about their own destruction. If they ever managed to defeat outside enemies, they would turn on themselves .The problem with absolute leadership is that it is a position...

The actions of the Administration, make the constitution seem like a dusty relic, that is becoming a historical curiosity.The idea that the U.S. is a 'Christian country' is being propagated, as some kind of justification for mindless aggression. They have politicized the idea of Christianity, and are making the allusion, that any war effort is on God's behalf. A typical claim from the majority of tyrants in history, The the claims of the neocons make about their faith, and it's distance from the truth means they are bringing about their own destruction. If they ever managed to defeat outside enemies, they would turn on themselves .The problem with absolute leadership is that it is a position for one when the contenders each considering themselves as the person right for the job. at the exclusion of all else.
Pursuit of Power is an addiction. They taste it, and the taste won't go away.
Keep you're friends close, keep your enemies closer

I agree with this. With all our wisdom and how far we've come with technology and knowledge of the universe and even our own world and cultures... who are we to say that separation of church and state is wrong? These were men who lived in a time of fire and brimstone. Church or hell. Even in those days, when they were more religious than we could ever be... they knew that religion and politics should never be put together.

Sadly it's also true that this nation is a republic. It's not nor has it ever been a democracy. A democracy is far better than a republic yet our leaders lie to us saying we have the exact same governmental system as much of Europe. Then why does the UK get more done in a...

I agree with this. With all our wisdom and how far we've come with technology and knowledge of the universe and even our own world and cultures... who are we to say that separation of church and state is wrong? These were men who lived in a time of fire and brimstone. Church or hell. Even in those days, when they were more religious than we could ever be... they knew that religion and politics should never be put together.

Sadly it's also true that this nation is a republic. It's not nor has it ever been a democracy. A democracy is far better than a republic yet our leaders lie to us saying we have the exact same governmental system as much of Europe. Then why does the UK get more done in a day than we have in the past decade?

We are more of a threat to ourselves than anyone on the outside. Remember the fall of rome? Of course our leaders don't. They are paid to do what their told by big corporations. They don't think, reflect from history, or correct their actions. This government is only seeking to destroy the nation and its people.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/D0A8CCB4-9907-4CB1-819A-E712A612FA2C/
/clipmark/FE9C3354-28C4-4812-BF81-97FDA71EA2C8/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/FE9C3354-28C4-4812-BF81-97FDA71EA2C8/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/8805A3A1-53C2-43E2-96EE-56A1A9B99C76/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/609C435E-D2EF-40A5-8740-646E06E1798F/


http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/BD083BCF-B9E4-41AF-B5A2-AF9607043B52/

[url=/clipmark...

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/D0A8CCB4-9907-4CB1-819A-E712A612FA2C/
/clipmark/FE9C3354-28C4-4812-BF81-97FDA71EA2C8/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/FE9C3354-28C4-4812-BF81-97FDA71EA2C8/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/8805A3A1-53C2-43E2-96EE-56A1A9B99C76/
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/609C435E-D2EF-40A5-8740-646E06E1798F/


http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/BD083BCF-B9E4-41AF-B5A2-AF9607043B52/

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/BD019D8B-A283-47B9-B335-65EC111F3F07/

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1EB5BC7B-67E2-4F97-8D82-BEDDBD467A5C/

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/0689EC55-32EA-457D-8AE0-086A1C864665/

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/8C5D9949-D4A1-4BDB-9069-7EAE52E2F2C8/

America, The Founders and Religion.

FACT 1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You find it nowhere in the constitution. In fact it did not exist as a government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs.

FACT 2: Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the same thing. In a secular society (ie Russia) the state is above the Church.

FACT 3: The second amendment says nothing about what government can do, say , or believe. Only that CONGRESS shall pass NO LAW. It restricts congress and NO ONE else.

FACT 4: Since Secularists love the Danbury letter as “LAW”, why do they ignore J...

America, The Founders and Religion.

FACT 1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You find it nowhere in the constitution. In fact it did not exist as a government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs.

FACT 2: Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the same thing. In a secular society (ie Russia) the state is above the Church.

FACT 3: The second amendment says nothing about what government can do, say , or believe. Only that CONGRESS shall pass NO LAW. It restricts congress and NO ONE else.

FACT 4: Since Secularists love the Danbury letter as “LAW”, why do they ignore Jefferson’s later letter to Samual miller in 1808 where he wrote “the power to prescribe religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.”

FACT 5: Northwest Ordinance passed by the same congress that enacted the first amendment states this in Article III: “Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and shall forever be encouraged.” This is pretty clear-cut.

FACT 6: ALL, but 3 states, invoke the name of God in their Preambles to their constitutions.

FACT 7: The SUPREME COURT ( YES the SUPREME court) opens each session with prayer.

FACT 8: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 9: The constitution states: ” no religious test shall be required,” which means we have freedom of religion, not secularism. Secularism would hold no religious test to be applied.

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

FACT 11: To...

FACT 8: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 9: The constitution states: ” no religious test shall be required,” which means we have freedom of religion, not secularism. Secularism would hold no religious test to be applied.

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

FACT 11: To restrict religion would be to restrict freedom of religion. This is unconstitutional and it is the goal of Secularists.

FACT 12: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 13: The framers intended political power to flow upward from the people. Given that 95% of the people believe in God, how can it be the government ( people) are secular. Your point illustrates how secular belief would not put faith in people, rather the State.

Liberty has nothing to do with religion or secularism except that they are in opposition. That is why the US is not Secular and it is not Theocratic. They are both opposed to freedom and liberty.

FACT 1 : Separation
It's amazing how persistently xians take credit for Deist ideas, making a straw man argument (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm) that it wasn't a `government' idea, then proceed to beat the stuffing out of the false example. This is a perfect example.
The real fact is that separation IS in the 1st amendment of the Constitution, is a DEIST idea, and the 1st amendment principal of separation is explained by the Deist Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html).

Most lists of "facts" published in the previous manner are in reality merely a list of the writer's `opinions'. Note that there is no proof offered, and th...

FACT 1 : Separation
It's amazing how persistently xians take credit for Deist ideas, making a straw man argument (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm) that it wasn't a `government' idea, then proceed to beat the stuffing out of the false example. This is a perfect example.
The real fact is that separation IS in the 1st amendment of the Constitution, is a DEIST idea, and the 1st amendment principal of separation is explained by the Deist Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html).

Most lists of "facts" published in the previous manner are in reality merely a list of the writer's `opinions'. Note that there is no proof offered, and the writer insinuates that you must accept his opinions as though they were axioms, (self-evident truths,) which they are not.

rwbehne, regarding separation, it IS a Christian concept In a fact, it is foundational to Christian approach to worldly government. So, you are simply wrong no matter how badly you wish to be right.

Regarding your synonym argument. It is irrelevant. Just because they ARE NOT synonyms does not mean they are not opposing values.

Regarding Fact 3, You are right. Typo without thinking. However, you are in the process of making your ignorance about more than just typos.

Fact 4, the reason thy do not refer to it is because it is no more applicable to the law as the Danbury Letter. It just doesn't fit the agenda. However, your excuse is more about THE agenda. Not the facts.

You can spew whatev...

rwbehne, regarding separation, it IS a Christian concept In a fact, it is foundational to Christian approach to worldly government. So, you are simply wrong no matter how badly you wish to be right.

Regarding your synonym argument. It is irrelevant. Just because they ARE NOT synonyms does not mean they are not opposing values.

Regarding Fact 3, You are right. Typo without thinking. However, you are in the process of making your ignorance about more than just typos.

Fact 4, the reason thy do not refer to it is because it is no more applicable to the law as the Danbury Letter. It just doesn't fit the agenda. However, your excuse is more about THE agenda. Not the facts.

You can spew whatever spin you want. You have said nothing substantive against the facts.

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers,

We really know that 55 is an arbitrary number, because the Founding Fathers were not limited to the signers of the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States. There were many who were not signers. like Deist Thomas Paine, perhaps the most important founder. Why? He is the person who gave the United States it name, The wording of the Declaration heavily borrowed from his ideas and his influence can be clearly discerned. He wrote `Common Sense', which provoked colonists to go to war for their independence, which they wouldn't have done if not for him. He wrote a series called `The Crisis', read to the troops at Valley Forge to prevent desertions and e...

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers,

We really know that 55 is an arbitrary number, because the Founding Fathers were not limited to the signers of the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States. There were many who were not signers. like Deist Thomas Paine, perhaps the most important founder. Why? He is the person who gave the United States it name, The wording of the Declaration heavily borrowed from his ideas and his influence can be clearly discerned. He wrote `Common Sense', which provoked colonists to go to war for their independence, which they wouldn't have done if not for him. He wrote a series called `The Crisis', read to the troops at Valley Forge to prevent desertions and encourage re-enlistments - The war would have been lost without Paine.
Paine is ignored by christian historians, who _libel_ him as a irreligious man (and still do) because he wrote `The Age of Reason', which taught men the truth about `revealed religion' just as `Common Sense' taught them the truth about Monarchy.
Geo. Washington, often libeled as a christian by christians simply because he attended the Episcopal Church as was the custom (but which he rarely did,) was not a communicant. Because he was Deist he always refused communion. His father, as Dr. Conway states, was a Deist.
Read how "...as the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was to be administered, Washington's custom was to rise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of church." here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html

Given the propensity of christianity's habitually manipulating opinions into facts, I seriously doubt any list declaring the religious persuation of any founder.

FACT 11: To restrict religion would be to restrict freedom of religion. This is unconstitutional and it is the goal of Secularists.

Pure theocratic fallacy! Restricting religion from influencing government does not restrict anyone's freedom of religion. What it does restrict is a fundy's attempt to use government to force a christian opinion on Deists, Jews. Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, Buddists, Hindoos, et al.
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, (or to not believe at all,) but no one has the right to use government to force their superstitious principals and opinions on me.

Therein lies the fallacy of all christian thought; they believe they have a right to run othe...

FACT 11: To restrict religion would be to restrict freedom of religion. This is unconstitutional and it is the goal of Secularists.

Pure theocratic fallacy! Restricting religion from influencing government does not restrict anyone's freedom of religion. What it does restrict is a fundy's attempt to use government to force a christian opinion on Deists, Jews. Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, Buddists, Hindoos, et al.
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, (or to not believe at all,) but no one has the right to use government to force their superstitious principals and opinions on me.

Therein lies the fallacy of all christian thought; they believe they have a right to run other people's lives, to tell them what they should think, and to this end they are in an all-out battle to convince people that chrisians alone have the answers on how the country should be run, and what constitutes `good morals'. The sad truth is they neither have, nor should they be allowed to arrogate to themselves, such a monopoly.

but no one has the right to use government to force their superstitious principals and opinions on me.

Including you. The only difference is that Christianity is the only Western template that holds this idea. Materialism certainly does not.

Therein lies the fallacy of all christian thought; they believe they
have a right to run other people's lives, to tell them what they should
think, and to this end they are in an all-out battle to convince people
that chrisians alone have the answers on how the country should be run,
and what constitutes `good morals'.

The fallacy is that the way you describe Christian Theology and Christians runs counter to just about ev...

but no one has the right to use government to force their superstitious principals and opinions on me.

Including you. The only difference is that Christianity is the only Western template that holds this idea. Materialism certainly does not.

Therein lies the fallacy of all christian thought; they believe they
have a right to run other people's lives, to tell them what they should
think, and to this end they are in an all-out battle to convince people
that chrisians alone have the answers on how the country should be run,
and what constitutes `good morals'.

The fallacy is that the way you describe Christian Theology and Christians runs counter to just about every Christian Principle. Also, The Christian that forces his views on another is not practicing Christianity. He is practicing a Materialist view that is the DIRECT OPPOSITE of Christian theology. That does not mean that the Christian does not have a right to state their opinion in the Public Square. The Christians seek to 'impose" nothing. Yet, I bet I could start a pretty long list on the things you would wish to impose.

You have run full circle the gamut of ignorance. That takes a lot of self-delusion. EXCELLENT JOB!!

OK, now you just reveal yourself to be a rank propagandist. Good for you.

Ah, there we go! Now everyone carefully examine that statement, and take particular note of how the writer attacks not the issue, but the person. This is a favorite, albeit flawed, tactic of christian apologists when they are confronted with facts they cannot successfully refute. It's called
argumentum ad hominem, that is, attacking the person instead of the argument. (See http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm )

My personal character or circumstance has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being argued. It is ad hominem abusive to insultingly call me a propagandist simply because I succes...

OK, now you just reveal yourself to be a rank propagandist. Good for you.

Ah, there we go! Now everyone carefully examine that statement, and take particular note of how the writer attacks not the issue, but the person. This is a favorite, albeit flawed, tactic of christian apologists when they are confronted with facts they cannot successfully refute. It's called
argumentum ad hominem, that is, attacking the person instead of the argument. (See http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm )

My personal character or circumstance has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being argued. It is ad hominem abusive to insultingly call me a propagandist simply because I successfully refuted his claims.

When a person results to personal attacks it merely demonstrates that he has no rational argument to offer.

With that in mind, I will now ask _all_ readers that if you don't have a rational argument to offer, then please don't respond. It's preferable that you say nothing, rather than to say something irrational.

Thank you AcesLucky and ratilfar. Both of you see the problem with trying to reason with an irrational person.
Often, I wonder what makes a person so, but in this case we only need to read his profile to see that he is rather young, saying of himself "I am a 39 year old recovering alcoholic..." which leads me to refer you to this page on dry-drunk syndrome: http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/literature/drydrunk.htm
Reading through the list of ways in which the lack of sober realism manifests itself in the dry drunk is very revealing, and serves as a possible explanation to the irrationality of his arguments and stalker-like failing obsession with trying to prove he's right.
He's still young...

Thank you AcesLucky and ratilfar. Both of you see the problem with trying to reason with an irrational person.
Often, I wonder what makes a person so, but in this case we only need to read his profile to see that he is rather young, saying of himself "I am a 39 year old recovering alcoholic..." which leads me to refer you to this page on dry-drunk syndrome: http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/literature/drydrunk.htm
Reading through the list of ways in which the lack of sober realism manifests itself in the dry drunk is very revealing, and serves as a possible explanation to the irrationality of his arguments and stalker-like failing obsession with trying to prove he's right.
He's still young - I was already studying political science, economics, biblical history, and logic while his mommy was still wiping his dirty butt. Ignore him when he's acting up. He still needs time to mature. It's enough that we now know that what he has to say isn't important.

Please don't put me as arguing one side or the other in this thing. I'm not adamant about either absolute.
BUT =

Also non sequitur. Christmas (Yule) began as a solar worship holiday,
which christians hijacked in an effort to convert pagens to the xian
superstitution and is now the Santa Claus holiday,invented by J.C. Penny to boost sales.Pretty
much the same for Easter, which began as the Spring equinox celebration
of solar worship, but is now all about the Easter Bunny.

I DO know, however,(disregarding that the dates are arbitrary--it's once a year.) that Christmas and Easter have for over 2,000 years marked the "events" in the Christian history (I don't know the way that sho...

Please don't put me as arguing one side or the other in this thing. I'm not adamant about either absolute.
BUT =

Also non sequitur. Christmas (Yule) began as a solar worship holiday,
which christians hijacked in an effort to convert pagens to the xian
superstitution and is now the Santa Claus holiday,invented by J.C. Penny to boost sales.Pretty
much the same for Easter, which began as the Spring equinox celebration
of solar worship, but is now all about the Easter Bunny.

I DO know, however,(disregarding that the dates are arbitrary--it's once a year.) that Christmas and Easter have for over 2,000 years marked the "events" in the Christian history (I don't know the way that should be fairly said) and Santa, the tree, Yule log,etc -- as well as the Bunny, baskets, and eggs -- are all the non-religious (secular?) symbols. It's like a 2 track thing so there is celebration for Christian and non-Christian alike.It has always seemed as if the two tracks tolerated each other pretty well till lately.
But my point is that I think BOTH of you, for different reasons would AGREE that the holidays,as celebrated in terms of those symbols, are blends of the solstice and marketing. Santa and the Bunny are NOT the Christian versions of the holidays.
But, while I'm not arguing either of your sides, I find this interesting.