Judeo-Christian Nation?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

What in the Hell has this country come to? I say display it all, within the correct context, in actual and perceived balance.

I agree, as did the Roman Emporers. Since "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was a best selling book in 1776, it is almost assuredly to have had consideration in new governments being formed in that period.

Each time the Romans added a new land to their empire, they added the gods of the new people to the long list and gave each equal billing. In this manner, Rome had no religious wars or arguments with anyone...nor did anyone with Rome.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Originally Posted by klott

Paganism; See Wayne Wilson. How's that bud?

So you don't what it is then Ken, I look at all religions, not what close minded tell you, It is not Satan worship nor about witches . although many people think that way.
I wasn't attacking you just ask a question. Many people make up this earth many beliefs which is fine. all People need something to believe in . your's may just be different than mine. As i said before one side can not always be THE ONE . if that was the case there would not be so many different Christian faiths nor different levels of the Islam faith . Many people have died in the name of My religion is right and yours is wrong I do not think any god would agree with that Do you?
I see nothing wrong in teaching children faith as long as it is done in a place of worship, School is a place of educating. And we are failing in that. My Wife has volunteered in The big sister program and been given a chance to help a Less fortunate child . We are trying to teach her simple things like adding and reading. She is 8 years old and can not read, she didn't how many quarters are in a dollar. So much for no child left behind Unfortunately the shcool is in a low income neighborhood and many of the children are like her. she needs to learn Basic stuff . Kids have enough to learn . When thier minds are formed to make judgment on thier own then they can choose what religion they want to follow. Or we will not be any better than the extremist you so afraid of. Are we not better than that?

[Michael Bazzo, CMI]

Originally Posted by wwilson3

So you don't what it is then Ken, I look at all religions, not what close minded tell you, It is not Satan worship nor about witches . although many people think that way.
I wasn't attacking you just ask a question. Many people make up this earth many beliefs which is fine. all People need something to believe in . your's may just be different than mine. As i said before one side can not always be THE ONE . if that was the case there would not be so many different Christian faiths nor different levels of the Islam faith . Many people have died in the name of My religion is right and yours is wrong I do not think any god would agree with that Do you?
I see nothing wrong in teaching children faith as long as it is done in a place of worship, School is a place of educating. And we are failing in that. My Wife has volunteered in The big sister program and been given a chance to help a Less fortunate child . We are trying to teach her simple things like adding and reading. She is 8 years old and can not read, she didn't how many quarters are in a dollar. So much for no child left behind Unfortunately the shcool is in a low income neighborhood and many of the children are like her. she needs to learn Basic stuff . Kids have enough to learn . When thier minds are formed to make judgment on thier own then they can choose what religion they want to follow. Or we will not be any better than the extremist you so afraid of. Are we not better than that?

Consider yourself fortunate in the fact that you are allowed to hold this type of opinion here in the United States. If you were born Muslim and spoke this way, you would be put to death. The fact that Christianity is the most ridiculed religion in the world speaks volumes. It says the truths of Jesus as lord and savior, rattles the core of those not willing to live the lives that the lord has commanded us to live, so a variant is formed to fit the live style. As you and others have said, you have faith. faith in what? Everyone has faith in something. Do you have faith that your car will take you from point A to Point B? I'm sure you do. Do you have faith that your children will love you forever? I'm sure they will. Where you put your faith is the important part. I'm sure you may have heard this before and I don't mean to be repetitive, but do you know that the images of Christ on the cross are done to take the shock value from the image? Jesus was actually badly disfigured when he was nailed to the cross. He suffered this anguish and death of the most horrendous type imaginable to save each of us. This is well documented in the bible and other articles of antiquity. Ask yourself, If Jesus was just a wacko, why would he go through this torture and die such a horrible death on the cross? His disciples died painful deaths as well, all documented as well. People will not be tortured to death but rather admit they lied to save there life.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Mike was not saying i was not fortunate ,What I was saying because of our culture we are to be tolerant . I know that some countries can put you to death. I also know that it has happen to Non Christians here, Luckley that can not happen so freely but it has happen. when one side decides they are the only one right then it is a forced issue.

[klott]

Wayne neither you nor I get to choose that it is O.K. to worship any way we see fit. God made the rules and wrote the book, and he says there is only one way that is right, and it is narrow. Sounds like you have never read the bible.

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by wwilson3

.... I know that some countries can put you to death. I also know that it has happen to Non Christians here,...

What?

Non Christians on this board haven't even been stifled in their optionions let alone killed. If I recall it was a non-Christian who threatened to kill any Christian who showed up at his doorstep.

I hope you miss-typed and didn't mean what you just said.

[John McKenna]

When did the U.S. government pass a law dictating the separation of church and state? Where can this law be found?


As the concept is commonly understood today, the government has never passed a law implementing the "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Over the years, however, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have reinterpreted this amendment in many ways. This reinterpretation of the Constitution has in effect become the “law” supposedly dictating the "separation of church and state."



Let's look first at a very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation, and then we'll discuss what the phrase "separation of church and state" means as it is applied in American public policy.

One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state.

That was a very brief description of how the federal courts have taken authority over religious issues, reinterpreting the First Amendment and applying it to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of this was done in clear violation of the actual wording of the Constitution, as well as the intentions of its framers. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" can not be justified using the historical record.

We are forced, however, to work with the existing court doctrines. Therefore, what does the phrase mean today as it is applied in American public policy? The First Amendment, which prohibited any "law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has evolved into something entirely new. During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.



"Separation of church and state," as applied to education, means that a prayer at a graduation ceremony is unconstitutional. It also means that students may not pause for a moment of silence at the beginning of their school day. It means that a nativity scene may not be displayed on public property unless there are other displays (e.g. Santa Clause or Christmas trees) that secularize the presentation.

Today's conception of "separation of church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from public property, and religious symbols from city seals. It has been used to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of the concept, or “law” of "separation of church and state."

One should understand that "separation of church and state" is not actually a law. It is a doctrine, or a legal concept, that has been implemented by the various courts primarily over the last fifty years. If this concept, as originally understood, would have been applied with consistency over the years, America would certainly be a different country right now. Religious expression would flourish, and the courts would not be micromanaging the religious life of the American people.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and religious expression were to be encouraged.



This is why, for example, the first Congress asked President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Proclamation upon completion of the Bill of Rights. Today, that practice would be viewed as unconstitutional. It would violate the "separation of church and state."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

What?

Non Christians on this board haven't even been stifled in their optionions let alone killed. If I recall it was a non-Christian who threatened to kill any Christian who showed up at his doorstep.

I hope you miss-typed and didn't mean what you just said.

I did not mean this board Mark, I meant in the history of The USA . Salem witch hunt. The Mormon massacre and so on . As far as a christian being threaten i didnt see that one either and that is as dumb as wanting to kill all Muslims as far as i am concern too. Some things On this board get out of hand sometimes.
When it comes to threatening anyone over a discussion or view then it is just a close minded opinionated Twit that does it. I have no ill feeling against anyone that tries to explain their side of things , But it goes from a discussion to a hissy fit . which is really stupid.

[John McKenna]

Mixed Signals

American money says "In God we trust." The U.S. Congress starts its daily session with a prayer. The same U.S. Supreme Court that has consistently struck down organized prayer in public schools as unconstitutional opens its public sessions by asking for the blessings of God.

[Patrick Carter]

Originally Posted by wwilson3

So you don't what it is then Ken, I look at all religions, not what close minded tell you, It is not Satan worship nor about witches . although many people think that way.
I wasn't attacking you just ask a question. Many people make up this earth many beliefs which is fine. all People need something to believe in . your's may just be different than mine. As i said before one side can not always be THE ONE . if that was the case there would not be so many different Christian faiths nor different levels of the Islam faith . Many people have died in the name of My religion is right and yours is wrong I do not think any god would agree with that Do you?
I see nothing wrong in teaching children faith as long as it is done in a place of worship, School is a place of educating. And we are failing in that. My Wife has volunteered in The big sister program and been given a chance to help a Less fortunate child . We are trying to teach her simple things like adding and reading. She is 8 years old and can not read, she didn't how many quarters are in a dollar. So much for no child left behind Unfortunately the shcool is in a low income neighborhood and many of the children are like her. she needs to learn Basic stuff . Kids have enough to learn . When thier minds are formed to make judgment on thier own then they can choose what religion they want to follow. Or we will not be any better than the extremist you so afraid of. Are we not better than that?

I commend your wife volunteering to help others and I hope someone else other than yourself, teach the young lass how to write properly (construct sentences, etc.). You really do butcher the written english language which makes it very difficult for anyone to put any credibility to or even understand your written thoughts.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

And you Sir
It would be the (English) Language
I did not know it was grammar school on here. I do Apologize.