| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Omphalos Omphalos" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2003 11:36:42 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bf9ga7$af1$6@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <uodghvg730f4pmg4aq0gftmmoqdefovp4u@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
that's it, no "religion".
Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
Bob
Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian country.
Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was
John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
Founding Father. No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers; it
does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and other
God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Even if
those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty. Rather
than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli that
the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no matter
what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
of the United States. Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
correspondence from that period and location contained several references
to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
Treaty even signed it,
"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
concluded with Christian Nations."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.
That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
Vernon.
.
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
21 Jul 2003 11:57:28 AM |
|
|
In article <2cb107e6ab1ed1e7ba64d59e4b4f9275@free.teranews.com>,
Omphalos <Omphalos> wrote:
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bf9ga7$af1$6@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <uodghvg730f4pmg4aq0gftmmoqdefovp4u@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
that's it, no "religion".
Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
Bob
Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian country.
Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was
John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
Founding Father.
What does the constitution say about a treaty?
No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers; it
does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and other
God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Who signed it?
Even if
those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty.
Again, what does the constitution say about a treaty?
Rather
than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli that
the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no matter
what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
of the United States.
Most of the founders were deists, not "Christians."
Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
correspondence from that period and location contained several references
to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
Treaty even signed it,
"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
concluded with Christian Nations."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.
Again, what is the wording and what does the constitution say about treaties?
That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
Vernon.
Funny; you right-wingers always argue for strict constructionism when reading
the constitution, but with this treaty, you're arguing to ignore the words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 03:02:42 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <> wrote in message
news:bfh61o$7rf$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <2cb107e6ab1ed1e7ba64d59e4b4f9275@free.teranews.com>,
Omphalos <Omphalos> wrote:
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bf9ga7$af1$6@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <uodghvg730f4pmg4aq0gftmmoqdefovp4u@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no
law
establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
that's it, no "religion".
Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
Bob
Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian
country.
Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli
was
John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
Founding Father.
What does the constitution say about a treaty?
No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers;
it
does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and
other
God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Who signed it?
Even if
those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty.
Again, what does the constitution say about a treaty?
Rather
than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli
that
the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no
matter
what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
of the United States.
Most of the founders were deists, not "Christians."
Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
correspondence from that period and location contained several references
to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
Treaty even signed it,
"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
concluded with Christian Nations."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not
a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.
Again, what is the wording and what does the constitution say about
treaties?
That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
Vernon.
Funny; you right-wingers always argue for strict constructionism when
reading
the constitution, but with this treaty, you're arguing to ignore the
words.
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means. The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of the
words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the way,
some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of the
founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fbloogyudsr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 10:41:29 AM |
|
|
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook and
education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
Try reading Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilization and Remaking
of the World Order" for a clearer understanding of this issue. Also
interesting reading is almost anything by Bernard Lewis.
Please, let's go any deeper in any of this on this forum, however.
FloydR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos !" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 11:30:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote
in news:vhvviuee9okq6b@corp.supernews.com:
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook
and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is officially
atheist.
Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 11:39:04 AM |
|
|
"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
news:cdacb49868f6873d6dc8e8eb49e94fb5@free.teranews.com...
On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote
in news:vhvviuee9okq6b@corp.supernews.com:
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook
and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is officially
atheist.
Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing for a
government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.
Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try Sweden
with it's state religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fbloogyudsr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 10:50:29 PM |
|
|
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try Sweden
with it's state religion.
They changed the constitution a while back; their new bill of rights
(Article 1, item 6)
guarantees freedom of worship. Hard to reconcile that with a state
religion.
FloydR
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
26 Jul 2003 03:40:36 AM |
|
|
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:vi3ulpf34agk6e@corp.supernews.com...
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try
Sweden
with it's state religion.
They changed the constitution a while back; their new bill of rights
(Article 1, item 6)
guarantees freedom of worship. Hard to reconcile that with a state
religion.
FloydR
I thought they always had freedom of religion, yet a state religion:
Luthern? If that's changed it's news to me!
.
|
|
|
| User: "fbloogyudsr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
26 Jul 2003 10:26:55 AM |
|
|
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try
Sweden
with it's state religion.
They changed the constitution a while back; their new bill of rights
(Article 1, item 6)
guarantees freedom of worship. Hard to reconcile that with a state
religion.
I thought they always had freedom of religion, yet a state religion:
Luthern? If that's changed it's news to me!
Heck if I know. I'm not really up on Swedish history, since
I'm of Norwegian-descent and don't like those fellows. ;-)
Floyd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 12:45:15 PM |
|
|
In article <pVWTa.4876$Hr.43975@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:bfp4li$rjj$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <IYTTa.3996$Hr.32451@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
news:cdacb49868f6873d6dc8e8eb49e94fb5@free.teranews.com...
On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com>
wrote
in news:vhvviuee9okq6b@corp.supernews.com:
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase
means.
The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation
is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation
was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link
state
and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their
outlook
and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is
officially
atheist.
Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing
for a
government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.
Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try
Sweden
with it's state religion.
Church of England too. Germany is Lutheran.
But the US was founded on the principle of not having the government
involved
with religion.
Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that "establish".
Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
warranted by law,
I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.
only by your opinion that reveals a disdain for religion.
No, only the government sponsoring it.
Listening to you, I get the empression that religious freedom should be
relegated to people's private homes or churches,
Would you have it forced upon us by the state?
which would be compelled to
pay taxes on their property and received donations.
And why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 01:36:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:45:15p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bfrqbb$p0m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <pVWTa.4876$Hr.43975@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that
"establish".
Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
warranted by law,
I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What
does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it say
about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely
nothing.
Neither the constitution nor Jefferson`s "separation" letter (written in
1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, thirteen
years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are third-hand,
which no court of that day would consider.) ever intimates that religious
expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the ACLU, Americans
United, and other God-haters continue to lift Jefferson up as a sort of
historic "town crier" for their cause. They seem convinced that Jefferson
would not have permitted any political recognition of anything remotely
religious. Are they correct? You be the judge.
In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally
introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public and
solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support
for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for
Peace," which petitioned:
"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly
beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy
favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry,
sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance,
and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one
united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and
tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the
authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and
that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the
nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of
trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through
Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
As is evident, Jefferson`s belief in a separation between church and state
did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. If he were
not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect Thomas Jefferson
would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for his sundry
official statements that specifically mention "God" and "Jesus Christ."
Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority regarding
the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with writing it.
Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he was
not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member of Congress in 1789.
He did not participate in any amendment debates, nor was he a member of
any state legislature or ratifying convention at any time relevant to
passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was not even in this country
when the First Amendment was written. He was serving as U.S. Minister to
France throughout this time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 02:49:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 03:06:08p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bfrv30$p0m$59@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <Xns93C394ACA7A5C8@130.133.1.4>, Omphalos <omphalos@go.com>
wrote:
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:45:15p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bfrqbb$p0m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <pVWTa.4876$Hr.43975@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that
"establish".
Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
warranted by law,
I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
What does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it
say about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely
nothing.
Neither the constitution nor Jefferson`s "separation" letter (written
in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut,
thirteen years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are
third-hand,
Courts often look at the writings of those who wrote the constitution.
which no court of that day would consider.) ever intimates that
religious expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the
ACLU, Americans United, and other God-haters continue to lift Jefferson
up as a sort of historic "town crier" for their cause. They seem
convinced that Jefferson would not have permitted any political
recognition of anything remotely religious. Are they correct? You be
the judge.
In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally
introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public
and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial
support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for
Peace," which petitioned:
"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We
humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful
of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable
ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and
arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion
into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many
kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust
the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at
home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy
praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day
of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask
through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
As is evident, Jefferson`s belief in a separation between church and
state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction.
If he were not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect
Thomas Jefferson would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit
for his sundry official statements that specifically mention "God" and
"Jesus Christ."
Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority
regarding the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with
writing it. Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional
Convention, he was not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member
of Congress in 1789. He did not participate in any amendment debates,
nor was he a member of any state legislature or ratifying convention at
any time relevant to passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was
not even in this country when the First Amendment was written. He was
serving as U.S. Minister to France throughout this time.
Which still has nothing to do with the government forcing religion on
people.
The US government doesn't force religion on people, dumbass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 12:20:53 PM |
|
|
In article <CoMTa.4264$Vp.490291@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" < > wrote in message
news:bfh61o$7rf$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <2cb107e6ab1ed1e7ba64d59e4b4f9275@free.teranews.com>,
Omphalos <Omphalos> wrote:
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:bf9ga7$af1$6@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <uodghvg730f4pmg4aq0gftmmoqdefovp4u@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no
law
establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
that's it, no "religion".
Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
Bob
Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian
country.
Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli
was
John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
Founding Father.
What does the constitution say about a treaty?
No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers;
it
does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and
other
God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Who signed it?
Even if
those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty.
Again, what does the constitution say about a treaty?
Rather
than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli
that
the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no
matter
what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
of the United States.
Most of the founders were deists, not "Christians."
Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
correspondence from that period and location contained several references
to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
Treaty even signed it,
"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
concluded with Christian Nations."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not
a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.
Again, what is the wording and what does the constitution say about
treaties?
That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
Vernon.
Funny; you right-wingers always argue for strict constructionism when
reading
the constitution, but with this treaty, you're arguing to ignore the
words.
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means. The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of the
words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the way,
some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of the
founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted earlier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 02:53:00 PM |
|
|
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of
the
words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the
way,
some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of
the
founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted
earlier.
I recall reading that some states had state religions into the 1830's, e.g.,
Puritanism in Massachussetts. And it was their right to do so as the
establishment clause only applies to congress. It was only later that the
supreme court used the 14th amendment to rule that no government entity,
federal, state, local or whatever can establish a religion. And as might be
expected, there's even disagreement on that, as the establishment clause is
not a "right of the people" as much as a prohibition on congress. The right
is the right of free exercise, which the 14th amendment plainly applies to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 12:44:20 PM |
|
|
In article <wOWTa.4874$Hr.43549@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of
the
words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the
way,
some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of
the
founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted
earlier.
I recall reading that some states had state religions into the 1830's, e.g.,
Puritanism in Massachussetts. And it was their right to do so as the
establishment clause only applies to congress. It was only later that the
supreme court used the 14th amendment to rule that no government entity,
federal, state, local or whatever can establish a religion. And as might be
expected, there's even disagreement on that,
No there isn't.
as the establishment clause is
not a "right of the people" as much as a prohibition on congress. The right
is the right of free exercise, which the 14th amendment plainly applies to.
And the right to be free of government establishment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Putney" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
24 Jul 2003 08:47:11 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Kessler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 01:09:44 AM |
|
|
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
United Church of Christ
Unitarian Universalism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 12:54:17 PM |
|
|
In article <28021a62f66282495913fce91af489a5@free.teranews.com>,
Snubis <W> wrote:
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 02:09:44a, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:nph1iv49raq9j5h4jj6h5duf4v9p9oj2e9@4ax.com:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
United Church of Christ
Unitarian Universalism
By whose definition?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Kessler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 12:41:11 PM |
|
|
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 01:00:16 PM |
|
|
In article <poq2ivogguhoamej0mibkh5qhanu8dv87r@4ax.com>,
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
Sure he does. He's a Right-Winger, and God speaks to him directly. That's
how he knows gays have a "pervert agenda" and all of them want to molest
children.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis W" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 02:17:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:poq2ivogguhoamej0mibkh5qhanu8dv87r@4ax.com:
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
Let`s face it, this stupid cult is what caused things like the shooting at
a Colorado High School in Littleton. Wicca isn`t a religion, it`s a
rebellious fad against Mommy and Daddy. Wicca isn`t WitchCraft. Wicca
ain't no religion, it`s a fart in the wind, a ***** in the ocean.
I still have yet to see at least ONE PROOF of WitchCraft from these
retards. I knew it back then, and as I saw it then I do now ... Wicca is
a pure fart, zippo powers, zippo crap, zippo NOTHING. Hey, but I sit, I
watch, I look, and still I know I`d spend my time better looking at the
grass grow. Wicca is nothing, they believe in nothing. There`s no power,
no nothing, just a group of mentally disturbed people in rebellion against
Mommy and Daddy, sitting around talking about gods and goddesses they
don't really believe in and those hags over the age of 30+, they`re just
looking for their old teen days, not to mention they're mostly lesbians.
They are moral relativist wackos.
Wicca is unKKKool, Wicca is a Homosexual cult. But, please, don`t pay
me no attention, that`s till you find yourself on a dark road with this
hairy ***** gorilla stalking you, and then, "You`re ***** out of luck",
because, you know why, you ain't no Witch; and then you`ll know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 02:09:31 PM |
|
|
In article <c0178b70b73bb6dbcbd14c429f253bb5@free.teranews.com>,
Snubis <W> wrote:
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:poq2ivogguhoamej0mibkh5qhanu8dv87r@4ax.com:
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
Let`s face it, this stupid cult is what caused things like the shooting at
a Colorado High School in Littleton. Wicca isn`t a religion,
Who made you god?
it`s a
rebellious fad against Mommy and Daddy. Wicca isn`t WitchCraft. Wicca
ain't no religion, it`s a fart in the wind, a ***** in the ocean.
Some might say that about your religion.
I still have yet to see at least ONE PROOF of WitchCraft from these
retards.
Huh? What "proof" is there of Christianity?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos !" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 02:11:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:poq2ivogguhoamej0mibkh5qhanu8dv87r@4ax.com:
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
Oh, the IRS says it is, huh? Then it must be true.
Wicca is not a religion but the esoteric study of Western Paganism. Any
belief system that claims that all religions are right is not a religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
26 Jul 2003 02:09:09 AM |
|
|
Omphalos <!> wrote:
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:poq2ivogguhoamej0mibkh5qhanu8dv87r@4ax.com:
Snubis <W> wrote:
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
Wicca isn't a real religion.
1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.
Oh, the IRS says it is, huh? Then it must be true.
They are the organization of the federal government officially tasked with
recognizing established religions.
Wicca is not a religion but the esoteric study of Western Paganism. Any
belief system that claims that all religions are right is not a religion.
Then Bahai, the third largest (I think I heard a member say they were now
third after C&M and above J) religion is not a religion. And there are
millions that will disagree with you.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? |
25 Jul 2003 12:48:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3F208C1F.D00EC71D@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
Not a moral issue. And people get married all the time without involving
religion in it.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
