2
   

scary little changes

 
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 11:39 am
MA, your reference on the "myth" of church-state separation says this:

Quote:
In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.


to begin with, the "Court" didn't state this; one justice, Hugo Black wrote that in a footnote. also, it may reassure you to read this excerpt of a 2000 opinion for the US Court of Appeals (the decision itself upheld a lower court ruling that a prison had the right to deny a prison inmate's request to start an American Humanism Association chapter under the auspices of the Relgious Services Department.)

Quote:
The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the
proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no
matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First
Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what
system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First
Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso
footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling
itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious
organization under California law. See Grove v. Mead Sch.
Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1537 (9th Cir. 1985) (Canby, J.,
concurring) (quoting Malnak, 592 F.2d at 206, 212). See also
Alvarado v. City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223, 1228 & n.2 (9th
Cir. 1996) (citing cases supporting the limited scope of the
Torcaso footnote); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.,
37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[N]either the Supreme
Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or
secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause
purposes.").


http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-5485a.txt

note the phrase, particular non-theistic group calling
itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious
organization.
it does not say humanism is a religion; only that a particular group in California who claimed to be humanists acted like a religious organization, and could therefore get a tax exemption.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 11:58 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

Just because I disagree with you or you disagree with me does not mean it is lies. Since neither of us were actually there and talked to the founding fathers, I dare say we will never know exactly what they meant.


But we do know that David Barton is a distributor of false or misleading information.
Quote:
"Christian nation" propagandist David Barton has issued a statement conceding that the following twelve quotations attributed to prominent historical figures are either false or at best questionable. WallBuilders' observations about the quotes are in parenthesis.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!
-- Patrick Henry (questionable)

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
-- George Washington (questionable)

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
-- Holy Trinity v. U.S. [Supreme Court] (false)

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
-- James Madison (false)

Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.
-- Benjamin Franklin (questionable)

The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.
-- Noah Webster (questionable)

There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet.
-- Noah Webster (questionable)

The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.
-- Abe Lincoln (questionable)

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
-- Abe Lincoln (questionable)

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader.
-- Samuel Adams (questionable)
[this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002]

I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.
-- Thomas Jefferson (questionable)

America is great because she is good. and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.
-- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book; perhaps in other more obscure writings; questionable)
David Barton's Questionable Quotes

Momma Angel wrote:
Here is another link; though I doubt you'd accept much of it either.
http://www.christianindex.org/583.article

I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone can pull up anything off the internet to bolster their assertions.


I think it is worth noting that this quote from that page is the first one on Barton's invalid list.

In 1776, Patrick Henry wrote: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Then there is this totally bogus statement from that page. Note that the first Congress under the Constitution met on March 4, 1789
For example, few Americans know that the nation's first Congress founded the American Bible Society and paid for the purchase and importation of 20,000 copies of Scripture for U.S. citizens. Even fewer Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was the founding chairman of the society.

Fact
Quote:
In 1816, Boudinot pushed others to join him and form the American Bible Society. He served as its first president and gave it $10,000--in a day when an annual salary of $400 was considered good money.
http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/05/daily-05-02-2002.shtml

A Timeline of American Bible Society History

There is some basis for the story of Congress partially acting on a request to purchase 20,000 Bibles, however it was for the purpose of preventing the charging of exorbitant prices for a rare commodity.
The First American Bible
Momma Angel wrote:
I merely asked a question. What if it was that way? I didn't ask you to believe it. I just wanted to know if that was the way they intended it, what would you then have to say.


To me it is about credibility. When you associate yourself with sites that have credibility issues that you are aware of, your own credibility becomes an issue. Deception is an odd tactic for a group that touts having the high moral ground.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:37 pm
Ok, wait just a minute! Stop! I need to clear something up here!

When I posted that linke about the Myth Between Separation and State I asked a question. ONe question. I didn't ask if anyone believed what it said. I didn't ask if you agreed, disagreed, etc. All I asked was this, IF this was what the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state (just supposing) what would your stance then be? Would you feel the same way if you KNEW that is what they meant?

I asked a simple question. I never said it was fact. I never said anything I have posted is 100% fact. I just asked a question. Plain and simple.

So, can anyone just answer that question for me? Would you be arguing for it IF it was meant to be that way?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:54 pm
Momma, IF the founding fathers wanted a theocracy they would have written a declaration creating one. They didn't. To wonder or suppose what life would be like today if the last 230 years of US history had taken place under a theocracy is an exercise in futility. You might as well ask what we would be thinking today if the Revolution never took place and we were still a British colony. It isn't what they intended, it isn't the basis of our government, and to wonder what life would be like if it was is ludicrous.
0 Replies
 
Algis Kemezys
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:02 pm
God is OK and Gay !
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:04 pm
J_B,

I understand what you are saying. I honestly do. I just wanted to know if it were true, would you fight as hard to keep it that way as you are for separation of church and state the way you see it?

A simple yes, I would or no, I wouldn't, is all I am looking for.

I am not wondering what life would be like if it were that way or anything else. Just wanted a simple yes or no answer.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:15 pm
MA, since you wrote,

Momma Angel wrote:
Just suppose that what is in this link is the way it was intended to be?

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

What if that was what was truly intended?


i think it's natural that people would write about whatever they saw in the webpage that they felt strongly about. if you want a reaction to something in particular on that page, why not quote the part you have in mind?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:25 pm
Okay, Momma, here's my simple answer. No, I don't believe I would, because I would probably have to fear for my life if I went against the theocracy that would be in place.

Now, would you care to address this, from Green Witch? Would you be for or against the separation of church and state, if things were the way Green Witch says they are (which, of course they actually are, in this reality-based world we live in)?

Green Witch wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
You will see someday when it will be illegal to worship Him. It will happen.


Momma that is the very reason why church and state should be separate - if they are separate government cannot make it illegal to worship as you chose.
When gov't is involved you end up with groups like the Taliban or the Soviet Communist party telling to you how to worship, or if you even can worship. Freedom of religion equals freedom from government interference- which equals keeping religion out of government.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:45 pm
What kickycan said works for me.

Now why is it that the side promoting no separation needs to rely on deception to make their point? That in itself should be telling.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 03:20 pm
If we were living in a theocracy (and had been since the end of the Revolution) I'm sure I would be part of a vibrant underground network whose members worshipped (or not) in cellars, darkened rooms, and secret safe-houses in the faith tradition of their choosing. This is exactly what happened in Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China where worship was prohibited. If I lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban and was forced to live under their theocratic laws, I would dedicate my life to working with the underground to bring sanity (religious freedom) to the people.

I fervently believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion for those who do not have a faith. I would believe what I believe if the US were a theocracy or not. I do not believe in religious freedom because I have it. I simply believe in religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 03:32 pm
You are defining "religion" the way you know some religions.There are other religions.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 03:59 pm
Other religions are not the problem spendius. It is the ones with threatening tentacles that cause concern.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 04:01 pm
Just to let you all know. I will come back and address these posts a bit later tonight. I am getting some stuff ready for a hometown parade and am kind of pressed for time. I will be back to answer each post.

Forgot to add, Kickycan, thank you. Thank you for your honest answer.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 04:26 pm
mesquite

Of course they are.You can't see the wood for the trees.

Suppose you imagine religion evolving.You're an evolutionist I presume so it ought to be easy.Out of the multitude of religions,and there were a fair few just in Rome,one had that extra something.That new trick.Mutation if you like.A good one.For you and me I mean as members of the Western Empire.
Look out your window-is it any good?If it isn't you're getting in your own way.It's pretty damn good here and we aren't as rich or as powerful as you.Not yet anyway.

Somebody asked about the writers of the Constitution.What about going back a bit further and asking about the writers of the constitution of the wizard trick.Your sworn enemy.

Are you up for tearing that up.I happen to think that your grandchildren won't thank you if you do.
But that's a bet.That's a free choice.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:07 pm
What have I said?Why have things gone so quiet?
I like being argued with.I pine away in deathly silences.I've been arguing about what to bet on for as long as I can remember.

With my own money of course.I wouldn't dream of betting any grandchildren of mine's hopes on paeleolithic carbon dated granite structures when there's a tried and tested method right under my nose.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:10 pm
I think it is precisely the fact that you are so clearly angling for argument, any argument, no matter what you actually think or believe, that has people whistling and looking elsewhere for discussion. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:12 pm
sozobe,

I thought of you the other day. I was in the book section of Wal-Mart and saw your avatar on a book. Nice to see you!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:14 pm
Hi there,

Yes, I still kinda jump when I see Rosie -- hey, there I am! Wait, no...

How was the parade?

I'm looking forward to your responses. :-)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:15 pm
How can I possibly stress more what I believe than betting on it with my own cash.

You don't think,I hope,sozobe,that your post means anything other than what I know it means.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:18 pm
Sozobe,

We got the banners done just in time. My friend, Dixieland Angel, said the car looks great with the banners we made.

As soon as I am finished with supper, I will come back and address the posts earlier. I haven't forgotten. Just jumping in and out right now.

I hope to have good pictures from the parade!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 11:27:57