Discussion:
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation? Or a case agasint excessive rule of law?
(too old to reply)
l***@hotmail.com
2010-05-01 16:42:15 UTC
Permalink
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation

Published Apr 23, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 3, 2010

Here we go again. On April 15 a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that
the National Day of Prayer, slated for May 6, was unconstitutional.
The usual voices have been heard rising in objection (Sarah Palin and
Franklin Graham among them) and, proving yet again that President
Obama is no radical, the administration announced its own plans to
challenge the decision. One can make a reasonable case that the weight
of custom puts the fairly banal idea of an occasionless, generic day
of prayer (how many of you even knew that we have had such a day every
year since 1952?) on the safe side of the Establishment Clause. But
the right is, as ever, taking things a beat too far. Lest anyone try
to convince you that God should be separated from the state, Palin
said, our Founding Fathers, they were believers.

Governor Palin's history is rather shaky. Religious liberty—the
freedom to worship as one chooses, or not to worship—is a central
element of the American creed. Yes, many of the Founders were
believing, observant Christians. But to think of them as apostles in
knee breeches or as passionate evangelicals is a profound misreading
of the past. In many ways their most wondrous legacy was creating the
foundations of a culture of religious diversity in which the secular
and the religious could live in harmony, giving faith a role in the
life of the nation in which it could shape us without strangling us.
On the day George Washington left Philadelphia to take command of the
Continental Army, the Rev. William Smith preached a sermon at the
city's Christ Church, saying: "Religion and liberty must flourish or
fall together in America. We pray that both may be perpetual."

Arguments about the connection between religion and politics, church
and state, have surely been perpetual. The civil and legal cases
against religious coercion are well known: human freedom extends to
one's conscience, and by abolishing religious tests for office or
mandated observances, Americans have successfully created a climate—a
free market, if you will—in which religion can take its stand in the
culture and in the country without particular help or harm from the
government.

There is a religious case against state involvement with matters of
faith, too. Long before Thomas
Jefferson, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, called for a
"hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the
wilderness of the world," believing, with the Psalmist, that human
beings were not to put their trust in princes. The principalities and
powers of a fallen world represented and still represent a corrupting
threat to religion: too many rulers have used faith to justify and
excuse all manner of evil.

The idea of separation began, in fact, with Jesus. Once, when the
crowds were with him and wanted to make him a king, he withdrew and
hid. Before Pilate, Jesus was explicit: "My kingdom is not of this
world," he said. Later in the New Testament, Paul argues that God
shows no partiality among nations or peoples, meaning nations cannot
claim blessed status, and says that "there is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus," which means the Lord God of
Hosts is concerned with larger matters than whether one is an American
or a Norwegian. A Christian nation, then, is a theological
impossibility, and faith coerced is no faith at all, only tyranny. If
God himself gave human beings free will—the choice to love him or not,
to obey him or not—then no believer should try to force another to
confess a faith.

The Founders understood this. Washington said we should give "to
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"; according to the
1797 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by John
Adams, "the government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion." Jefferson said that his statute
for religious freedom in Virginia was "meant to comprehend, within the
mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." There
are many precedents for the National Day of Prayer, but serious
believers, given the choice between a government-sanctioned religious
moment and the perpetuation of a culture in which religion can take
its own stand, free from the corruptions of the world, should always
choose the garden of the church over the wilderness of the world. It
is, after all, what Jesus did.

Jon Meacham is editor of NEWSWEEK and author of American Lion: Andrew
Jackson in the White House and American Gospel: God, the Founding
Fathers, and the Making of a Nation .

---------------------------

Of course, Joe Mecaham is mostly right. However, the religious right's
case is actually
a case against too much legality.

A healthy society needs to have proper balance legality between
morality. America's
problem is that legality has crowded out morality. Actions and
behaviors are either legal
or illegal. Not a matter of moral or immoral. As a consequence, many
Americans
see their country "turning into a multicultural hodgepodge, sapped of
moral strength, run
by government bureaucrats."

Many Americans are seeking to rebalance morality with legality. They
seek to confirm
their moral value through religious expressions. The irony is that
such actions will only put
moral value under legality. It is like putting natural law under
positive law.
Benedict McAnespie
2010-05-01 17:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
Published Apr 23, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 3, 2010
Here we go again. On April 15 a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that
the National Day of Prayer, slated for May 6, was unconstitutional.
Does anyone here know what is the secret of growing a big arse???
I do not like hard park benches and would like to develop extra
padding but not if it makes me grow a double chin .

Bendy
l***@hotmail.com
2010-05-01 18:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
Published Apr 23, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 3, 2010
Here we go again. On April 15 a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that
the National Day of Prayer, slated for May 6, was unconstitutional.
The usual voices have been heard rising in objection (Sarah Palin and
Franklin Graham among them) and, proving yet again that President
Obama is no radical, the administration announced its own plans to
challenge the decision. One can make a reasonable case that the weight
of custom puts the fairly banal idea of an occasionless, generic day
of prayer (how many of you even knew that we have had such a day every
year since 1952?) on the safe side of the Establishment Clause. But
the right is, as ever, taking things a beat too far. Lest anyone try
to convince you that God should be separated from the state, Palin
said, our Founding Fathers, they were believers.
Governor Palin's history is rather shaky. Religious liberty—the
freedom to worship as one chooses, or not to worship—is a central
element of the American creed. Yes, many of the Founders were
believing, observant Christians. But to think of them as apostles in
knee breeches or as passionate evangelicals is a profound misreading
of the past. In many ways their most wondrous legacy was creating the
foundations of a culture of religious diversity in which the secular
and the religious could live in harmony, giving faith a role in the
life of the nation in which it could shape us without strangling us.
On the day George Washington left Philadelphia to take command of the
Continental Army, the Rev. William Smith preached a sermon at the
city's Christ Church, saying: "Religion and liberty must flourish or
fall together in America. We pray that both may be perpetual."
Arguments about the connection between religion and politics, church
and state, have surely been perpetual. The civil and legal cases
against religious coercion are well known: human freedom extends to
one's conscience, and by abolishing religious tests for office or
mandated observances, Americans have successfully created a climate—a
free market, if you will—in which religion can take its stand in the
culture and in the country without particular help or harm from the
government.
There is a religious case against state involvement with matters of
faith, too. Long before Thomas
Jefferson, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, called for a
"hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the
wilderness of the world," believing, with the Psalmist, that human
beings were not to put their trust in princes. The principalities and
powers of a fallen world represented and still represent a corrupting
threat to religion: too many rulers have used faith to justify and
excuse all manner of evil.
The idea of separation began, in fact, with Jesus. Once, when the
crowds were with him and wanted to make him a king, he withdrew and
hid. Before Pilate, Jesus was explicit: "My kingdom is not of this
world," he said. Later in the New Testament, Paul argues that God
shows no partiality among nations or peoples, meaning nations cannot
claim blessed status, and says that "there is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus," which means the Lord God of
Hosts is concerned with larger matters than whether one is an American
or a Norwegian. A Christian nation, then, is a theological
impossibility, and faith coerced is no faith at all, only tyranny. If
God himself gave human beings free will—the choice to love him or not,
to obey him or not—then no believer should try to force another to
confess a faith.
The Founders understood this. Washington said we should give "to
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"; according to the
1797 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by John
Adams, "the government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion." Jefferson said that his statute
for religious freedom in Virginia was "meant to comprehend, within the
mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." There
are many precedents for the National Day of Prayer, but serious
believers, given the choice between a government-sanctioned religious
moment and the perpetuation of a culture in which religion can take
its own stand, free from the corruptions of the world, should always
choose the garden of the church over the wilderness of the world. It
is, after all, what Jesus did.
Jon Meacham is editor of NEWSWEEK and author of American Lion: Andrew
Jackson in the White House and American Gospel: God, the Founding
Fathers, and the Making of a Nation .
---------------------------
Of course, Joe Mecaham is mostly right. However, the religious right's
case is actually
a case against too much legality.
A healthy society needs to have proper balance legality between
morality. America's
problem is that legality has crowded out morality. Actions and
behaviors are either legal
or illegal. Not a matter of moral or immoral. As a consequence, many
Americans
see their country "turning into a multicultural hodgepodge, sapped of
moral strength, run
by government bureaucrats."
Many Americans are seeking to rebalance morality with legality. They
seek to confirm
their moral value through religious expressions. The irony is that
such actions will only put
moral value under legality.  It is like putting natural law under
positive law.
l***@hotmail.com
2010-05-01 18:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
Published Apr 23, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 3, 2010
Here we go again. On April 15 a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that
the National Day of Prayer, slated for May 6, was unconstitutional.
The usual voices have been heard rising in objection (Sarah Palin and
Franklin Graham among them) and, proving yet again that President
Obama is no radical, the administration announced its own plans to
challenge the decision. One can make a reasonable case that the weight
of custom puts the fairly banal idea of an occasionless, generic day
of prayer (how many of you even knew that we have had such a day every
year since 1952?) on the safe side of the Establishment Clause. But
the right is, as ever, taking things a beat too far. Lest anyone try
to convince you that God should be separated from the state, Palin
said, our Founding Fathers, they were believers.
Governor Palin's history is rather shaky. Religious liberty—the
freedom to worship as one chooses, or not to worship—is a central
element of the American creed. Yes, many of the Founders were
believing, observant Christians. But to think of them as apostles in
knee breeches or as passionate evangelicals is a profound misreading
of the past. In many ways their most wondrous legacy was creating the
foundations of a culture of religious diversity in which the secular
and the religious could live in harmony, giving faith a role in the
life of the nation in which it could shape us without strangling us.
On the day George Washington left Philadelphia to take command of the
Continental Army, the Rev. William Smith preached a sermon at the
city's Christ Church, saying: "Religion and liberty must flourish or
fall together in America. We pray that both may be perpetual."
Arguments about the connection between religion and politics, church
and state, have surely been perpetual. The civil and legal cases
against religious coercion are well known: human freedom extends to
one's conscience, and by abolishing religious tests for office or
mandated observances, Americans have successfully created a climate—a
free market, if you will—in which religion can take its stand in the
culture and in the country without particular help or harm from the
government.
There is a religious case against state involvement with matters of
faith, too. Long before Thomas
Jefferson, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, called for a
"hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the
wilderness of the world," believing, with the Psalmist, that human
beings were not to put their trust in princes. The principalities and
powers of a fallen world represented and still represent a corrupting
threat to religion: too many rulers have used faith to justify and
excuse all manner of evil.
The idea of separation began, in fact, with Jesus. Once, when the
crowds were with him and wanted to make him a king, he withdrew and
hid. Before Pilate, Jesus was explicit: "My kingdom is not of this
world," he said. Later in the New Testament, Paul argues that God
shows no partiality among nations or peoples, meaning nations cannot
claim blessed status, and says that "there is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus," which means the Lord God of
Hosts is concerned with larger matters than whether one is an American
or a Norwegian. A Christian nation, then, is a theological
impossibility, and faith coerced is no faith at all, only tyranny. If
God himself gave human beings free will—the choice to love him or not,
to obey him or not—then no believer should try to force another to
confess a faith.
The Founders understood this. Washington said we should give "to
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"; according to the
1797 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by John
Adams, "the government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion." Jefferson said that his statute
for religious freedom in Virginia was "meant to comprehend, within the
mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." There
are many precedents for the National Day of Prayer, but serious
believers, given the choice between a government-sanctioned religious
moment and the perpetuation of a culture in which religion can take
its own stand, free from the corruptions of the world, should always
choose the garden of the church over the wilderness of the world. It
is, after all, what Jesus did.
Jon Meacham is editor of NEWSWEEK and author of American Lion: Andrew
Jackson in the White House and American Gospel: God, the Founding
Fathers, and the Making of a Nation .
---------------------------
Of course, Joe Mecaham is mostly right. However, the religious right's
case is actually
a case against too much legality.
A healthy society needs to have proper balance legality between
morality. America's
problem is that legality has crowded out morality. Actions and
behaviors are either legal
or illegal. Not a matter of moral or immoral. As a consequence, many
Americans
see their country "turning into a multicultural hodgepodge, sapped of
moral strength, run
by government bureaucrats."
Many Americans are seeking to rebalance morality with legality. They
seek to confirm
their moral value through religious expressions. The irony is that
such actions will only put
moral value under legality.  It is like putting natural law under
positive law.
For some reason, google does not allow a post with link. The Jow
Meacham
article is from the May 3 issue of Newsweek. The other quote is from
April
26th Newsweek article "Don't Mess with Texas."
conwaycaine
2010-05-01 18:33:34 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7ad1f19c-fc94-43a5-8c2c-***@k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Doest thy religious beliefs allow thee to snip??
Wexford
2010-05-01 18:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
Published Apr 23, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 3, 2010
Here we go again. On April 15 a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that
the National Day of Prayer, slated for May 6, was unconstitutional.
The usual voices have been heard rising in objection (Sarah Palin and
Franklin Graham among them) and, proving yet again that President
Obama is no radical, the administration announced its own plans to
challenge the decision. One can make a reasonable case that the weight
of custom puts the fairly banal idea of an occasionless, generic day
of prayer (how many of you even knew that we have had such a day every
year since 1952?) on the safe side of the Establishment Clause. But
the right is, as ever, taking things a beat too far. Lest anyone try
to convince you that God should be separated from the state, Palin
said, our Founding Fathers, they were believers.
Large snip for brevity.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Of course, Joe Mecaham is mostly right. However, the religious right's
case is actually
a case against too much legality.
No. The Religious Right's case is against the notion that any group,
even if in the majority, has the right to bend Government to its
particular religious observances. Their objections are against rules,
laws and court decisions that uphold the neutrality of the Government
in regards to religion, a neutrality that can only be maintained by
ignoring religion and by preventing religious groups from imposing
their services, rituals, prayers, voodoo, sacrifices, incantations and
spells on people who are outside their group.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
A healthy society needs to have proper balance legality between
morality. America's
problem is that legality has crowded out morality. Actions and
behaviors are either legal
or illegal. Not a matter of moral or immoral.
That has always been the case. You're confusing personal belief with
law. Many things are "immoral" according to one or another religion.
According to some religious groups, all sex outside marriage is
immoral, even some forms of sexual behavior within marriage, other
than missionary position intercourse, are immoral. According to other
religious groups, a man may have up to four wives. And some contain no
religious bar or limitation on the number of wives a man may have, or
the number of husbands a woman can entertain. Law intervenes and
establishes the rules. Both criminal and civil laws are involved. In
any event, we must have laws that override moral codes. If not, we'd
be in chaos.


As a consequence, many
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Americans
see their country "turning into a multicultural hodgepodge, sapped of
moral strength, run
by government bureaucrats."
Really? And many Americans are dirt ignorant, bible slapping fools who
regularly marry their cousins. Thank God for laws that keep us immune
from their influence!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Many Americans are seeking to rebalance morality with legality. They
seek to confirm
their moral value through religious expressions.
Good. As long as they don't harm themselves or anyone, and don't
sacrifice innocent animals, they can wail and wallow to any god they
choose. First Amendment, you know.

The irony is that
Post by l***@hotmail.com
such actions will only put
moral value under legality.  It is like putting natural law under
positive law.
????? The irony is that people who like to claim their cultural
inheritance from the Pilgrims, who look wistfully back upon those who
"came here for religious freedom" feel compelled, and think it their
right, to impose their superstitions on others.
Ray OHara
2010-05-01 19:11:19 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:543e5d83-d3b3-4bcf-a182-***@k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation


==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of
the United States.

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.

============================================================================
Ray OHara
2010-05-01 19:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
Mr. 2 Cents
2010-05-01 20:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!

Thank you!!!
--
Mr. 2 Cents

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-Gerald Ford
Ray OHara
2010-05-01 21:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Mr. 2 Cents
2010-05-01 21:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
Mr. 2 Cents

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-Gerald Ford
Ray OHara
2010-05-01 23:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Mr. 2 Cents
2010-05-01 23:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.

It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
--
Mr. 2 Cents

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-Gerald Ford
Ray OHara
2010-05-02 00:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the
doctrine
of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility
against
any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
--
Mr. 2 Cents
true. but actual Bill Buckley conservatives are a vanishing breed.
Fred J. McCall
2010-05-02 00:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the
doctrine
of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility
against
any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
true. but actual Bill Buckley conservatives are a vanishing breed.
Perhaps, but if they're vanishing for you it is because you don't know
anything about Bill Buckley. The nymskull posting as "Mr. 2 Cents"
isn't one, you know, since Bill Buckley would have been opposed to
someone being "staunch atheist and anti-theist".

Your ignorance is, as usual, YOUR problem, Ray....
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Ray OHara
2010-05-02 01:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ray OHara
true. but actual Bill Buckley conservatives are a vanishing breed.
Perhaps, but if they're vanishing for you it is because you don't know
anything about Bill Buckley. The nymskull posting as "Mr. 2 Cents"
isn't one, you know, since Bill Buckley would have been opposed to
someone being "staunch atheist and anti-theist".
Your ignorance is, as usual, YOUR problem, Ray....
Bill was a good Catholic but he didn't force it on others.
Mr. 2 Cents
2010-05-02 01:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the
doctrine
of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility
against
any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
============================================================================
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
true. but actual Bill Buckley conservatives are a vanishing breed.
Perhaps, but if they're vanishing for you it is because you don't know
anything about Bill Buckley. The nymskull posting as "Mr. 2 Cents"
isn't one, you know, since Bill Buckley would have been opposed to
someone being "staunch atheist and anti-theist".
Your ignorance is, as usual, YOUR problem, Ray....
Awww, Freddie, and I have such high regard for you.....
--
Mr. 2 Cents

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-Gerald Ford
Lord Calvert
2010-05-02 00:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
=========================================================================== =
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
  It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
The problem is that we have let the big-government loving anti-
conservative totalitarian Christian-supremacists steal the term
"conservative" away from us because they were better organized, better
funded, had better spokesmen (like Reagan and Gingrich) and appealed
to fear. If the Republicans are to survive as a national party they
have to toss out the theocrats that have dominated the Party for the
past thirty years. If they don't, they're committing themselves to
have the same audience and ideology as Wallace's AIP in the late
60s...with all the credibility that implies.

The Separation of Religion and Government *IS* a conservative value
because it limits government power and ensures the theological
independence of the nation's houses of worship. Too bad there are no
conservatives left in the GOP....just commies in choir robes.



Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology

"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the
'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious
issues of these groups [the Religious Right] have little or nothing to
do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position
of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very
spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.
Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds
a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives
believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure
the freedoms that document protects....By maintaining the separation
of church and state the United States has avoided the intolerance
which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars...Can
any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can
anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland,
or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of
injecting religious issues into the affairs of state? The religious
factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent
people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in
public policy. They must learn to make their views known without
trying to make their views the only alternatives...We have succeeded
for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the
uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now.
To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of
conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this
democratic republic." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate Speech, 16
September 1981
Mr. 2 Cents
2010-05-02 01:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
=========================================================================== =
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
The problem is that we have let the big-government loving anti-
conservative totalitarian Christian-supremacists steal the term
"conservative" away from us because they were better organized, better
funded, had better spokesmen (like Reagan and Gingrich) and appealed
to fear. If the Republicans are to survive as a national party they
have to toss out the theocrats that have dominated the Party for the
past thirty years. If they don't, they're committing themselves to
have the same audience and ideology as Wallace's AIP in the late
60s...with all the credibility that implies.
The Separation of Religion and Government *IS* a conservative value
because it limits government power and ensures the theological
independence of the nation's houses of worship. Too bad there are no
conservatives left in the GOP....just commies in choir robes.
Actually, I am far more closely aligned with Libertarianism than with
what the Republican party has become.
--
Mr. 2 Cents

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-Gerald Ford
Lord Calvert
2010-05-02 01:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by Mr. 2 Cents
Post by Ray OHara
Post by l***@hotmail.com
-----------------------------
Jon Meacham
The Religious Case for Church-State Separation
==================================================================
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of
separation of church and state as it applies to the founding
principles
of
the United States.
     Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in
any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no
character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen,-and
as
the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against
any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
=========================================================================== =
from the treaty of Tripoli in 1797 when Founding father John Adams
was President
This is absolutely GREAT! I had never read this treaty before! What an
amazing piece of information!
Thank you!!!
--
just google Treaty of Tripoli 1797
Yes, I did that instantly.
--
   It shows those connedservatives what the FFs really thought about church
and state.
Actually, I am a staunch conservative and also a staunch atheist and
anti-theist.
It would be an enormous mistake to confuse conservatism with weak minded
individuals who embrace fairy tales as fact.
The problem is that we have let the big-government loving anti-
conservative totalitarian Christian-supremacists steal the term
"conservative" away from us because they were better organized, better
funded, had better spokesmen (like Reagan and Gingrich) and appealed
to fear. If the Republicans are to survive as a national party they
have to toss out the theocrats that have dominated the Party for the
past thirty years. If they don't, they're committing themselves to
have the same audience and ideology as Wallace's AIP in the late
60s...with all the credibility that implies.
The Separation of Religion and Government *IS* a conservative value
because it limits government power and ensures the theological
independence of the nation's houses of worship. Too bad there are no
conservatives left in the GOP....just commies in choir robes.
Actually, I am far more closely aligned with Libertarianism than with
what the Republican party has become.
It is too bad that the most recent Libertarian candidate for President
(Bob Barr) just came out seeking more government power in religion and
attacked organizations like AU which seek less government power. The
love of big-government Christian supremacism that has torn apart the
Republican Party may very well tear apart the LP as well.

http://blog.au.org/2010/04/26/backsliding-bob-erstwhile-libertarian-barr-assails-au-and-other-%E2%80%98prayer-police%E2%80%99/


Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology

Loading...