And let's not forget our two primary examples of what happens when a government tries to do away with religion entirely: the USSR and communistic China.
They overthrew tyrannical and oppresive regimes based on the premise that rulers reigned by the divine right of god and replaced them with a peoples party based on the principles of human equality?
Originally posted by Desalus Being religious does not automatically equate to being moral. Simply look at history and you can see how many unmoral things religious people have done.
Being non-religious doesn't equate with being moral either. There are no successful ethical systems that are not religious based. The only one close is Randian Objectivism. Why is that?
What do you consider to be successful? If you are looking at the actions of the entire population of its followers throughout history then Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all fail the ethical system test.
How so? All are in existence and all work well -- especialy when people follow them. It is when they do NOT follow them that they fail. That sounds like a pretty successful ethical system to me -- follow it -- it works, violate it, it fails.
And let's not forget our two primary examples of what happens when a government tries to do away with religion entirely: the USSR and communistic China.
and replaced them with a peoples party based on the principles of human equality?
Somebody just returned from imagination land.
LOL! .. yea that one is pretty funny .. Equality .. this is a joke right?
It might be a joke where you live, but for most modern societies it is a common philosophy. Marx and Lenin are perhaps two of the most famous proponents of equality in the history of mankind.
There are sound historic grounds for a separation of church and state. The Founders were much closer in history to the religious wars that laid waste to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.
These guys knew what we are doing. The wide variety of faiths in the US is a direct result of the state keeping its nose out of religion. It's a blessing and a curse, as many of the unique to America religous offshoots (mostly derived from Christianity) eagerly seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us using state power.
As for FIshermage's assertion that Randilan Objectivism is some sort of moral system, it's not. It's an infantile rationalization for adults to act like spoiled three year olds. As for all moral systems being based on religion, thats utter horsehockey. There are plenty of ethical people around who don't rely on the threat of some invisible sky buddy to moderate their behavior. I might add that religous faith is no guarantor of moral or ethical behavior; their are plenty of fervently religious people who have no problem at all with telling lies to enlarge their flocks.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
--------------------------------------------- Killer 86%, Socializer 53%, Explorer 33%, Achiever 26%
There are sound historic grounds for a separation of church and state. The Founders were much closer in history to the religious wars that laid waste to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. These guys knew what we are doing. The wide variety of faiths in the US is a direct result of the state keeping its nose out of religion. It's a blessing and a curse, as many of the unique to America religous offshoots (mostly derived from Christianity) eagerly seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us using state power. As for FIshermage's assertion that Randilan Objectivism is some sort of moral system, it's not. It's an infantile rationalization for adults to act like spoiled three year olds. As for all moral systems being based on religion, thats utter horsehockey. There are plenty of ethical people around who don't rely on the threat of some invisible sky buddy to moderate their behavior. I might add that religous faith is no guarantor of moral or ethical behavior; their are plenty of fervently religious people who have no problem at all with telling lies to enlarge their flocks.
Ah, personal attacks from the Siobabble again. How refreshing. I mean personal attacks on Objectivists in general, not me in particular. I'm no Objectivist, but I've studied the philosophy as well as most others that people hold to. I do so out of a respect for my fellow humans and a true desire to understand them.
Name one ethical system that don't involve God that are successful. I know of no systematic ethical system that they hold to -- merely ethics they have borrowed from the religions.
No one ever said religious faith is a guarantor of anything. How many straw men are you gonna play with?
There are sound historic grounds for a separation of church and state. The Founders were much closer in history to the religious wars that laid waste to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. These guys knew what we are doing. The wide variety of faiths in the US is a direct result of the state keeping its nose out of religion. It's a blessing and a curse, as many of the unique to America religous offshoots (mostly derived from Christianity) eagerly seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us using state power. As for FIshermage's assertion that Randilan Objectivism is some sort of moral system, it's not. It's an infantile rationalization for adults to act like spoiled three year olds. As for all moral systems being based on religion, thats utter horsehockey. There are plenty of ethical people around who don't rely on the threat of some invisible sky buddy to moderate their behavior. I might add that religous faith is no guarantor of moral or ethical behavior; their are plenty of fervently religious people who have no problem at all with telling lies to enlarge their flocks.
Also, let's not forget organisations like Focus On The Family and New Life Church funneling money into the government to further their xian agenda.
And then of course, we find that they are bloated with hypocricy anyway, when they are found guilty of the very things they preach against (such as indulging in meth and homosexual prostitutes).
Just because they preach morality, doesn't mean they practice it.
I remember back in 1999, folks kept asking me if I was stockpiling food. I always answered, "No, I'm stockpiling ammo and making a list of people who are stockpiling food"
I am trying to figure out why there has been such an attack on Palin's religion
Because she wants her interpretations and personal religious views made into law or used to change existing laws that might affect my life.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
Actually they were mostly Christian and quite a few were diest, and quite a few were a bit of both. The reason they wanted separation of Church and State (actually they wanted no government Church which was the context) was because they were not all the same type of Christian, and they didn't want one favored over the other.
They realized that religious freedom was the way to go, and rightly so.
As to the "morality of Chimpanzees" it is not relevant to the discussion; it is interesting as a biocentric discussion of ethics and morals -- the idea that morals are "inherent," which could just as easily mean that God writes the Law in our hearts through are very DNA, and primates are no exception. It really has no bearing on this discussion because Chimpanzees do not have anything resembling a systematic ethic -- at least as far as we know -- what they have is behavior.
There are sound historic grounds for a separation of church and state. The Founders were much closer in history to the religious wars that laid waste to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. These guys knew what we are doing. The wide variety of faiths in the US is a direct result of the state keeping its nose out of religion. It's a blessing and a curse, as many of the unique to America religous offshoots (mostly derived from Christianity) eagerly seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us using state power. As for FIshermage's assertion that Randilan Objectivism is some sort of moral system, it's not. It's an infantile rationalization for adults to act like spoiled three year olds. As for all moral systems being based on religion, thats utter horsehockey. There are plenty of ethical people around who don't rely on the threat of some invisible sky buddy to moderate their behavior. I might add that religous faith is no guarantor of moral or ethical behavior; their are plenty of fervently religious people who have no problem at all with telling lies to enlarge their flocks.
Also, let's not forget organisations like Focus On The Family and New Life Church funneling money into the government to further their xian agenda.
And then of course, we find that they are bloated with hypocricy anyway, when they are found guilty of the very things they preach against (such as indulging in meth and homosexual prostitutes).
Just because they preach morality, doesn't mean they practice it.
Hmm paying homage to what was nothing but a string of personal attacks and bad logic. MMkay.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
Becuase they were all different sects of Christian. Ones that did not get along. Christianity is by no means a unified religion, and the two most dominant churches Anglican and Catholic are both headed by outside forces. The Queen and the Pope.
You may not need religion to teach morality, but that does not escape the fact that it does and that a common morality is something we as a society enjoy.
While Chimps is a good example, it is also nothing like as complex a society as human society. Ours are rather bigger, our lives more varied, our native enviroments more disperse. Our common moralities and the moral subject matter addressed in churches are much more complex in nature than those of chimpanzee's.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
Yup, I believe that comes from one of Jefferson's letters to Dr. Benjamin Rush. I don't have time to look it up, as I usually do to check my facts though. I could be wrong on that.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
The intent is obvious. The prohibition of any religious test for any public office is a pretty good iindicator, and it's in the main body of the Constitution. Look in Article 6.
Furthermore, the First Amendment is explicit in creating a church/state separation. Wise religionists know that this insures that the state will not stick its nose into their business, and it's the basis for the wide variety of faiths and creeds in the US.
To assert otherwise is to outright lie.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
Yup, I believe that comes from one of Jefferson's letters to Dr. Benjamin Rush. I don't have time to look it up, as I usually do to check my facts though. I could be wrong on that.
It was addressed in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists from Jefferson. He referenced the first amendment, but, there is nothing in the Constitution that states the separation.
. Why should ONE religion in particular hold more power in the government than any other?
because the founding fathers were christians. And if you want, you can pay all the bills to remove all religion from our currency and etc, because i for sure dont want to.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Palin is attacked for her religion not BECAUSE of her religion but how SHE uses her religion. She's a fanatic. The only difference between her and Al Queda is she wouldn't have the balls to blow herself up to take you with her.
. Why should ONE religion in particular hold more power in the government than any other?
because the founding fathers were christians. And if you want, you can pay all the bills to remove all religion from our currency and etc, because i for sure dont want to.
Jefferson denied outright the divinity of Jesus. Nearly every one of the Founders was a deist, which means that they believed God created the universe, then split. Never again to interfere in the affairs of men.
The "God" on currency is that particular deity.
Again, the assertion that this is a "Christian" nation is an outright lie. There are dozens of examples to the contrary, source examples, from Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and others.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
American settlers left Europe in order to continue the free practise of their religions.
State religions in Europe were persecuting all the independants and rival state religions at the time. America was a place they could all go, and the freedom to choose their religion the reason many left.
Now what I am saying here is that America was founded by Christians, and throughout history Americans fighting for this country have believed that it was "God's will" for this to happen. "mercy" only exists due to religion, because it is illogical to show mercy to someone who will be a threat if you set them free.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
The intent is obvious. The prohibition of any religious test for any public office is a pretty good iindicator, and it's in the main body of the Constitution. Look in Article 6.
Furthermore, the First Amendment is explicit in creating a church/state separation. Wise religionists know that this insures that the state will not stick its nose into their business, and it's the basis for the wide variety of faiths and creeds in the US.
To assert otherwise is to outright lie.
However, what they preach and what they practice are not always the same things.
Example, Obama's adoption of christianity as his officially stated religion. He knew full well that he would NEVER stand a chance at becoming president without that qualifier.
And, I wonder how many of you have grown up and lived as a practicioner of a non-christian faith?
Try living life as a Satanist, for example, where people are always trying to take your children away, your testimony in court cases is tossed out, you are harassed by police, and generally made to be miserable as a result of the heavy infusion of christianity in every aspect of the country we live in.
See, religion in government may sound fine to you, and may look good on paper...but in reality it's an abomination, in every way as "wrong" as racism.
I remember back in 1999, folks kept asking me if I was stockpiling food. I always answered, "No, I'm stockpiling ammo and making a list of people who are stockpiling food"
Try being a non-xian american some time, and you'll realise why this is necessary. The US is a melting pot of religions, cultures, races, etc. Why should ONE religion in particular hold more power in the government than any other? Besides...let's look at this sensibly. Any religion is by definition, a system of beliefs. All well and good, until you try to mix that with a system of government. Suddenly you have a ruling body which passes laws and enforces rules not for the good of the people, but based on it's religious dogma. PLUS, if the religion in question should happen to be one who's god has a flaming superiority complex, you run into a case of a government full of religous prejudice, where anyone who worships a different god is treated as a lower-class citizen, or denied their rights flat-out. (Don't even try to tell me it doesn't happen, 36 years of experience here.) If we want to FIX this country, one of the things that NEEDS to happen is to get the damn church out of our government once and for all, and let LOGIC instead of belief guide us foreward.
I hate the "melting pot" thing...because it's really not true at all...If you want to use analogies involving pots...then we're really more like a thick soup, where the different parts retain their distinct flavors but can take on a certain tinge of the flavors sorrounding them....The melting pot thing makes it sound like we're all homogenized into one belief system...Sorry but my belief system says that your belief system cannot be correct, and at its core, yours does as well.
I'm not going to comment on the pledge thing as a whole though, I just wanted to comment on the melting pot thing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Church and state shouldn't be one and the same unless it is the vatican. Separation from the state won't create more problems nor destroy America. I doubt the present situation in US will be solved through prayer after all.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Comments
They overthrew tyrannical and oppresive regimes based on the premise that rulers reigned by the divine right of god and replaced them with a peoples party based on the principles of human equality?
and how did that work out for them?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yes, but I am still in touch with reality on my trip.
Being non-religious doesn't equate with being moral either. There are no successful ethical systems that are not religious based. The only one close is Randian Objectivism. Why is that?
What do you consider to be successful? If you are looking at the actions of the entire population of its followers throughout history then Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all fail the ethical system test.
How so? All are in existence and all work well -- especialy when people follow them. It is when they do NOT follow them that they fail. That sounds like a pretty successful ethical system to me -- follow it -- it works, violate it, it fails.
fishermage.blogspot.com
and replaced them with a peoples party based on the principles of human equality?
Somebody just returned from imagination land.
LOL! .. yea that one is pretty funny .. Equality .. this is a joke right?
It might be a joke where you live, but for most modern societies it is a common philosophy. Marx and Lenin are perhaps two of the most famous proponents of equality in the history of mankind.
They are the fathers of communism.
There are sound historic grounds for a separation of church and state. The Founders were much closer in history to the religious wars that laid waste to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.
These guys knew what we are doing. The wide variety of faiths in the US is a direct result of the state keeping its nose out of religion. It's a blessing and a curse, as many of the unique to America religous offshoots (mostly derived from Christianity) eagerly seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us using state power.
As for FIshermage's assertion that Randilan Objectivism is some sort of moral system, it's not. It's an infantile rationalization for adults to act like spoiled three year olds. As for all moral systems being based on religion, thats utter horsehockey. There are plenty of ethical people around who don't rely on the threat of some invisible sky buddy to moderate their behavior. I might add that religous faith is no guarantor of moral or ethical behavior; their are plenty of fervently religious people who have no problem at all with telling lies to enlarge their flocks.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
---------------------------------------------
Killer 86%, Socializer 53%, Explorer 33%, Achiever 26%
Ah, personal attacks from the Siobabble again. How refreshing. I mean personal attacks on Objectivists in general, not me in particular. I'm no Objectivist, but I've studied the philosophy as well as most others that people hold to. I do so out of a respect for my fellow humans and a true desire to understand them.
Name one ethical system that don't involve God that are successful. I know of no systematic ethical system that they hold to -- merely ethics they have borrowed from the religions.
No one ever said religious faith is a guarantor of anything. How many straw men are you gonna play with?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Also, let's not forget organisations like Focus On The Family and New Life Church funneling money into the government to further their xian agenda.
And then of course, we find that they are bloated with hypocricy anyway, when they are found guilty of the very things they preach against (such as indulging in meth and homosexual prostitutes).
Just because they preach morality, doesn't mean they practice it.
I remember back in 1999, folks kept asking me if I was stockpiling food. I always answered, "No, I'm stockpiling ammo and making a list of people who are stockpiling food"
Because she wants her interpretations and personal religious views made into law or used to change existing laws that might affect my life.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
Actually they were mostly Christian and quite a few were diest, and quite a few were a bit of both. The reason they wanted separation of Church and State (actually they wanted no government Church which was the context) was because they were not all the same type of Christian, and they didn't want one favored over the other.
They realized that religious freedom was the way to go, and rightly so.
As to the "morality of Chimpanzees" it is not relevant to the discussion; it is interesting as a biocentric discussion of ethics and morals -- the idea that morals are "inherent," which could just as easily mean that God writes the Law in our hearts through are very DNA, and primates are no exception. It really has no bearing on this discussion because Chimpanzees do not have anything resembling a systematic ethic -- at least as far as we know -- what they have is behavior.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Also, let's not forget organisations like Focus On The Family and New Life Church funneling money into the government to further their xian agenda.
And then of course, we find that they are bloated with hypocricy anyway, when they are found guilty of the very things they preach against (such as indulging in meth and homosexual prostitutes).
Just because they preach morality, doesn't mean they practice it.
Hmm paying homage to what was nothing but a string of personal attacks and bad logic. MMkay.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
The second point: You do not need religion to teach you morality. You do not need religion to teach you that killing children is bad. Recent studies have shown chimpanzees have morals and a sense of right and wrong. Mercy does not exist only because of religion. Mercy is displayed not only by humans but by many different other animals. Do these animals have religion?
Becuase they were all different sects of Christian. Ones that did not get along. Christianity is by no means a unified religion, and the two most dominant churches Anglican and Catholic are both headed by outside forces. The Queen and the Pope.
You may not need religion to teach morality, but that does not escape the fact that it does and that a common morality is something we as a society enjoy.
While Chimps is a good example, it is also nothing like as complex a society as human society. Ours are rather bigger, our lives more varied, our native enviroments more disperse. Our common moralities and the moral subject matter addressed in churches are much more complex in nature than those of chimpanzee's.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
Yup, I believe that comes from one of Jefferson's letters to Dr. Benjamin Rush. I don't have time to look it up, as I usually do to check my facts though. I could be wrong on that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
The intent is obvious. The prohibition of any religious test for any public office is a pretty good iindicator, and it's in the main body of the Constitution. Look in Article 6.
Furthermore, the First Amendment is explicit in creating a church/state separation. Wise religionists know that this insures that the state will not stick its nose into their business, and it's the basis for the wide variety of faiths and creeds in the US.
To assert otherwise is to outright lie.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
Yup, I believe that comes from one of Jefferson's letters to Dr. Benjamin Rush. I don't have time to look it up, as I usually do to check my facts though. I could be wrong on that.
It was addressed in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists from Jefferson. He referenced the first amendment, but, there is nothing in the Constitution that states the separation.
because the founding fathers were christians. And if you want, you can pay all the bills to remove all religion from our currency and etc, because i for sure dont want to.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
No, it is not. It is a matter of interpretation.
The establishment clause simply states there shall be no state sponsored religion.
The free exercise clause simply states people may worship and follow whatever religion they wish.
Neither imply government and religion cannot mix.
Palin is attacked for her religion not BECAUSE of her religion but how SHE uses her religion. She's a fanatic. The only difference between her and Al Queda is she wouldn't have the balls to blow herself up to take you with her.
because the founding fathers were christians. And if you want, you can pay all the bills to remove all religion from our currency and etc, because i for sure dont want to.
Jefferson denied outright the divinity of Jesus. Nearly every one of the Founders was a deist, which means that they believed God created the universe, then split. Never again to interfere in the affairs of men.
The "God" on currency is that particular deity.
Again, the assertion that this is a "Christian" nation is an outright lie. There are dozens of examples to the contrary, source examples, from Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and others.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
American settlers left Europe in order to continue the free practise of their religions.
State religions in Europe were persecuting all the independants and rival state religions at the time. America was a place they could all go, and the freedom to choose their religion the reason many left.
The first point: The founding fathers of the USA were almost entirely deist. If they were Christian, why would they want separation of church and state?
There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly states "separation of church and state".
The intent is obvious. The prohibition of any religious test for any public office is a pretty good iindicator, and it's in the main body of the Constitution. Look in Article 6.
Furthermore, the First Amendment is explicit in creating a church/state separation. Wise religionists know that this insures that the state will not stick its nose into their business, and it's the basis for the wide variety of faiths and creeds in the US.
To assert otherwise is to outright lie.
However, what they preach and what they practice are not always the same things.
Example, Obama's adoption of christianity as his officially stated religion. He knew full well that he would NEVER stand a chance at becoming president without that qualifier.
And, I wonder how many of you have grown up and lived as a practicioner of a non-christian faith?
Try living life as a Satanist, for example, where people are always trying to take your children away, your testimony in court cases is tossed out, you are harassed by police, and generally made to be miserable as a result of the heavy infusion of christianity in every aspect of the country we live in.
See, religion in government may sound fine to you, and may look good on paper...but in reality it's an abomination, in every way as "wrong" as racism.
I remember back in 1999, folks kept asking me if I was stockpiling food. I always answered, "No, I'm stockpiling ammo and making a list of people who are stockpiling food"
I hate the "melting pot" thing...because it's really not true at all...If you want to use analogies involving pots...then we're really more like a thick soup, where the different parts retain their distinct flavors but can take on a certain tinge of the flavors sorrounding them....The melting pot thing makes it sound like we're all homogenized into one belief system...Sorry but my belief system says that your belief system cannot be correct, and at its core, yours does as well.
I'm not going to comment on the pledge thing as a whole though, I just wanted to comment on the melting pot thing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Condensed?
Church and state shouldn't be one and the same unless it is the vatican. Separation from the state won't create more problems nor destroy America. I doubt the present situation in US will be solved through prayer after all.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.