Separation of Church and State

[KittyKadaveral]

Ok, first off about the Pledge thing, the original wording DID NOT include the statement "Under God" That was added like tons of years later by President Eisenhower for some odd reason. Secondly, it makes me laugh that on a country that was 'built on religious freedom" we certainly get only ONE belief shoved down our throats. I don't see where God or anyone should be mentioned on coins or even in the court room. They make you swear on the Bible? Well, sorry, to me the Grimm Brothers wrote that thing so I could swear on it all I want, lie my head off and not feel bad about it

[sollunaestrella]

Ember said:

For the last time, our founding fathers WEREN'T CHRISTIANS! They were part of the Christian church because it was the only accepted thing to be in those days, but they weren't by any means religious.


- Thomas Paine


-John Adams



-Thomas Jefferson



- James Madison


-Benjamin Franklin

And ever here of the Treaty of Tripoli? It was passed under the John Adams administration, and read in part "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." It went to the Senate, and was read aloud to them, and each member recieved a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous. The treaty passed with no changes to it.

And Democracy did NOT develop in early Israel. It is a recorded historical fact that it originated in Ancient Greece - PAGAN Greece.

I'm not sure if anyone else has said this because I'm too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone.

But many of those quotes - although not quite all - don't mean that they didn't believe in the foundation of Christianity. It just means that they didn't want to associate themselves with the different denominations within Christianity, which I don't blame them for. The fact that there ARE different denominations in Christianity just makes a statement about how divided we are and how we act so hugely about petty differences in theology and whatnot.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they did not believe in the base of the Church as a whole. Becoming part of a religion such as Catholicism or any other branch can also, as James Madison said, make you close-minded and leave your brain with no room to think for yourself and find what you believe in in regards to the theology of that particular denomination.

I looked at your source, though, and at least from the pages leading off it I do not trust at all. In fact, I'm laughing at its "Bible Contradictions" page because of its own contradictions.

[Buddy]

KittyKadaveral said:

Ok, first off about the Pledge thing, the original wording DID NOT include the statement "Under God" That was added like tons of years later by President Eisenhower for some odd reason. Secondly, it makes me laugh that on a country that was 'built on religious freedom" we certainly get only ONE belief shoved down our throats. I don't see where God or anyone should be mentioned on coins or even in the court room. They make you swear on the Bible? Well, sorry, to me the Grimm Brothers wrote that thing so I could swear on it all I want, lie my head off and not feel bad about it

It was created in the 50's due to the growing threat of Communism. Since in the Soviet Union, people weren't allowed to believe in God, it was thought that adding "Under God" to the pledge would help act as a way to stifle the threat. Which brings an interesting point: since the threat of Communism spreading and taking foot in the U.S. is virtually extinct, is it still and use to keep the words in?

[resurrectedwarrior]

Ember said:

For the last time, our founding fathers WEREN'T CHRISTIANS! They were part of the Christian church because it was the only accepted thing to be in those days, but they weren't by any means religious.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

- Thomas Paine

Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

-John Adams

The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.


The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.


-Thomas Jefferson

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

- James Madison

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.

-Benjamin Franklin

And ever here of the Treaty of Tripoli? It was passed under the John Adams administration, and read in part "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." It went to the Senate, and was read aloud to them, and each member recieved a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous. The treaty passed with no changes to it.

My reply:

Isn't it interesting what one can be made out to say if something is taken out of context? For example:

"To suppose that the eye, with all it's amazing fuctions and delicate tissues formed by mere chance, I freely admit, if absurd in the highest degree."

-Charles Robert Darwin (The above quote is MAJORLY paraphrased since the book it's in is packed away in a box. It's from "The Origin of Species".)

"Christ Jesus and His salvation: Is not that the best theme?"

Also from Charles Darwin.

If one is unable to see the context within which these comments were made and had no preconcieved ideas about Darwin, they could understandably assume Darwin was a Bible-believing Christian! However, if they would read what Darwin said before and after, and also understand why he said what he did, they would know he just the opposite.

None of the quotes you provided (and nothing in the article) was provided in context, and understandably ((sp?)) so. To do so would take quite awhile and make reading the article much more difficult and slow. However, another reason they did not provide easy access to the source may be because the quote standing alone supports their argument, but the context within which the quote was found did not.

Unfortunately, my encyclopedia of quotations is currently packed away in a box, so I really can't provide counter-quotations from other founding fathers to further illustrate my point (and show that they were, indeed, 'Christians').

The article is correct, however, on the point of Thomas Jefferson. While the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, there was a small minority who were not. Thomas Jefferson is the most notable of these few. Here is a quote from my history book (I'm homeschooled, so any history book can be "my history book" - if that makes any sense.).

Jefferson did most of the final composing, borrowing heavily from the phraseology of popular sermons of the day - except for the two phrases,
" appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions" and "with a Firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." These congress insisted upon including, over Jefferson's strenuous objection, for he was a Unitarian¹. So resentful was Jefferson at their tampersin with his prose that he sent copies of his original draft to his personal friends, that they might better appreciate his unedited effort.

That was, of course, talking about Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independance. Emphasis mine. QUOTE FROM "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. Can be found in the Christian Section (which I think is an insult, btw. This book should be in the history section.) of Barnes and Noble and other booksellers.

¹ Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, pp. 342, 343, 404

As a relative of George Washington, I find the article's notes on him quite ridiculous. I have a book which chronicles many divine occurances in his life (which is FRUSTRATINGLY packed away on the moving van at the very moment I need it). It doesn't matter that he never "declared himself to be a Christian". I've never said the words "I'm a Christian" on this forum. Hmmmm . . . I dunno . . . maybe I'm not because I've never actually said it. I refuse to be affiliated with any denomination, protestant or catholic, and I purposefully avoid calling myself a "Christian" because there is so much hypocrisy amongst those who bear that title. Does that mean I do not follow the teachings of Jesus? Of course not! The article's argument on Washington is weak at best.

Ok, so, bottom line: The article these quotes are from cannot be trusted because it makes no attempt to tell the reader (other than listing the source - and how often have you looked up the source of something?) the context of the messages.

If you want the other side of the story, go to your local Barnes and Noble and read "The Light and the Glory"! The men who wrote this book got as close as they could to the original documents as they could, which means their information is more likely to be more accurate because their sources are closer to the time period the people they were studying lived in. If you can get past their shameless Christian bias and read just the facts (and, btw, they also noted things that happened in American history that were obviously not Chrstian but have still had a massive impact on the nation), I think you'll have an interesting revelation about the origins of this nation.

Oh - and you can expect (maybe) this thread to be resurrected somtime in the middle of August after I get back from my mission trip and find my encyclopedia!!

[resurrectedwarrior]

Buddy said:

Oh yes they can! And they have! It only takes one loud, ignorant parent to complain... the schools will usually just take the book out simply to shut the parent up.


What's this world coming to?!

And isn't it interesting that the highest courtroom in the nation will take something infinitely more wholesome than Harry Potter - prayer- out of schools just to shut up a parent?

Indeed, what is this world - and this nation - coming to?

[resurrectedwarrior]

Oily said:

I don't know. England used to be a Catholic country, then split away to form the Church of England, but it has a monarchy, and it's democratic. Rome was both a democracy and then a republic, and they weren't all Christians until one of the Emperors converted. I don't think you can argue democracy has its basis in Christianity. Certainly, some forms of Christianity promote good morals and ideals, but so can atheists, with their own moral systems. And, as Ember showed, the USA's democracy has little basis in Christianity either.

Besides, with the whole bishop-excommunication thing, it doesn't matter if the bishop doesn't know. The person who voted will know and it will torment them because they think they've sinned. Sure, they may not be excommunicated, but they will feel guilty.

Those are all some very good points (excluding Ember's thing). Of course atheists can promote good morals, it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate. I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?

My first reference to democracy in the Bible was really meant to be a matter-of-fact point. I didn't mean for it to become a matter of debate. I was just trying to point out that, when you strip the system in judges down to the fundamentals, it closely resembles a democracy. I know I can't argue it was excactly like the one in Rome. Because it wasn't. But I can argue it sure worked a lot better until the Israelites decided they wanted a king.

[thegreenmooseofdoom]

resurrectedwarrior said:

Those are all some very good points (excluding Ember's thing). Of course atheists can promote good morals, it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate. I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?

This comment really upset me. Are you implying that aetheists, by nature, are immoral? Are you saying that all concepts of good and bad are learned from religion?
I think it's very wrong of you to say that. I am an aetheist, and I have a strong sense of right and wrong. Not because some deity tells me to be good, but because doing good brings me happiness.

[TK]

resurrectedwarrior said:

Those are all some very good points (excluding Ember's thing). Of course atheists can promote good morals, it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate. I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?

a·the·ism

1.

a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

By definition, atheism is not believing in one particular God or any gods, and has naught to do with morals. If you believe atheism is a moral sin, that's fine. However, this is a forum with people of different views and religions, and saying these people cannot properly define what is good and what is bad is unjust.

And I thought Ember had a good point, actually.

[Tracy]

thegreenmooseofdoom said:

This comment really upset me. Are you implying that aetheists, by nature, are immoral? Are you saying that all concepts of good and bad are learned from religion?
I think it's very wrong of you to say that. I am an aetheist, and I have a strong sense of right and wrong. Not because some deity tells me to be good, but because doing good brings me happiness.

Absolutely what I was thinking. I even had to leave the forum for 10 minutes, to avoid writing something I'd regret. Athiesm doesn't imply you have absolutely no beliefs. It just implies that God isn't one of them.

[Buddy]

resurrectedwarrior said:

And isn't it interesting that the highest courtroom in the nation will take something infinitely more wholesome than Harry Potter - prayer- out of schools just to shut up a parent?

Indeed, what is this world - and this nation - coming to?

There are so many good reasons why there shouldn't be prayer in school... but I'll let that go for now, as I'd like to address this "point" (I use the world liberaly):

resurrectedwarrior said:

Those are all some very good points (excluding Ember's thing). Of course atheists can promote good morals, it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate. I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?

I'm sorry for saying this, and I mean as little offense in it as possible believe me, but I feel I should: it's things like this that make me glad I'm not Christian. And Grlowly, my dear, you have every right to be offended.

Let me tell you a little story about people with good morals.

I have a friend who's Christian. I'm not sure how devoute, as I don't discuss it with him. But he's not only Christian - his dad is a pastor at a church. So one would expect this guy to be "holy", right?

Well, he's no more "better-off" moraly than me. He does all the crap you would expect a "non-Christian" to do - he cusses, he slacks off with work, he get bad grades at times, he looks up porn on the internet - he does all the things you would expect an "un-pure" person to do. And he's not just Christian - his father is a pastor.

So do not - do NOT - talk to me as to refer that Atheists somehow have no concept of right or wrong. I'm an Atheist (well, more or less, as I don't disbelieve in God, I simply don't accept the Christian view of Him), yet you better believe that I sure as hell have a concept of right and wrong. It would be ignorance to the Nth degree to believe otherwise.

[Oily]

I would like to agree with most of the people above me. My friends are a mixture of atheist, agnostic and Christian and yet each have their own morals and their own ideas of good and evil. Morals that are often reflected in Christianity. In our own heart, we do know what's right or wrong, never mind if it's linked to a god or not.

it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate.

All their beliefs implicate is no god, not no morals

resurrectedwarrior said:

#3. But, that Democracy IS in the Bible, check out the book of Judges. It between Joshua and Ruth in the Bible. When the state of Israel was in need, Yahweh would select a person to lead the people. This person would lead until the time for their leadership was over.

This system is not unlike democracy IN THAT there was no monarchy, people of all walks of life led the people, and they were selected by someone other than themselves (in this case, Yahweh).

It DIFFERS from modern-day (and greek) democracy in that ONLY Yahweh selected the leaders and there really wasn't a voting system for all citizens. You may say this is not democracy. I say it's the truest form. When Israel let their fate rest in the hands of Yahweh, they were prosperous. When they rebelled against him, they were invaded and Yahweh rose up a Judge to lead them out of it (AFTER they had repented). One should be able to see that Yahweh, who sees all eternity can make the best descisions for a nation, rather than mortal men who can only see the seconds behind them.

If you'll excuse me (I don't know if this might offend your beliefs or not), I'm going to argue about what you say. For a start, isn't Israel in need right now? Surely Yahweh should thus select someone to lead the people now? And I thought humans were given free will - to choose their own leaders? And if eternity can be seen, then why are leaders not elected by Yahweh to prevent bad things happening?

Democracy is slightly more reliable, at least

[ghostision]

resurrectedwarrior said:

Those are all some very good points (excluding Ember's thing). Of course atheists can promote good morals, it's just quite inconsistent with what their beliefs implicate. I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?

*Takes a breath* If I offend anyone, I'm really sorry.

Atheism does NOT mean lack of morals. Not everything "good" comes from the bible, not everything bad comes from lack of religion. None of my parents have a religion, I have no religion, yet we all know what's right and wrong. Just because I don't believe in God, does NOT mean I believe stealing is good, and we should all go and murder, and everything else that's bad. Having morals is a big part of religion, I realize, but that doesn't mean lack of religion means lack of morals. It's like what our math teacher said when we were talking about proofs. Just because one condition makes something true, doesn't mean the lack of the condition makes something false. His example was slightly inappropriate, in or out of school, so I'm not going to say it. But here's the basic idea. (Not his example.) Guns can kill people. Murderers use guns. If you do not have a gun, you are not a murderer. That's obviously not true. Not a good example, I know, but you get my point.

And sorry to bring this up, but I'd like to point out those Catholic priests, whom, um, did bad things. Now, they are PRIESTS. They ought to know better than anyone what's right and wrong. Yet, they did the things they did. Which proves that it's not what we believe in, but our choices. Not everyone who commits a crime is an aeithist. I doubt even a large portion are. The politician who used thousands of dollars of tax payer money to pay for his gasoline was a good church going person. And don't forget, people used to use the bible to justify slavery.

We have morals, thank you very much. Not all people learn right and wrong from church, not all churchgoers are good. Lack of belief in God does not automatically mean lack of belief in morals.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

TK said:

And I thought Ember had a good point, actually.

Thank you TK. That means a lot.

RW, I can not believe some of the things you're saying. "I mean, really, how can you have "good" morals when you don't even know what "good" and "bad" are?" Your ideas, as a Christian, of what "good" and "bad" are are no more or less legitimate than my ideas as a Mystic. There are a lot of things we probably don't agree on in that area, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one of us HAS to be wrong, because it's just opinions.

And there are some things that EVERYONE who doesn't have a mental disorder knows are "good" and "bad" regaurdless of religious affiliation. The ten commandments tell you "Thou shalt not kill," but I don't need a God to tell me that needlessly taking the life of another human being is wrong.

[sollunaestrella]

KittyKadaveral said:

Secondly, it makes me laugh that on a country that was 'built on religious freedom" we certainly get only ONE belief shoved down our throats.

If I had said that, the ONE belief getting shoved down my throat would certainly not be any part of Christianity.

From what I've noticed, people are encouraging other religions or schools of thought: atheism, for one, but also other basic religions (Islam, etc.). I have nothing against those by themselves, but it's come to the point where I'm not comfortable practicing Christianity fully. I know that's partly my own fault, but still.

I live in a very small community with just about no racial diversity and very little religious diversity; most families here claim to be Christian, and those that aren't are Jewish. Most of the students I go to school with think Christianity is stupid or wrong and, consequently, that Christians are stupid and wrong. Even so, my community is largely Christian.

However, my school is extremely careful not to let any Christians get away with minor things like praying silently at a lunch table. In our chorus, we are not allowed to sing Christmas carols - which is perfectly okay with me EXCEPT for the fact that we are allowed to sing songs celebrating Jewish holidays or other songs. To me, that is completely unfair.

It's the same with race. I'm white and I have to apologize for it. I went to a service once where all of the white people had to get up and "repent for racial discrimination" or whatever, but the black people got to sit and do nothing while it went on. I'm sure just as many black people have discriminated against people like me even though I don't discriminate against them.

And black history month. I demand a white history month! Actually, I would rather have black history month taken away altogether. There is no such thing as black history or white history; there's only HUMAN history. If a black person did something to recognize, then recognize him or her. If a white person did something to recognize, then recognize him or her.

I think our society has gone to so many lengths to make up for past behavior like slavery or looking down upon other religions that it's now encouraging those people to look down upon us whether we've done something to them or not.

Anyway. I got off on a tangent, didn't I?

Buddy said:

Well, he's no more "better-off" moraly than me. He does all the crap you would expect a "non-Christian" to do - he cusses, he slacks off with work, he get bad grades at times, he looks up porn on the internet - he does all the things you would expect an "un-pure" person to do. And he's not just Christian - his father is a pastor.

... What the heck?

Just because his dad is a pastor doesn't automatically make him "holy" or "pure" or even a Christian. his dad's beliefs don't reflect his.

If you know he is a Christian, then, well, fine. Christians are normal people too. Of course, I've seen many people who call themselves Christians do nothing to reflect the name, but, at the same time, I do not claim to have better morals than anyone else here or be a better person that way.

Sure, I think atheism is wrong, but that doesn't mean they have a sense of right and wrong.

And I am rather offended by the comment that Christians do good things just because God told them to and others do good things because they like to. I try to do good things because I want to please God, yes, but I also get joy from doing them.

[Buddy]

SLE said:

Just because his dad is a pastor doesn't automatically make him "holy" or "pure" or even a Christian. his dad's beliefs don't reflect his.

You almost caught my point with the first part - that just because you're Christian, doesn't mean that going to church every Sunday gives you a better sense of right and wrong, nor does it make you a better person, than someone who isn't. My point is that this kid is Christian, yet, he does just as many bad things as me, a non-Christian. Proving my point that, just because you're Christian, doesn't mean your "moral compass" is any straighter than mine.

However, you do have some good points - like with the Black History Month. Now, while I dn't have a problem with black history month personally, I'll admit that we've come to the point now-adays where there's so much of an attempt not to offend black people - to try to make them "equal" to whites - that is has gone overboard to some degree.

And as for your school, well, that's not right and I don't agree with it. It's one thing to have no school-sponsored prayer - it's another to stop students from doing it on their own.