Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[Underhill]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

Who gives a rats ass. Capitals change nothing. It is still a statement of the date. It says nothing about anything other than that they showed a tiny measure of respect to those of faith. Nothing more.

It certainly isn't enough to try to read some hidden agenda into the constitution that isn't there.

 

[Underhill]

What the heck took you so long to get here??

It's called a job, family... you know, a life?

Got your answer waiting for you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/283427-the-courts-and-religious-schools.html

What does that have to do with anything?

The courts say almost exactly what I said. What does that have to do with public sentiment towards religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

Who gives a rats ass. Capitals change nothing. It is still a statement of the date. It says nothing about anything other than that they showed a tiny measure of respect to those of faith. Nothing more.

It certainly isn't enough to try to read some hidden agenda into the constitution that isn't there.

Ignorant.


What is the agenda to which you refer?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What the heck took you so long to get here??

It's called a job, family... you know, a life?

Got your answer waiting for you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/283427-the-courts-and-religious-schools.html

What does that have to do with anything?

The courts say almost exactly what I said. What does that have to do with public sentiment towards religion?

"it's called a job,..."

I have a job: I sit around being fantastic all day.....

...but I still manage to get here on time!




"The courts say almost exactly what I said."
Wrong.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in 1985, “As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.” And “The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prevent the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion.” (Wallace v. Jaffree) Ibid.

In recent cases, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas have rejected the notion of neutrality and taken positions consistent with nonpreferentialism, an Establishment Clause interpretation that Justice Rehnquist proposed in 1985. The nonpreferentialist doctrine states that government may aid religion and favor religion over nonreligion, so long as it does not establish a national church or discriminate among religions.
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no1/documents/18-1TerryArticle.pdf

 

[Hollie]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

You're not paying attention. The FF 's ratified a constitution absent any mention of your gods, lords or other supernatural entities. It is uncertain how the "lord" slogan made its way into the constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

You're not paying attention. The FF 's ratified a constitution absent any mention of your gods, lords or other supernatural entities. It is uncertain how the "lord" slogan made its way into the constitution.

"...absent any mention...."

You're fibbing.


In fact,....you contradict yourself in the next sentence.


"It is uncertain how..."

But it is there.
A miracle....is that what you're suggesting???



Gee....you fundamentalists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

How?

You've just reinforced the fact that it's in evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

You're not paying attention. The FF 's ratified a constitution absent any mention of your gods, lords or other supernatural entities. It is uncertain how the "lord" slogan made its way into the constitution.

"...absent any mention...."

You're fibbing.


In fact,....you contradict yourself in the next sentence.


"It is uncertain how..."

But it is there.
A miracle....is that what you're suggesting???



Gee....you fundamentalists.

I understand you find it galling when your profound ignorance regarding the US history and the constitution is presented, but your stuttering and mumbling only makes your buffoonery more difficult for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not paying attention. The FF 's ratified a constitution absent any mention of your gods, lords or other supernatural entities. It is uncertain how the "lord" slogan made its way into the constitution.

"...absent any mention...."

You're fibbing.


In fact,....you contradict yourself in the next sentence.


"It is uncertain how..."

But it is there.
A miracle....is that what you're suggesting???



Gee....you fundamentalists.

I understand you find it galling when your profound ignorance regarding the US history and the constitution is presented, but your stuttering and mumbling only makes your buffoonery more difficult for you.

"...stuttering and mumbling..."

I love it when I make you so nervous you can't think of anything new to say....and go back to your "stuttering and mumbling."


Remember how the same thing happened last time?


1. See…another of your answers to imaginary posts: “The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation.”
No one said they did.
But they did intend a religious, moral nation. True?



2.And, real proof of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

3.Then you imagine me making a claim to speak for others….
‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


4. ‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?


5. I have so much fun when you drop by.....but I kinda feel nasty....like those who used to "pay a penny to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital."

Do you know enough history to understand that?

No?

Well, here:
"After the nickname of Bethlem Royal Hospital, the first psychiatric hospital in the world. First turned into a "madhouse" in 1403, by the 18th century it had basically become another part of London's entertainment industry. For a penny (or free on the first Tuesday of the month), visitors could watch the inmates' antics, and bring long sticks to "poke and enrage" them. .."
Bedlam House - Television Tropes & Idioms



I know...I know....it's cruel to make fun of someone in your condition.....
But, heck, I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

 

[Hollie]

"...absent any mention...."

You're fibbing.


In fact,....you contradict yourself in the next sentence.


"It is uncertain how..."

But it is there.
A miracle....is that what you're suggesting???



Gee....you fundamentalists.

I understand you find it galling when your profound ignorance regarding the US history and the constitution is presented, but your stuttering and mumbling only makes your buffoonery more difficult for you.

"...stuttering and mumbling..."

I love it when I make you so nervous you can't think of anything new to say....and go back to your "stuttering and mumbling."


Remember how the same thing happened last time?


1. See…another of your answers to imaginary posts: “The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation.”
No one said they did.
But they did intend a religious, moral nation. True?



2.And, real proof of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

3.Then you imagine me making a claim to speak for others….
‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


4. ‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?


5. I have so much fun when you drop by.....but I kinda feel nasty....like those who used to "pay a penny to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital."

Do you know enough history to understand that?

No?

Well, here:
"After the nickname of Bethlem Royal Hospital, the first psychiatric hospital in the world. First turned into a "madhouse" in 1403, by the 18th century it had basically become another part of London's entertainment industry. For a penny (or free on the first Tuesday of the month), visitors could watch the inmates' antics, and bring long sticks to "poke and enrage" them. .."
Bedlam House - Television Tropes & Idioms



I know...I know....it's cruel to make fun of someone in your condition.....
But, heck, I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

1. It is adorable when you stutter and mumble as a means to deflect the evidence for your profound idiocy.

Well, numbers 2 through 5 can be accommodated by referring to number 1.

 

[koshergrl]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

That's the mindset of a few.

The mindset of most progressives is that parents often do a terrible job raising their kids. They brainwash them on any number of subjects, often without even realizing it.

Heading down that path is a dangerous and silly one. And most progressives would agree with me. In fact, I would bet Sky Dancer would even admit to being cheeky and not entirely serious.

The point of a statement like that is to point out the damage parents often do to their kids by indoctrinating them. And it is a legitimate concern. But not one that can be legislated away any more than legislating away super sized drinks is the answer to America's weight problem.

No, she was serious. You've obviously never met her. It isn't a rare point of view at all.

 

[G.T.]

Pop culture, eh?

Funny that. Most award speeches begin with thanking "God," first and foremost.

But I am, in fact, glad that polls and the like are trending away from Religion. Let once again the morals and norms of society be based in reason, and not because of the faith so many have that God "Said so."

Morals are based on optimum co-existence. Many of those found within Religious texts have borrowed from reason, which is good. There is a rational conclusion one would draw from life, independant of religion, behind the majority of today's "morals."

 

[Underhill]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

That's the mindset of a few.

The mindset of most progressives is that parents often do a terrible job raising their kids. They brainwash them on any number of subjects, often without even realizing it.

Heading down that path is a dangerous and silly one. And most progressives would agree with me. In fact, I would bet Sky Dancer would even admit to being cheeky and not entirely serious.

The point of a statement like that is to point out the damage parents often do to their kids by indoctrinating them. And it is a legitimate concern. But not one that can be legislated away any more than legislating away super sized drinks is the answer to America's weight problem.

No, she was serious. You've obviously never met her. It isn't a rare point of view at all.

It is among those 5 or 6 dozen progressives I know...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pop culture, eh?

Funny that. Most award speeches begin with thanking "God," first and foremost.

But I am, in fact, glad that polls and the like are trending away from Religion. Let once again the morals and norms of society be based in reason, and not because of the faith so many have that God "Said so."

Morals are based on optimum co-existence. Many of those found within Religious texts have borrowed from reason, which is good. There is a rational conclusion one would draw from life, independant of religion, behind the majority of today's "morals."

I know this is over your head, but the eternal optimist that I am....


So-called "reason" cannot be a substitute for God. All it does is allow men to rationalize their wishes.


The following is meant for those more astute than you are....but, .....


1. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for ‘reason.’ But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that ‘enlightened despotism’ would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in ‘tyranny of popular opinion’ or even ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat.’




2. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will.
Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68





3. And the antipathy to religion occurred at the same time. Without a transcendent God to provide the connection with mankind, the agnostic intellectual found in progressive ideology, characterized by the utopia of a perfectly egalitarian society, a substitute god.




4. Tapping into this search, this need, in the intellectual, was “the Russian Revolution of 1917. Here was exemplified the kind of brutal power suggested by Sorel’s fascism, and its usefulness in attacking traditional and capitalistic societies from the left. Communism could be seen as the only effective enemy of bourgeois society, and being utopian and egalitarian into the bargain, intellectuals moved to the left. That many of them became not merely sympathizers or fellow travelers but Party members, a few even spies for the Soviet Union, testifies to the enormous pull of the rhetoric and ideals of the left upon intellectuals.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 94




Your reference to "reason" has given us every fascist, communist, and totalitarian movement......

...all that is required is simpletons who can be convinced that 'reason' is God.
Raise your paw.

 

[G.T.]

lol totalitarianism of reason.

wow.





No, wow!

 

[koshergrl]

That's the mindset of a few.

The mindset of most progressives is that parents often do a terrible job raising their kids. They brainwash them on any number of subjects, often without even realizing it.

Heading down that path is a dangerous and silly one. And most progressives would agree with me. In fact, I would bet Sky Dancer would even admit to being cheeky and not entirely serious.

The point of a statement like that is to point out the damage parents often do to their kids by indoctrinating them. And it is a legitimate concern. But not one that can be legislated away any more than legislating away super sized drinks is the answer to America's weight problem.

No, she was serious. You've obviously never met her. It isn't a rare point of view at all.

It is among those 5 or 6 dozen progressives I know...

Ask them. You think the fact that you've never discussed it with them means it's not a view they hold..and you're wrong. You keep trying to portray progressives as these reasonable, moderate people. They aren't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand you find it galling when your profound ignorance regarding the US history and the constitution is presented, but your stuttering and mumbling only makes your buffoonery more difficult for you.

"...stuttering and mumbling..."

I love it when I make you so nervous you can't think of anything new to say....and go back to your "stuttering and mumbling."


Remember how the same thing happened last time?


1. See…another of your answers to imaginary posts: “The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation.”
No one said they did.
But they did intend a religious, moral nation. True?



2.And, real proof of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

3.Then you imagine me making a claim to speak for others….
‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


4. ‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?


5. I have so much fun when you drop by.....but I kinda feel nasty....like those who used to "pay a penny to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital."

Do you know enough history to understand that?

No?

Well, here:
"After the nickname of Bethlem Royal Hospital, the first psychiatric hospital in the world. First turned into a "madhouse" in 1403, by the 18th century it had basically become another part of London's entertainment industry. For a penny (or free on the first Tuesday of the month), visitors could watch the inmates' antics, and bring long sticks to "poke and enrage" them. .."
Bedlam House - Television Tropes & Idioms



I know...I know....it's cruel to make fun of someone in your condition.....
But, heck, I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

1. It is adorable when you stutter and mumble as a means to deflect the evidence for your profound idiocy.

Well, numbers 2 through 5 can be accommodated by referring to number 1.

Now I command you:

Be sure to use "... stutter and mumble..." in every post!!


OR ELSE!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol totalitarianism of reason.

wow.





No, wow!

I warned you that it was over your head.


Take a couple of aspirins, lie down....you'll be your old self in no time.

 

[koshergrl]

Pop culture, eh?

Funny that. Most award speeches begin with thanking "God," first and foremost.

But I am, in fact, glad that polls and the like are trending away from Religion. Let once again the morals and norms of society be based in reason, and not because of the faith so many have that God "Said so."

Morals are based on optimum co-existence. Many of those found within Religious texts have borrowed from reason, which is good. There is a rational conclusion one would draw from life, independant of religion, behind the majority of today's "morals."

First you say it's good to move away from the bible...
Then

Then you say the bible is good because it's reasonable and contain religious morals which (you claim) are based on optimum co-existence...

Do you truly believe societies co-existed more peacefully before religion?

When would this have been? Give us an example of a society that lives together most peaceably without any religion.

 

[G.T.]

You have me on block though.

We move away from Religion the more intelligent we become.

The ancient societies were built with Religion at their foundations because the less intelligent one is (read: unreasonable), the more superstitious.

Superstitions are a great tool for controlling the naive -> which is to say, yes Religion was a great tool for controlling a savage species that was humans, and helping guide them to become more peaceful as a whole.

If Religion weren't the tool, I believe another would have came about.