Why do the God-haters persist?

[westwall]

What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith. If they have faith, what are they afraid of?

The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.

There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country. If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.

I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted. I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".

 

[orogenicman]

The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.

There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country. If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.

I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted. I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

 

[Boss]

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

 

[MrMax]

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

 

[Boss]

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.

 

[Hollie]

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.

It's really quite simple:

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Boss]

But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.

 

[MrMax]

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.

It's hard to tell whether you're being obtuse or just plain ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.

You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.

 

[Hollie]

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.

It's hard to tell whether you're being obtuse or just plain ignorant.

You're slow. You should fix that.

 

[jillian]

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

seriously?

funny... even the loony justices say there is. what is up for grabs (barely) is what constitutes separation of church and state.

I hope that helps.

 

[Boss]

How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

seriously?

funny... even the loony justices say there is. what is up for grabs (barely) is what constitutes separation of church and state.

I hope that helps.

You're not making any sense. Loony justices say WHAT is? That "separation of church and state" is in the constitution? Well, I've got a copy right here, just point me to where I can find that phrase? The words are not in the Constitution, they never have been. The phrase comes from a letter written in 1801 by President Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. NOT the Constitution.

Now, I am trying to educate you here. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black made a landmark ruling in which he used the phrase to literally re-interpret the Constitution. That's where this comes from and why all of these people believe we have this "wall of separation" between church and state. The First Amendment doesn't say it, the Constitution doesn't say it, and it was re-interpreted into something else after the man who said it was dead for a while.

No one has argued that the SCOTUS doesn't uphold the 1947 misinterpretation of Jefferson's statement. In Jefferson's context, the statement is more about Federalism and State's Rights than religion and government. As I said, in the very same letter he writes "wall of separation between church and state" he also ends his letter in a prayer. Now, that is kind of odd for the President to do if he honestly thinks the Federal government can't acknowledge any kind of religious view, isn't it?

 

[Boss]

But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.

You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.

Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts. But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion. I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs. Do you?

Probably because there's not that many of them. What is it about 1 in 9 or something?

Plus... there are at least 50 million silent victims in the US alone since Roe v. Wade. Every day, thousands of lives are ended abruptly by godless people who do not value life, and they are never even heard from.

And that not counting the countless millions of women abused, butchered and killed in the name of abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.

There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country. If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.

I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted. I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".

They use the state to attack Christians...and that is where egregious civil and human rights violations in the name of atheism always begins. When the state exerts control over religion and criminalizes faith.

 

[koshergrl]

Jefferson and the baptists knew it, which is why they determined that the state should have no say in religion whatever.

 

[Hollie]

But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.

You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.

Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.

Well, actually sweetie, separation of church and state is an established principle.

You always have the option of arming your religious militias and storming congress. You can raise the flag of Falwell Nation.

Good luck with that.


In the meantime, would you care for some reading material on court decisions regarding stealth Christianity, AKA creationism, being introduced into public schools?

 

[orogenicman]

Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.

Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.

The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
- Thomas Jefferson

Is this in any way ambiguous?

 

[thebrucebeat]

There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country. If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.

I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted. I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".

They use the state to attack Christians...and that is where egregious civil and human rights violations in the name of atheism always begins. When the state exerts control over religion and criminalizes faith.

Can you point out where your faith is being attacked by government fiat?

 

[BreezeWood]

give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base. Once you tell people it is okay to kill babies what did you think would happen to society? When we were a Godly country we had lower crime and less mmurder infidelity stealing and violence towards eachother. Secularist love to ignore the truth because they want others to believe the lie that the society can survive without God. It doesn't. It rots from the inside from hedonism



tapatalk post

When we were a Godly country ...

* Godly is not Christian - that time above is yet to be.

No one is without sin. No not one. -

the Christian motto is what speaks for their heritage and yes for them it is their standard.

.

The Christ was

and how is the Messiah referred to in reference before JC ? -


most certainly Jesus was sinless and was the example chosen by God to accomplish Remission.

Christianity hasn't a clue - the persecution continues as demonstrated throughout history as those that drove the initial nails.

.