ACLU wants to tear down war memorial

Originally Posted by Chris F

Because those men wrote what they thought down and gave speeches in congress when they were developing the 1st amendment. Go to your local college library and log on to the national archives and read those transcripts. It is all in there.

Yes, one can read the written words, but one can't know all of the unwritten thoughts. You can read my thoughts as I have written them down, but you only know what I allow you to.

That being said, (my new favorite statement), I haven't read the transcripts in entirety, only bits and pieces of them as needed.

We are in agreement on the feeling that the ACLU is wrong in this instance. I'd like to leave it on a positive note.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

My question was not of the "separation of church and state" issue, it was questioning your psychic abilities to know what all of these men were thinking. I am familiar with the written words, but not the unwritten inner thoughts.

Just read the actual words of the Founding Fathers, not what modern revisionist historians claim the Founding Fathers said.

Originally Posted by Chris F

Because those men wrote what they thought down and gave speeches in congress when they were developing the 1st amendment. Go to your local college library and log on to the national archives and read those transcripts. It is all in there.

Yes exactly, that's where I picked up most of my information. We don't have to guess what men like George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, etc. wanted to accomplish when founding America, because they wrote it all down (or had it transcribed) and were very clear so that no one would misunderstand them.

I've gone through and dug up these quotes before, but I believe you are smart enough to do your own research, Buzzard.

Originally Posted by NateR

Just read the actual words of the Founding Fathers, not what modern revisionist historians claim the Founding Fathers said.



Yes exactly, that's where I picked up most of my information. We don't have to guess what men like George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, etc. wanted to accomplish when founding America, because they wrote it all down (or had it transcribed) and were very clear so that no one would misunderstand them.

I've gone through and dug up these quotes before, but I believe you are smart enough to do your own research, Buzzard.

Quick google research links below.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Church-St...Separation.htm

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uotations.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separa...rch_state2.htm

http://www.eadshome.com/congress.htm

http://undergod.procon.org/viewanswe...stionID=001358

Since you brought up Jefferson, here is a quote from the last link in regards to Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation between church and state."

a wall of separation between church and state.' It's downright silly to act as if those specific words, 'separation of church and state,' have to be in the Constitution for the concept to be there.

I have even include a link showing a view in agreement with your ideas.

Enjoy!

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Quick google research links below.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Church-St...Separation.htm

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uotations.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separa...rch_state2.htm

http://www.eadshome.com/congress.htm

http://undergod.procon.org/viewanswe...stionID=001358

Since you brought up Jefferson, here is a quote from the last link in regards to Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation between church and state."



I have even include a link showing a view in agreement with your ideas.

Enjoy!

Go to the library, read the words of the Founding Fathers. Don't waste your time searching through websites whose only purpose is to sell an agenda. It's nice that the internet puts so much information at your fingertips, but real, HONEST research is going to take a few weeks, maybe even months.

Also, as someone who has designed a few websites, I can tell you that SEO (search engine optimization) and accuracy of information are not necessarily related. Someone can have a site that is filled with blatant lies, but since they know the tricks for getting their site ranked at the top of search engine listings, they will make it to the first page every time. Basically, what I am saying is just because some of these might have been the first results you received, does not prove that their information is accurate.

The internet is a tricky place and, if you go to write college-level term papers, you will find that it is NOT considered to be a reliable source of information... at all.

Originally Posted by NateR

Go to the library, read the words of the Founding Fathers. Don't waste your time searching through websites whose only purpose is to sell an agenda. It's nice that the internet puts so much information at your fingertips, but real, HONEST research is going to take a few weeks, maybe even months.

Also, as someone who has designed a few websites, I can tell you that SEO (search engine optimization) and accuracy of information are not necessarily related. Someone can have a site that is filled with blatant lies, but since they know the tricks for getting their site ranked at the top of search engine listings, they will make it to the first page every time. Basically, what I am saying is just because some of these might have been the first results you received, does not prove that their information is accurate.

The internet is a tricky place and, if you go to write college-level term papers, you will find that it is NOT considered to be a reliable source of information... at all.

Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.

There's a distinct difference between using the internet for a quick reference & using it as a primary source for a serious discussion. If someone tells you to check the cource document, & instead you grab some quotes from a random website, it's like bringing a wiffle-ball bat to face off against Nolan Ryan.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Is the internet only a good source of info when you use it?

Did you read any of the info the links provided? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, how can you judge what was linked?

Have a good morning and enjoy the fights later this evening.

What we got going on here is not a serious, intellectual discussion, it's an internet discussion, which is a completely different thing. The anonymity of the internet destroys any hope of a true intelligent discussion. I have no idea of your true credentials and you have no idea of my true credentials, so we can both pretend to be experts on information that we just Googled five minutes ago. That is not conducive to an honest, intellectual debate.

When you were in college, were you allowed to write research papers using only internet opinion-sites and blogs as source material? I'm not talking about those 100-level, "easy-A" classes that many colleges use to boost enrollment (even in those classes, I was only allowed to use a maximum of two internet sources, but they had to be fact-based, not opinion-based sites). I'm talking about the upper level classes where you are seriously seeking a degree.

So, again, read the words of the Founding Fathers in context, without all the commentary, opinion, and "translation" surrounding it. Then you can form your own opinion about what they are saying and not rely solely on the opinion of others.

Also, check out the State Constitutions from those days. Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware (1776) states this (emphasis added):

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Now does that sound like a government that wants to expel religion from the public square? And Delaware was not an anomaly. Many of the original 13 states had similar oaths written into their constitution:

Section 10 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution (1776 - emphasis added):

SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:

I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Section IX of the Vermont Constitution (1777 - emphasis added):

SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.

" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."

And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

All of these excerpts came from here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp

This kind of site is helpful for finding the information quickly; but it would still be necessary to check these against the source documents to ensure that they have not been altered (either by error or intent) in any way. That's not being distrustful or a conspiracy theorist, it's just responsible research. So, if nothing else, I've at least given you a starting point to begin your own research.

Other ideas, check out the writings of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and read George Washington's Farewell Address from 1796.

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

There's a distinct difference between using the internet for a quick reference & using it as a primary source for a serious discussion. If someone tells you to check the cource document, & instead you grab some quotes from a random website, it's like bringing a wiffle-ball bat to face off against Nolan Ryan.

If Nolan Ryan were pitching a wiffle-ball, I'd have no problem using a wiffle-ball bat.

Like NateR says below, we're having an internet discussion. We're not writing a college level thesis. Some of the links provided supply the sources from the material used to make the statements at hand. Did you read the links before affirming that they weren't intellectually valid?

I'll address NateR in another post.

Enjoy the fights tonight. As long as it remains civil, I will continue to enjoy this.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

If Nolan Ryan were pitching a wiffle-ball, I'd have no problem using a wiffle-ball bat.

Like NateR says below, we're having an internet discussion. We're not writing a college level thesis. Some of the links provided supply the sources from the material used to make the statements at hand. Did you read the links before affirming that they weren't intellectually valid?

I'll address NateR in another post.

Enjoy the fights tonight. As long as it remains civil, I will continue to enjoy this.

Buzzard when you cite websites that are obviously biased then it leaves to the realms of discussion to the idea of propaganda and talking points. Since we are addressing the founders there are no real credible sources outside their own words.

Originally Posted by Chris F

Buzzard when you cite websites that are obviously biased then it leaves to the realms of discussion to the idea of propaganda and talking points. Since we are addressing the founders there are no real credible sources outside their own words.

Chris, some of the sites were pro-religion. I'll address other things tomorrow or the day after, a lot of football on to watch tomorrow.