ACLU wants to tear down war memorial

Originally Posted by NateR

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 disagree.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.I don't or haven't pretended to be any such expert. I am able though to use the internet to find information out as needed though. My only credentials are that I am human and always looking for knowledge. I have never stated that I possess any degrees nor have I ever given details about my education levels. At least I don't believe I have. That is not conducive to an honest, intellectual debate.If the people involved in the debate are honest, I feel it doesn't hinder it at all.

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.I never owned a computer until the mid 90's, and it wasn't around when I graduated from high school.

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.I don't rely on the opinions of others. I use available information and form my own TYVM. My opinion is still that religion and government don't mix. There are others including founding fathers who share this same opinion. You too seem to be intelligent enough to find that out for yourself too.

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



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):


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


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.

NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion. Heck, the words "under God" weren't in the original Pledge of Allegiance.

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.


You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.

SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.

It's much too late to continue this now. Have a good night.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

I have never stated that I possess any degrees nor have I ever given details about my education levels. At least I don't believe I have.

I know you haven't, that's why I decided the safest option was to just assume the best.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

If the people involved in the debate are honest, I feel it doesn't hinder it at all.

That's a little over-idealistic isn't it? With the anonymity of the internet, how can one person possibly know whether the another person is being honest or not?

Originally Posted by Buzzard

I never owned a computer until the mid 90's, and it wasn't around when I graduated from high school.

Well you got me beat, I didn't own a computer until 1999 and didn't start taking classes in Graphic Design until 2002. I got my Associates degree in May 2005 and got the job running Matt's site in December 2005. By then the internet was a part of everyday life, so my college had fairly well-established policies on what was considered reliable and what wasn't. For the most part, the internet was considered an unreliable source of information, except in certain instances; but even those exceptions needed to be backed-up by other forms of media.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

I don't rely on the opinions of others. I use available information and form my own TYVM. My opinion is still that religion and government don't mix. There are others including founding fathers who share this same opinion. You too seem to be intelligent enough to find that out for yourself too.

I agree with you to an extent. We don't want state sponsored religion, because nothing would drain the love and spirituality out of Christianity faster than to make it mandated by the government. The Founding Fathers understood this better than us because they were fighting against the tyranny (to include religious tyranny) of England at the time. However, they understood that they were creating a Christian Nation and that religion (specifically the Christian religion) was necessary to preserve human freedoms.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me as well, because I don't recall quoting anything from the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion.

You obviously didn't read the excerpts I quoted.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

It doesn't because the States did not want to establish a national church. Originally, the restriction only applied to the federal government, not the state governments.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.

Unfortunately, I agree on both counts. ("Unfortunate" in the fact that the ACLU has enough lawyers in their pockets to win a case like this, not unfortunate that I agree with you.)

Originally Posted by Buzzard

You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.

Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

Each state established it's own parameters for how much of a role religion would play in it's government. Again, the restrictions against the government showing favor towards one religion over another ONLY applied to the Federal Government at the time. Also, in the context of US history, the word "religion" in these documents is a reference to the different denominations of Christianity. Show me evidence of one of the 13 original states practicing Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Atheism, etc., then you might be able to make a case that it is referring to all world religions; but it's not.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.

The concept is not a shock, but I don't agree. Look at the whole of human history and tell me what nation or major kingdom on the earth practiced those principles prior to Christ's Resurrection (roughly 29 AD). Aside from the nation of Israel, of course, since they were given the gospel of Christ centuries before Christ's birth.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

NateR, I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me, but I can't seem to find any mention of God or Jesus in the CONUS. The only exception in the CONUS and the BOR would be when they state the year as in year of our Lord. That though isn't indicative of any specific religion and was indicative of the speech patterns of the day.

Isn't there also something which bars any religious test to be able to hold a public office? It would seem to me that the writers would have included something in it if they meant for our new nation to be founded under one God and Christianity as the one true religion. Heck, the words "under God" weren't in the original Pledge of Allegiance.

Can you please show me where in the CONUS and BOR it mentions God, Jesus, or Christianity?

Again, I will state that I think the ACLU is pushing this cross removal issue too far, but I believe that they will win it if the lawsuit goes to court.


You overlooked this article in the Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776.



Notice how it only says one is to practice "Christian" concepts of "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" and not Christianity itself. It is also the only mention of the word Christian in the bill itself.

It might be a shock to you to know that you don't need to be a Christian to practice those concepts and that they aren't owned by Christianity.

It's much too late to continue this now. Have a good night.

Buzzard every legal document at that point in time in history was dated in a way to show who was king at that said time. SO when the colony dated their constitution wiht the Year of our Lord they are clearly saying Jesus is King. You can argue till you are blue in the face but the historiography is pretty clear. Even secular humanist historians know this is the truth. They just avoid discussing it.

Also Buzzard dyd that there was actual official state religions in some states till as late as 1849? Look it up, even the Internet more then likely has a thing to say about it. Which states skip my mind at the moment but the fact is only the federal government was prohibited from making laws that affect faith. In 1849 with the populist movement and the GOP starting states rights became less of an issue and Big Gov became the goal. The only founder who like big gov was Hamilton.

It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE

It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

[NateR]

Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE

It seems to me that having Crosses at a memorial is FAR from establishing a Religion! To me this is just another example of the ACLU deciding to be hostile to the Christian side of American Culture! I don't get how a group can think that crosses are more dangerous than NAMBLA either! On a side note it appears that we all think the ACLU is being to extreme in this case!

It is pretty sickening that the ACLU will support an organization like NAMBLA, but will attack just about every public expression of Christianity. What's next, do they sue the Armed Forces to get them remove all the cross-shaped tombstones at Arlington?

[TexasRN]

Originally Posted by NateR

It is pretty sickening that the ACLU will support an organization like NAMBLA, but will attack just about every public expression of Christianity. What's next, do they sue the Armed Forces to get them remove all the cross-shaped tombstones at Arlington?

Don't give them any ideas. They just might try that next.


~Amy