Activist Judges - California Of Course

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
...but let's face it; the intent of the American forefathers was not to remove God, but rather to ensure that everyone could worship God in their own way.

---

Are you kidding me?!! Your last statement didn't even provide for the possibility that someone wouldn't believe in god. With that last statement, you might as well re-write the First Amendment to read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (so long as that religion acknowledges that there is One God and ONLY One God)..."

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by roswell1329
I have a problem with this argument. You say that different religious groups are calling each other bad, and that violence is erupting in Northern Ireland again, yet you're angry that someone fought for the ideal that this country should never endorse any religion over another? That seems odd to me. It seems that a religion gains a military if it's endorsed by a government. The last thing we need is a holy mandate with an armed force to back it up.

---

I understand the logic of what you're saying here, but it's a pretty far exaggeration to say the the US endorses Judao-Christian religions--especially militarily.

Technically, the mentions of God in our currency and pledges shouldn't exist today from a Constitutional perspective. However, at the times of their inception (with exception to the pledge) religion was a very consuming point of life. Alternately, from a historical point of view, still printing "In God We Trust" etc is still very much valid.

So, if you want to be an assinine zealot of Constitutional purity and political correctness to the point of absurdity, sure; do that. You have the grounds to blaze a trail of outrage through every 6-year old's classroom and know you're Constitutionally correct. Will you notice that your bills no longer say "In God We Trust"? If you will, I pity you.

However, the dollar bill is as much a piece of history and artifactual icon as it is a currency. For as many athiests we have in the USA, there are countless times more believers. Athiests cry about intolerance of no religion, but they have no tolerance for the existance of religion it seems. There are larger and more important fights to pick than this one.

That, mind you, is said from a self described: Athiest, Humanist, Nihilist, and Heretic in general.

"...assinine zealot..."?
"...a trail of outrage..."?

I don't mind being a zealot about equality, but I reject the notion that the ideal of equality is somehow "assinine".

I also fail to understand how I'm creating a "trail of outrage" for 6 year olds. Removing 2 words would be of no concern to children of that age.

Does anyone here understand why those words were put in there to begin with? It wasn't some big theological/constitutional debate going on...it was the height of the Red Scare. The United States resolved itself to face down Communism on every front possible. Communism consisted of state-sponsored atheism, so naturally we put up a religious front to continue opposing them in every way possible. If anything is assinine, it's our acceptance of the ridiculous legislation introducing those words in the first place.

Furthermore, if we're not willing to be Constitutional purists, and if we are ready to change the Constitution at every whim, what you know as the United States would quickly become unrecognizable. It's our dedication to staying true to the Constitution that has kept it relevant for so long.

As for atheists claiming the nation's intolerance for no religion -- they have every right to do so. This is a dangerous time...it seems statements like that are becoming lost. My wife works for the residence life department for a small private college, and when she was training the incoming resident assistants about diversity, the question was asked if anyone felt like they had ever been the victim of discrimination, and to her surprise several white, Christian males stood up. "Yeah, on campuses nationwide we Christians are being discriminated against." When she asked how, they responded with things like "Well, we can't pray in school anymore," and "We can't hold school-sponsored events anymore," and "They took away the word 'Christmas' to describe the winter holiday.

That isn't discrimination against Christians. That's correcting the institutional discrimination that already existed against everyone who WASN'T Christian -- and it's rampant across this country. I'm just glad to see the majority finally forced to recognize the inequities.

And for anyone who is about to reply with something akin to "What about majority rules?!" I have this to say to you: For a country dedicated to tolerance, it is the responsibility of the majority to recognize the injustices in the system and correct them. For one day, they may no longer be in the majority after all.

See in America we have these crazy groups in the desert -- storm troopers with divine thoughts about antichrist's hour etc... all that mental midget stuff ..... they're crazy with their idealisms ..........most probably wanted by the US Marshal’s and ATF. What do you guys think the outcome will be?

OverdueSpy... you are what is wrong with this country. You take your own personal beliefs and not only project these on to others and recite political rhetoric but you attempt to rewrite history to "prove" that you are correct.

"Activist judges" *sigh* Do you even know what this means? You quote the First Amendment

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

And then you have a problem with judges enforcing this? "Under God" Is not religion in general and therefore you asinine argument about not seeing "freedom from religion" is invalid. "Under God" is monotheism, which is pretty much limited to religions originating with Abraham (Ibrâhîm whatever) this of course being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Requiring recital of "Under God" is effectively establishment of a religion (again monotheism). Now what about merely allowing children to recite the pledge if they choose? That is fine, just don't bitch when my kids sacrifice a goat at their desk... you can't pick and choose religions, again this falls under the defacto establishment by the state. The courts merely enforced the constitution at a level of strictness that was not previously required... the evangelists have helped usher in a new era of intolerance... so don't be surprised when it goes both ways.

Quote:

---

Some of you have forgotten that the colonial settelers were essentially fleeing religious persecution from the King of England, but God and Religion was still a very big part of their lives. The separation of church and state is to keep the government creating a situation where the only organized religion allowable by law would be ..oh say... Methodist...Pick Your Poision! The American forefathers believed in God, His grace, and His guidance; and based Americas laws from His words. People can delude themselves and read what they want from any given "written statement," but let's face it; the intent of the American forefathers was not to remove God, but rather to ensure that everyone could worship God in their own way.

---

Don’t confuse the original settlers with the Founding Fathers. While it is true that the majority of the settlers were very religious (Puritan at that) the majority of the Founding Fathers were deists (if for no other reason than things like evolution had not been seriously considered yet).
Do you know what a deist is? They believe that a God (only a child would be so simple as to feel the need to engender their deity, polytheism is of course a different matter) created and then… now this is critical ABANDONED the universe.

In fact… let’s have a look at your history:

Quote:

---

The American forefathers believed in God, His grace, and His guidance; and based Americas laws from His words.

---

I can’t believe how many times I’ve heard this completely ignorant idea.

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
-George Washington

“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

“Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”
-Ben Franklin

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison

And my favorite:

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And 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

Sadly I see very little reference to “His grace” or “His guidance”… in fact… up until just before the middle of the last century, it was largely indicated by religious leaders here in the US that our founding fathers were a bunch of infidels. After the Japanese attacked us it became a lot more difficult for religious leaders to appear anti-patriotic, so naturally enough they rewrote history. (nothing new for them http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...e/fiction.html )

In short OverdueSpy, maybe if you spent less time trying to pray in school and more time actually paying attention, you’d know better.

For further reading: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Cheers,

catch

PS. And now I'm really disappointed... here I was looking at taking apart OverdueSpy's recent technical posts... surprise surprise... no recent technical posts, just crap like we've seen here. Keep up the great contribution.

Hi catch,

Did I hear my name mentioned :D

Quote:

---

Do you know what a deist is? They believe that a God (only a child would be so simple as to feel the need to engender their deity, polytheism is of course a different matter) created and then… now this is critical ABANDONED the universe.

---

Actually a DEIST is someone who believes that there is a god...but not necessarily a personal god...this god may or may not see man as more than an ant...or may have a personal relationship with him...or none at all...
in conclusion...a DEIST accepts that some form of a god exists...he accepts this because of the evidence that exists to support this existence...everything else is debateable.
Inotherwords...a Deist does not accept common characterizations of god...thinks that most, if not all religions are far too idealistic and ritualistic...and...as I like to say...

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in god...

the only thing that really matters is whether or not god believes in you. :D

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

but not necessarily a personal god...this god may or may not see man as more than an ant...or may have a personal relationship with him...or none at all...

---

The lack of revelation is pretty explicit in desim...

Abandoned might be a term you do not agree with... but this is to say that the deist god exerts no control over the universe, hence things like ritual, prayer, religion are useless.

http://www.answers.com/topic/deism
http://www.occultopedia.com/d/deism.htm
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

But really... deism in theory and deism in practicality are prolly not always in perfect harmony... but this is common with any belief:

http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

cheers,

catch

Hi catch,

Those definitions are not entirely accurate...but that's to be expected as they likely weren't written by a Deist...and they likely all used the same source for their definitions.

However, they are accurate in that Deism is the rational study of human nature, nature, and god...it is entirely void of any superstition, ritual, ideology, or falicy.

For all intense purposes Deism is a kind of philosophy that does not exclude god, but does not accept the religious concept of god.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

Those definitions are not entirely accurate...but that's to be expected as they likely weren't written by a Deist.

---

I suspect the deism.com people might be deist... but that is irrelevant. Never let people define their own sets, they can only describe... never define. Objective outsiders should do the defining. :P

cheers,

catch

Hi catch,

The deist.comers were actually the only ones that did not use the term ' abandoned '...and said deists do not always agree on everything...because it's a philosophy based entirely upon reason most deists accept the saying of Epictetus as kind of a grounding...

" The first step toward knowledge is getting rid of thinking that you know...for it is impossible to get a man to understand that which he thinks he already knows. "

So...deism begins from nothing...then you study and add what appears reasonable...and you discard everything that isn't reasonable...so...there can't be any set guidelines other than this...because the first step is to discard everything you believe to be true...and start from " I know nothing "...god is usually the first reasonable assertion...that is to say some kind of god exists...

now I shall return you to your spanking of OverdueSpy...I just popped in because I heard my name mentioned :D

Let thy spank fest commence!:D

Eg ;)