IvanK

Actually in order to rebut my argument he'd have to show that the clear language of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate without a single dissenting vote and signed into effect by the President of the U.S. in the 1790s, decades before the Supreme Court decision on which he hangs his own flimsy arguments, that "the United States is in no way a Christian nation" supports his point that the U.S. was not a "secular nation" or that the Constitution was not interpreted as a "secular document" until fifty years ago. I won't be holding my breath; frankly I grow quickly tired of these kinds of dialogues with the deaf.

And whether or not any level of government promoted religion at any time in the past, I'd argue, is beside the point of whether the U.S. was a secular nation or not. That the Supremes took their time finding such conduct unconstitutional, correctly IMHO, does not mean that it was Consitutional before the date of that decision but not after.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

dk

dk: - Several people have brought Christianity up, but I haven’t. Clearly one of the founding principles was freedom of religion. Does freedom of religion define a modern secular nation?

I answer no, the word secularism wasn’t coined until 1851 so didn’t apply to the U.S. founded in 1776. Secularism imposes upon the “piety of good men” the “utility of piety”, and in so doing deprives people of intrinsic dignity. Secularism excludes from the public debate, law and public policy all sectarian values, wisdom, beauty and doctrines. I won’t go through the black hole of failure, cruelty and tragedies perpetrated by modern secular (godless) nations in the 20th Century, but its obvious mankind hasn’t reached Comte’s Third Age of Knowledge, not by a long shot. Secular doctrines are insufficient hence unsuitable because they disembowel people of higher purposes to denigrate by “the means justifies the ends” i.e. people are systematically subjugated for utility.
[quote]dk: - Ok, the US government granted churches, synagogues, masques and temples of worship tax exempt status. But more to the point,

Quote:

But as this brief will show, this narrative was based on the failure of Justices Brennan and Frankfurter to recognize that “nonsectarian” in the historical sources they cited was not a synonym for “secular.” In the 19 th Century school debates, keeping the common schools “nonsectarian” essentially meant keeping them non-Catholic. Indeed, “nonsectarian” was understood to allow the public schools to include a form of nondenominational Protestantism that relied on individual interpretation of the Bible. Moreover, constitutional amendments adopted in a majority of states that barred aid to “sectarian” schools, known as Blaine Amendments, were in fact the product of organized nativist efforts to preserve the Protestant character of the “nonsectarian” public schools and to suppress the cultural threat posed by the growth of Catholic “sectarian” schools

Quite frankly the best evidence is the propaganda systematically integrated across the curriculum in secular schools.
dk: - Since 1776 France’ sovereignty was violated by the French Terror, Napoleon Empire, Treaty of Paris, Bismarck’ siege of Paris, communist revolution of Paris (1870s) and fascism (scientific racism), just to name a few . The U.S. government since 1776 has enjoyed an unprecedented peaceful transition of power. Serious threats to U.S. sovereignty include slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, imperialism, Great Depression, fascism, communism and the civil rights movements. The only other nation in the modern world that enjoys such a long peaceful succession of power is Great Britain. Both the U.S. and Great Britain view history with a solid sense of National Identity grounded in Natural Law, or “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Godless Dave

[emphasis mine]

What? How were the civil rights movements a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

IvanK

I call BULLSHIT. From the first para of your first post (emphasis added):

And all the rest of your argument about when certain words were coined, whether certain nonprofit organizations got tax-exempt status, amicus briefs from interested parties in lawsuits and usupported and unsupportable allegations about propaganda in public school proves exactly nothing.

Did the U.S. Senate ratify without a dissenting vote and did the President sign the Treaty of Tripoli in the 1790's or did they not? Did that treaty explicitly state that the U.S. was in no way to be considered a Christian nation or did it not? Does that destroy your argument that the U.S. was not a "secular nation" before the mid-1800s or does it not, and why?

And why should we expect you to answer any of this honestly when you can't even be honest about what it is you're arguing or that it has anything to do with the religious beliefs you certainly hold?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

dk

dk: As I’ve already pointed out this is a straw-man argument, it was IvanK that pronounced the U.S. was a Christian nation, not dk. Ivan don’t argue with yourself. Secular doctrines bans from public display, curriculum or debate any religious authorities, sources or values.
Justice Jackson concurring with majority decision in McCollum wrote:
Even more to the point…
Is the government now obliged to ban Plato and Aristotle from public schools because they professed to believe in the higher power of reason and ethics. And what of doctrines that are hostile to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. For example, the author of secularism Charles Bradlaugh said "Although at present it may be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be that the man gets to Atheism if he has brains enough to comprehend.“ <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm" target="_blank">Link to Source</a> The SC has said that government can not be hostile to religion, but separated by an impenetrable wall. But if the basic precepts of secularism infer atheism, then the exclusive teaching of secularist doctrines is hostile to one religion in favor of another!!!! There are problems on all sides of this issue.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

For example in the summer of Martin Luther King's assassinated 1,000,000s of rioters from L.A to N.Y rose up and burned down a good portion of the major cities in the U.S.. What occurred in LA after Rodney King and Cincinnati just last year was a speed bump in comparison to the 1960s. Throw in the mayhem of the Vietnam War, Kennedy's & Malcolm X assassinations, Democratic Convention of 1968, Weatherman, KKK and it there was a real and present danger to the U.S. government.

dk

Hey dumbo, this is the third time. I never said the U.S. was a Christian Nation. You're arguing with yourself not me.

IvanK

Here's a test for you. Find and explain the difference between these two sentences:

1. The U.S. was a Christian nation.

2. In the 1790s the unanimous Senate and President of the U.S. accepted and endorsed the clear statement contained in the Treaty of Tripoli that the U.S. was in no way to be considered a Christian nation.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. If it's that the U.S. has become secular and therefore such displays are banned I can find dozens of counterexamples for you in any city or town of any size in any state of the Union. If it's that the U.S. or any other country can't be considered a "secular nation" unless it effectively bans such displays then I'd say you're confusing tolerance for free religious expression and endorsement of same.

But since you're apparently so confused already that you aren't able to tell the difference between statements 1 and 2 above what else should I have expected? Show me you're coherent, pay at least some attention to the visible world and are able to form arguments that don't rely exclusively on long quotes taken out of context from longer court decisions or don't expect to hear from me again.

BTW by "straw man" I'm assuming you mean "gee that's a good one, better change the subject fast" like so many of your kind.

PopeInTheWoods

For the second time, it was free12thinker (that you quoted in your OP) who said it. IvanK was referencing his original statement from the other post, and your repeating it, when he wrote, "I'm afraid the both of you are buying into some terribly pernicious canards." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Andy

dk

dk: I assume you’re using the context of The Treaty of Tripoli 1797. Here’s a comment from the Yale Law Library
dk: The Establishment Clause protects Christians, Jews, Moslems, Atheists, Hindus etc… right to speak freely on any subject, in any forum. Its secular doctrines that strive to exclude people from public discourse on many subjects.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>