Butters

Radorth,

You are half right. This is the point so many people miss! YES they wanted a government that would not mess with theur religion.
Being intelligent men, they came to realize that the only thing that could accomplish this goal was a secular GOVERNMENT. Unlike so many Christians today, they realized that religion was no buisness of the governments, and the only way to protect the rights of one religion. was to protect the rights of all religions.
But assholes like David Barton and his buddies don't get this. They think that since Christians are still the majotity in this country, they have nothing to fear from the government passing religious laws. I'll laugh my as off if Catholics ever take over, I'd like to see how the Fundies would like to be forced to worship idols. Or when a fundamentelist sect takes over and outlaws things like Christmas.
As for a secular society, I'm sure they all had their one ideas about that, but it is immaterial.
The only hope that any religion has of being left alone, is to be under a secular government, THIS is the truth of what the founding fathers realized.


On a side note. I'm wondering. Exactly in what way would you like to see our Government be more "Christian". As I see it. Almost every elected offical we have is a Christian,(with a smattering of Jews). Every offical is sworn in by swearing to God on the Bible. My tax money goes to a preacher to open and close their sessions.
So exactly what do you want.
What laws would you want to see changed to refelct "Christian values". Just curious.

Jamie_L

Rad,

I understand you're getting attacked by some here, but I'm trying to be civil. You're lashing out here isn't improving the strength of your arguement.

I understand completely that ONE of the fundamental reasons for c/s separation is to protect religion from government. We agree that this was a strong part of the framers' intent. However, it was not the only part. It is clear that the framers also feared the kind of church-state machine that caused so much repression in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. It is as much a re-write of history to deny that as to deny that the founders wanted to protect religion.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone here is arguing that a priest can't run for office or that people can't pray in public. That's nonsense. People are free to pray as they see fit, and no public office dictates a man's religion (or lack thereof). What we resist is the legal codification of religious tenants as an ends unto itself. That leads to tyranny. What we resist is official government endorsement of religion. That leads to marginalization of members of the population and to oppression.

I've got no problem with a "fundy" attorney general as long as he does his job within the law and the Constitution. He can pray all he wants, as long as he doesn't use his office to send religious messages or coerce federal employees or the public to his religion. I get irked about politicians over their actions, not their beliefs.

One problem with many folks who oppose c/s separation (not necessarily you - I don't know enough about your position) is that they argue against a strawman. Prayer is not outlawed in schools. Kids can pray all they want. Teacher can pray. Teachers just can't lead kids in prayer in an official capacity. Government officials aren't banned from praying. However, invocations are a little more questionable because they can be constued as the government itself proclaiming a religious preference to all those who come before it.

Jamie

Radorth

Re Jamie: Thank you for your notable restraint, but if you call my posts "lashing out" I think you are exaggerating as I'm just holding up mirrors for people with incredibly short memories.

I don't deny it at all Jamie. Never have. They were killing two birds with one stone. I'm just telling you why Christians supported separation and also why nobody back then whined about Christians in office, or suggested Congress really didn't want them in office, as we see here. That is simply revisionist history.

No don't you think you're a little different than the average Atheist Automaton here? Have you ever noticed how many skeptics here wish we had a Christian-free state, or heard their intolerant remarks about Ashcroft? He is guilty of almost nothing compared to Attorney Generals even from the fifties.

Never said it was. You are reading all kinds of stuff into my posts. I said we had to go to the Supreme Court to preserve the right, and as I recall, the ACLU didn't bother to show up. The Framers would have laughed themselves silly at that event, if they weren't in tears.

Rad

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Living Dead Chipmunk

HRG: Didn't intend to imply that Europe didn't garantee human rights. My apologies. I simply meant to state that no European country is protected by our Constitution, since Radorth is arguing it's our Constitution that makes the practice of Christianity possible. I never meant to imply that Europe doesn't have its own set of equally good (or, in some cases, better) Constitutional laws.

Radorth

Re John Adam's quote:

That's my question, not the atheists here. Read it and weep. He's saying people made a mess of Jesus' revelation as I've been saying for 3 months here, and for 25 years elsewhere. It's a marvel what me and the "deist" Adams agree on, no?

Rad

Jack the Bodiless

"Revisionist history"?

Where is the revision, Radorth?

None of us have suggested that there was any intent to bar Christians from office.

This looks like revisionism on your part.

Jack the Bodiless

Weep about what?

I'm still not getting it. Is anyone else?

Radorth

Uh-huh. It's amazing what you left out here to justify your belief in your own integrity, Buffman. You just happened to wait until I found it although an Atheist Automaton was parroting websites about Washington's beliefs. Now another AA is calling him an theist. You further left out that I specifically said I did not know if the "enigmatic" Washington was a Christian or not. You are simply evading the issue and wasting bandwidth, again.

Well finally you admit I gave you the lead. Back then you said I "contributed nothing" to the thread. Remember now?

No I reminded readers that Washington used the phrase "and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ."

He also used the phrase "our religion" I believe, but I will have to go find it. There is also the use of "The Author of our Religion" which is questionable. And my explanation of why he did not take communion is far more in line with his unimpeachable character. All the atheist automatons can do is make him a Grade A politically motivated hypocrite.

Rad

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

ybnormal

I'm still not getting it. Is anyone else?

Altho not his intention, I think my good friend Rad is making the point that his fellow xians have a long, long, long history of revising history.

Jamie_L

Well, I figure if we are too abusive the people who come here to debate, we'll end up with no one to debate. Which isn't much fun.

Actually, I really dislike Ashcroft myself, though not so much because he is religious, but because I think he crosses the line sometimes in using his office to promote his religion. Mostly, however, I dislike some of his policies regardless of his religion. I also have a general impression that he is extremely arrogant. Personally, I believe this stems from his confidence that he knows what God wants, but ultimately it doesn't matter what the source of his arrogance is. A guy that confident he is always right scares me, regardless.

Fair enough.

Jamie