In god we trust
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
this was not what was intended by our forefathers. if you recall your history lessons in medieval times and as late as our revolution the church was corrupt and controlled the government. that is what separation of church and state really means. that the church cannot run the government. It does not mean that- no saying prayer in school, no god bless on the currency, no asking god to bless or guide our governments( Lord knows they need all the help they can get). and that is the real history lesson gents.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
What is says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
One can clearly see that the intent of the founding fathers that authored the amendment was a separation, any one that knows history knows Jefferson was a huge separation advocate. The final amendment is watered down, but of course stands.
The Supreme Court, beginning with with Everson v. Board of Education, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that “aid one religion” or “prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that “aid all religions.”
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Voted no, if we keep changing everything America will not truely be America. Get rid of everything this country stands for and was found by and we will be....amerpakiraqafghanichinapanussia.
Leave it.
Leave it.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 1
From: Illinois
Camarothatcould, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
From: Seabrook,NH
this was not what was intended by our forefathers. if you recall your history lessons in medieval times and as late as our revolution the church was corrupt and controlled the government. that is what separation of church and state really means. that the church cannot run the government. It does not mean that- no saying prayer in school, no god bless on the currency, no asking god to bless or guide our governments( Lord knows they need all the help they can get). and that is the real history lesson gents.
If you go back in British history there were Bishops or Cardinals that advised the Kings and Queens on how to run their Kingdoms. Of course they pushed their religious agendas. This is the separation talked about; removing that religious "advisor" from influencing the rules of the nation. It has nothing to do with prayers in school or the "in God we trust" or the Pledge of allegiance etc.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
From: Circleville, Ohio
Camarothatcould, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I love that movie!! Voted no BTW.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 1
From: Illinois
Suspended
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: guess
I voted no
we have given up to much of our history as it is, like it or not our nations history is based in the Judeo-Christian morality, god can mean many things to many people and the stupidest thing I have ever heard is that it offends atheists how can something that you do not believe in offend you I do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster but it does not offend me, the loch ness monster, Bigfoot, and the side hill wampus are all things I do not believe in yet they do not offend me. The fact remains that the founding fathers did give us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion.
we have given up to much of our history as it is, like it or not our nations history is based in the Judeo-Christian morality, god can mean many things to many people and the stupidest thing I have ever heard is that it offends atheists how can something that you do not believe in offend you I do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster but it does not offend me, the loch ness monster, Bigfoot, and the side hill wampus are all things I do not believe in yet they do not offend me. The fact remains that the founding fathers did give us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion.
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,234
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas Tx
It doesn't say that every individual has the right to own any gun he wants either, but that doesn't stop some from saying it does.
What is says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
One can clearly see that the intent of the founding fathers that authored the amendment was a separation, any one that knows history knows Jefferson was a huge separation advocate. The final amendment is watered down, but of course stands.
The Supreme Court, beginning with with Everson v. Board of Education, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that “aid one religion” or “prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that “aid all religions.”
What is says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
One can clearly see that the intent of the founding fathers that authored the amendment was a separation, any one that knows history knows Jefferson was a huge separation advocate. The final amendment is watered down, but of course stands.
The Supreme Court, beginning with with Everson v. Board of Education, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that “aid one religion” or “prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that “aid all religions.”
It doesn't say that every individual has the right to own any gun he wants either, but that doesn't stop some from saying it does.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So what you are telling me is that the Founders intended for only the Military to have the right to bear arms? You actually think that they felt it necessary to make sure the Military did not lose that right?
Liberals want to interpret and change the intent of the Fathers. The "separation of church and state" was coined by the Libs. Under God is not condoning a any religion. Again, Liberal thought permeating and destroying this wonderful country.
