LAW IS LAW (please read)

[Tuffbucker]

Buzzy,

First off, you seem like too intelligent of a person to really believe all the hype you are spewing.....

If you REALLY think that the FIRST ammendment was put in place to assure that GOD or religion should never be mentioned in any public or government entity, then you are sorely mistaken. Any person with any understanding of the first ammendment should know that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that at no time will the government establish a NATIONAL religion. Our founding fathers had come from a land where a specific religion was forced upon them by the governing branch at that time.....namely the throne of England, forcing its citizens to belong to the church of England....or fear being killed for blasphemy! The "seperation of church and state" refers to the fact that government should not force a single/national religion upon its people. Not that religion should never be mentioned when a matter of government be at hand.As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States.

Next, lets finish the line you were so quick to quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "........or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By removing any and all reference to God or a god in schools and government settings, would that not be in direct violation of the first ammendment, by "PROHIBITING" my right to exercise my beliefs freely??

Too many people do not understand the concept of Seperation of Church and State. Do you not see God mentioned in the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of INdependence, and the individual COnsitutions of all 50 States......are you trying to tell me that our Founding Fathers never meant for religion to be a part of the lives of the citizens of this country. I think not.....is fair to say that everyone has Freedom of Speech, unless that speech happens to mention God or some kind of established religion......then it becomes unconstitutional??

Here are a few examples of what our Founding Fathers "true" opinion on religion as it is referred to in governing this country:

"... True religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington.
"... The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality...." United States Supreme Court, 1892.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country." President Calvin Coolidge.
"The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a ... government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!" President Harry S Truman.
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals: therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison.

The problem is, People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive.

I could go on and on all day, but unfortunately nothing I say will have any affect your opinion, and nothing you say will probably affect mine. Just dont go spouting off your interpretation of our COnsititutional Ammendments, without expecting mine in return.

God Bless You!!

SCOTT

 

[Tuffbucker]

Sorry, I forgot one point......people keep bringing up the argument, that by having "In God We Trust" on money, and having the 10 commandments at Courthouses, infringes on their "rights".....well answer me this.....with those things in place, can you still freely excercise your beliefs? By reading or seeing those items, does it FORCE you to believe in God or force you to shelter your beliefs??? No, it doesnt. You can look away, you can choose to believe what you want....but by removing these items from the "public eye" and forcing it into "private seclusion", you are infringing upon my right to free speech, and my right to not have the government PROHIBIT my right to excercise my beliefs freely.

Here's an easy way to look at it.....does having " IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money....
--Mean that Congress has made a law respecting an establishment of religion?? NO
--Mean that COngress has made a law respecting the free exercise thereof?? NO
Therefore, does it violate the First Ammendment of the Consitution?? NO

SCOTT

 

[iminrut]

Mature response MM.....any point you try to make will surely warrant respect now...

None of this has been an issue until lately....self serving attorneys and judges have been using these same controversial issues as a springboard to noteriety, and lining their pockets on the way.......same as they do when granting multi million dollar awards to frivolous law suits......... or granting same sex marriages........etc..........they could care less how their legislation and judgements affect the people..........it get's their name in print, and an asterick in the law books.......they don't have either of our sides interests in mind, just their own........

As far as the 10 Commandments.....all religions that beleive in a higher power, have a very similar set of guidelines...which the commandments basicly are......a guidelines on how to conduct yourself, and be held accountable.............and that's where I see a problem.......all religions can find a certain equality, because there is a similar basic foundation.....but the non-believer can not have equality cause they have basis in nothing.............

Are you as non-beleivers made to feel insecure or less of a person because you have faith in nothing ?? Kinda like the nerdy kid picked last on teams in gym class ?? I just don't understand why people who don't beleive in anything religiously, could care less what others than think.....really, why do you care, when you don't beleive ??

I mean, I know you say cause it's not equal and it's rammin religion down your throats...etc.....but it's really not......no law is forcing you to pray....no law is forcing you to recite "under God".....no law is requiring you to acknowledge the 10 Commandments.......

Sure, if a preacher knocks down your door, and shouts repentance to you or you are damned to an eternity in hell, that's in your face, ramming down your throat...........but what we are talking about is not......I'm not out to bring you all down, I'm just trying to understand your side of things.........

Surely you beleive in concepts such as the difference between right and wrong ?? That stealing is wrong......adultery wrong......murder wrong....cheating wrong....etc......maybe there is more in common than you think.......so is it not conceivable that equality and common ground can be met, without the loss of free will and the freedoms associated with it ??

 

[ringer]

I am in no way a religious man but I am secure enough as a person to not feel intimidated by what other people say or display. Too bad we can't take the liberal people in America today who so liberally argue what our founding fathers intended and put them in a time machine. Back then if you would have made the statements that you do today those founding fathers would have either tried you for heresy or shot you between the eyes for rudeness. Those were fundamentally religious people. Our culture today is far more tolerant of all religions and everything else than in the past. Bottom line is like it or not we will soon have a more conservative Supreme court and much of the wasteful and abusive legal action will become a bump in our historical road.

 

[noharleyyet]

Maybe forced tolerancy Ringer. Seems our lawmakers spend much of their time and energy legislating morality. We as a people are what our parents, teachers, mentors, and exposure to society have made us. Government does it's best to interject it's influence. Gov'ts perception of how we need to act is tempered by pressure from all sides, and sadly, the squeakiest wheel ususally prevails. That being said, I have to agree with much (by no means all) of what Buzz says...just not how he says it.

...and mini moose...what a classy mature retort.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

The funny about this is that if thought you were right, I'd be on your side on this issue. I think you've been listening to way too much liberal radio, and getting your "panties in a wad". Push YOUR agenda too hard, and don't be suprised when the "zealots" push back. A smart person would let a sleeping dog lie.

BTW I notice you have never commented on the original intent of this thread? Fair is Fair if you TRUELY want to remove all religion from government. I'm game, how about you?

 

[Toonces]

There is a big difference between attending a public school and praying on your time then have prayer lead by a public official or having a religious symbol in front of a courthouse, again put there by a public official using public funds.

Lets be honest folks, politicians are fools. All of them. Look at they way they spend our money, lie, cheat, steal, etc. They are hardly the cream of societies crop. Its bad enough we trust these people with our national security and our tax dollars, why would we want to compound this by trusting them with our faith?

I believe in God, but I cringe at the thought of some yo yo politician chaining himself to a monument of the Bible in front of the courthouse. Call me crazy, but I question his motives, just like I question of the motives of the liberal nut jobs who use every tragedy as an excuse to put himself in front of a camera.

The students in our public schools are taught how to use a condom before they are taught to read. (exageration I know but you get the point). Our public school teachers are barely competent to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach and some think that they should also bring God into the curriculum?

God and faith is way to important to mess around with. I don't want incompetent politicians or teachers preaching about God. Politicians should stick with what they are good at (if anyone knows what that is, let me know) and teachers should teach, not preach.

Its funny the people who rail against ludicrous statements like "It takes a village to raise a child" are often the same people who seem more than willing to let a public school bureaucrat lead their child in prayer. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

To me if your faith in God is truly important to you, you would do everything in your power to keep your faith out of the realm of government, because government will inevitably screw it up.

 

[ringer]

I don't believe in any prayer in schools and agree with what you have said. I also don't agree in tearing up perfectly good money and removing age old monuments to pacify a bunch of whining pukes who could care less about the cost of their actions.

 

[JoseCuervo]

ringer,
Would you be ok with a gradual phase in of "In Allah we Trust", so long as it could be done without cost?

We can easily change the Pledge to say "One Nation, under Allah"....

 

[ringer]

Jose'-I always thought you were a raghead. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

 

[Tuffbucker]

Jose,

The thing is, you and many other liberals take the opinion that "Under God" and "In God We Trust", is meant to mean the Christian God, which Im sure it originally was.....but how come it cant stand as a non-demoninational God. Is not Allah a God to his believers, the same as Buddah, etc. Its all in the way you look at it. My children can say "In God We Trust", and be talking about the Christian God, and your kids can either choose not to say it or say it in reference to which ever god they have their confidence set in.

SCOTT

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tuff,

If that is the case, and "God" is a generic word for any Supreme Being, that would be great. Would you be happy with "In some Higher Power we trust"?

I doubt you will get the Bible bangers who have posted here to flip-flop to now saying "God" is generic after being adamant that it was a Judeo-Christian God they want crammed into everybody's school and into their public buildings.

It would be intersting to see how many of these pro-Pledge of Allegiance nutcases said the Pledge this morning when they were eating their Pop-Tarts and drinking their OJ and Vodka.....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose'-I always thought you were a raghead. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

ringer,
As long as cost is no issue, does it matter what God is on our money? If non-Christian groups pay for their religious symbols to be put into courthouses and public facilities, are you good with that?

Or are you just too drunk to think about those type of issues?

 

[Delw]

evertime I see this argument or hear it I think of a movie I saw called mircal(sp) on 24th street. yeah you know that santa clause movie.

I am not a religous person by any means, but I do believe that the pledge of alegance should be said in front of the flag everyday at school. and I beleiev it should be the real one not the PC one.

it really sucks when the minority can tear this country apart with lawyers.

 

[ringer]

Hose-A, I am fine with the Muslim holiday stamp as it is new issue. You and the sucks, on the other hand, are so closed minded you insist on tearing up the fabric of this country just to say it could be done. Talk to the hand amigo.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Talk to the hand amigo.

Why would I want to talk to your sex partner??? That is weird...

And when you sober up, can you answer if you would allow other religous groups to build monuments on the steps of courthouses? Would you allow a different Pledge each day?

Did you say the Pledge today?

 

[JohnSWA]

Things must be awfully slow in SI!

 

[Tuffbucker]

Jose,

Heres the thing, the 10 commandments on the steps of a Federal COurthouse, has little to do with religion, and more to do with the basis upon which the law enforced, by said court, was established. The 10 commandments in this type of a setting have more to do with the foundation upon which our government and laws were created, than a specific religious belief.

The 10 commandments should not be looked at as a RELIGIOUS MONUMENT, but rather than a way to pay homage to the basis upon which this country's Criminal Justice System was founded. The 10 commandments were originally given as a religious decree from God, but our Founding Fathers based this countries society and norms upon the simple and basic teachings that one can receive by following the 10 commandments. Do you think its a bad thing to have people reminded to not kill, not steal, not lie, to have kids honor and obey their parents......being a police officer, I have to remind people of this everyday.....does that mean I am cramming Relgion down their throat?

Im not saying that the 10 commandments is not a religious item, but in this setting, it does not have to be viewed that way. There is more than one way to look at something. If you can find anything else from other non-Christian relgions, that have a part in the establishment of our countries laws and ordniances, then by all means let them erect them on the steps of the courthouses.

And yes, I did say the pledge today!! I was discussing this issue with my wife, and I recited to her the way the pledge was written originally, and how it is today!! So yes, I said the pledge today and I made sure to emphasize UNDER GOD!! Did you say the pledge today?

SCOTT

 

[JoseCuervo]

The 10 commandments in this type of a setting have more to do with the foundation upon which our government and laws were created, than a specific religious belief.

The 10 commandments were originally given as a religious decree from God, but our Founding Fathers based this countries society and norms upon the simple and basic teachings that one can receive by following the 10 commandments.
SCOTT

Were those the same founding fathers who owned slaves and did not allow women the right to vote?

 

[Toonces]

Actully Tuffbucker, I think our founding father's based our government and laws more on the political writings of John Locke and natural law theory of property rights, than they did on the Old Testament.

However Jose may be on to something as the Old Testament does record a period of time in history where slavery and inequality was common place.