Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?

[Flash The Cash]

People should be free to pray anywhere they want as long as they do not force others to. It is a matter of allowing it but also allowing others to not participate. In other words prayer should be allowed in schools as long as they are not forced to pray and it is done voluntarily among whomever chooses to particpate. I.E. let's have a moment of silence. Then everyone chooses whatever they want to do in that timeframe.

The prayers in a public school should be free from any sort of government influence whatsoever.

 

[Kade]

That would seem to leave the door to advisory power over religion.

Take it up with Jefferson then.

 

[Ncturnal]

People should be free to pray anywhere they want as long as they do not force others to. It is a matter of allowing it but also allowing others to not participate. In other words prayer should be allowed in schools as long as they are not forced to pray and it is done voluntarily among whomever chooses to particpate. I.E. let's have a moment of silence. Then everyone chooses whatever they want to do in that timeframe.

Even a forced moment of silence is a bit much. Maybe you'd rather talk to your real life buddy at school while the zealots talk to their imaginary buddy. I really don't care about the public prayer thing much, but what annoys me is the bible they claim to read says prayer should be private, "in your closet, not on the street corners like the hypocrites". I'd have mad respect for Christians if they followed their own doctrine.

 

[dc74rp]

Separation of Church and State

Flash,

Separation of Church and State for Dummies​

The Constitution of the United States established a limited government in the name of the American people. The government was granted no powers except those enumerated in the document. The government was granted no power whatsoever over religion. It was granted no power to use force and violence or even reason and persuasion to attempt to influence religion.

The Federal Government was granted no powers not listed in the US Constitution, as made clear in:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The State Governments had thier own Constitutions.

The framers didn't define the word religion. The word is ambiguous. The common law rules of construction should be used to ascertain the meaning of words of the Constitution. According to the third rule of construction, the meaning of the word "religion" in the First Amendment is "the duty which we owe to our Creator."

The government has no legal authority to place "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins, because it has no authority over the duty we owe the Creator to trust him.

I don't advocate the "In Trust" statement on coins. I'm against Government Establishment of Religion. But as far as the Constitution goes, "Seperation of Church and State" isn't in it. What it does contain is the First Amendment:

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say there shall be no Government Establishment of Religion. It doesn't even say Congress shall not Establish Religion. It say Congress shall pass no law respecting an Establishment of Religion. That means not only that Congress shall make no law Establishing Religion, but also Congress shall make no law preventing the Establishment of Religion.

At the time the Bill of Rights was being written, some States already had Established Religion. I believe New Hampshire was one. It was a matter to be decided by the People and the States, and the Federal Government was to stay out of it. Made even more Constitutionally clear in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Again, I'm against the Establishment of Religion. But it's no business of the Federal Government, and "Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution. It's a matter to be settled by the People and the States.

 

[fisharmor]

"Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution.

Well I haven't read 35 pages but I'll guarantee this hasn't come up.
This quaint non-constitutional idea is actually older than the United States, and actually does come from a religious thinker.
Martin Luther's "Two Kingdom" theology is basically "separation of church and state", and there's a pretty solid biblical argument for it.
It calls for a spiritual authority to be exercised in the Church, and a temporal authority to apply to everyone, Christian or not.
In addition to keeping the Church out of "secular" matters, it also protects Christians serving as government officials: a Christian governor can carry out a death penalty with a clear conscience, provided that the secular law has been followed.

This came about because reformation thinkers witnessed first hand what it was actually like to have the Church get involved in legal matters.

As of the enlightenment the idea was updated: reformation thinkers would have stated that all government is instituted by God, while enlightenment thinkers gave us the idea that all government comes from the consent of the governed.

I've read that RP was raised Lutheran, which means he's probably familiar with this doctrine. But I'm only comfortable containerizing the doctrine with the man for that reason. I'd like to invite non-Christians who haven't studied these topics not to containerize at all, because some of us get pretty pissed being lumped with some of the others.

 

[Kade]

Well I haven't read 35 pages but I'll guarantee this hasn't come up.
This quaint non-constitutional idea is actually older than the United States, and actually does come from a religious thinker.
Martin Luther's "Two Kingdom" theology is basically "separation of church and state", and there's a pretty solid biblical argument for it.
It calls for a spiritual authority to be exercised in the Church, and a temporal authority to apply to everyone, Christian or not.
In addition to keeping the Church out of "secular" matters, it also protects Christians serving as government officials: a Christian governor can carry out a death penalty with a clear conscience, provided that the secular law has been followed.

This came about because reformation thinkers witnessed first hand what it was actually like to have the Church get involved in legal matters.

As of the enlightenment the idea was updated: reformation thinkers would have stated that all government is instituted by God, while enlightenment thinkers gave us the idea that all government comes from the consent of the governed.

I've read that RP was raised Lutheran, which means he's probably familiar with this doctrine. But I'm only comfortable containerizing the doctrine with the man for that reason. I'd like to invite non-Christians who haven't studied these topics not to containerize at all, because some of us get pretty pissed being lumped with some of the others.

I've studied both doctrines and their origins. My minor in theology at Notre Dame included two courses on the church's schism. My contention remains the same, even if you think for a second that complete and utter separation of church and state was not intended, it would be upon my demand and others of varying backgrounds to provide this inclusion in any modern governance. In other words, if there were no separation clause, there would then be a great need to make one. Regardless of what some of these anemic thinkers on this board confirm, regardless of their continual transcendence into mental putrescence, the establishment clause in any form is necessary to guarantee a total freedom of religion, freedom from compulsory support of ideologies that conflict strongly with your own world view and philosophy.

 

[fisharmor]

I've studied both doctrines and their origins. My minor in theology at Notre Dame included two courses on the church's schism. My contention remains the same, even if you think for a second that complete and utter separation of church and state was not intended, it would be upon my demand and others of varying backgrounds to provide this inclusion in any modern governance. In other words, if there were no separation clause, there would then be a great need to make one. Regardless of what some of these anemic thinkers on this board confirm, regardless of their continual transcendence into mental putrescence, the establishment clause in any form is necessary to guarantee a total freedom of religion, freedom from compulsory support of ideologies that conflict strongly with your own world view and philosophy.

This constitution thing is important but nobody considers it the key to eternal life, so it's always going to take a back seat to the Bible for some people. I merely wanted to show that there's a biblical argument for it as well - atheists don't have a monopoly on the separation idea and Christians shouldn't pretend like they do.

I of course agree in principle with the separation, but you must see that the application of these ideas is inconsistent. It's clear-cut if you're putting the 10 commandments on a courthouse, but consider another more insidious example: atheists seldom complain about getting December 25th off from work, but naming the holiday responsible for their time off is usually verboten. And isn't shutting down the entire office tantamount to compulsory support of that ideology? This is mob rule at its finest, but I'm not sure what mandate would solve the problem for the nonChristian, other than the one which forces everyone to go to work, which is a restriction on the free exercise of religion.

I would support adding the phrase to the constitution if we could reach a middle ground on specifics. We agree on the pure expression of the thought, but probably not the application of it.

 

[Flash The Cash]

Simply put, the Establishment Clause states that our nation can never have a national religion and citizens are free to worship God as they choose.
​

What's wrong with the above statement?

 

[Kade]

Simply put, the Establishment Clause states that our nation can never have a national religion and citizens are free to worship God as they choose.
​

What's wrong with the above statement?

If you erase the capital g in God and place god/gods or no god instead, and National Religion as a definition includes god over no god, then absolutely nothing.

"Our nation can never promote a national religion, gods or god or no gods, and citizens are free to worship any way they see fit, or to not worship at all."

May it [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day [July 4th] forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them....

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C Weightman, June 24, 1826, Jefferson's last letter, declining, due to ill health, an invitation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of that document; Jefferson died ten days later, the very day of the 50th anniversary of the Declaration's signing (John Adams died a few hours later, not knowing that Jefferson had also died)

 

[Flash The Cash]

"Our nation can never promote a national religion, gods or god or no gods, and citizens are free to worship any way they see fit, or to not worship at all."

What about regional religions?

 

[ReneeSaffron]

I am a Christian and I don't think it makes sense to support anyone BUT Ron Paul. His platform is based on the Golden Rule. ("Love your neighbor as yourself.")
What "founding father's ideals on secularism"? Here's another thing that the government wants you to believe. They want you to think that the Founders were not Christians (when in fact they most decidedly were) and our country was not built on Christian principles which it most decidedly was.

 

[Kade]

I am a Christian and I don't think it makes sense to support anyone BUT Ron Paul. His platform is based on the Golden Rule. ("Love your neighbor as yourself.")
What "founding father's ideals on secularism"? Here's another thing that the government wants you to believe. They want you to think that the Founders were not Christians (when in fact they most decidedly were) and our country was not built on Christian principles which it most decidedly was.

Absurdly false. Where do you guys get this stuff? Seriously... you can't be this thick...

 

[Kade]

What about regional religions?

What about them?

 

[ReneeSaffron]

Absurdly false. Where do you guys get this stuff? Seriously... you can't be this thick...

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." John Adams

"The vanity of the world, and its insufficiency to satisfy the soul of man, has been long a settled conviction of my mind. Man's inability to secure by his own merits the approbation of God, I feel to be true. I trust in the atonement of the Saviour of mercy, as the ground of my acceptance and of my hope of salvation." Henry Clay

"I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely." Christopher Columbus

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

“I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his Eternal Son the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by Divine inspiration.” John Dickinson

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." Alexander Hamilton

“In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgments .... All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness." John Hancock

"Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die . . . I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete." Patrick Henry

"It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being... [that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations... [and that] He would take this province under his protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defence and security in this time of danger." Benjamin Franklin

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." Patrick Henry

I could go on for hours adding quote after quote there are so many, but I wouldn't want to bore you for too long.

 

[Kade]

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." John Adams

Also by Adams:

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams

The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.
-- John Adams

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams

Secularism: 1 Dogma: 0

"The vanity of the world, and its insufficiency to satisfy the soul of man, has been long a settled conviction of my mind. Man's inability to secure by his own merits the approbation of God, I feel to be true. I trust in the atonement of the Saviour of mercy, as the ground of my acceptance and of my hope of salvation." Henry Clay

Also by Clay:
All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All, separated from government, are compatible with liberty.
-- Henry Clay

Secularism: 2 Dogma: 0

"I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely." Christopher Columbus

By definition of sinner, he was I suppose. Good on him. Relevance to the country governance: 0

Secularism 2 Dogma: 0

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

Awesome opportunity to point out more unfortunate revisionist history! Never did John Jay, (who was consequently a devout Christian) ever say those words. Christian websites are not reliable sources for information. If, and this is a huge if, Chief Justice John Jay ever spoke those words, it goes without saying that his influence on the founding of this nation pales considerably when compared to the sharpest minds of that time, those of Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Mason, Washington, Adams, and Madison.

Big ++ for secularism. Thanks for pointing it out.

Secularism: 4 Dogma: 0

“I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his Eternal Son the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by Divine inspiration.” John Dickinson

Yep. Statesman John Dickinson, Quaker, was a very religious man. I know many founding fathers were. Relevance to governance of the country: 0

Secularism: 4 Dogma: 0

I hope you have better planned, because I haven't begun yet.

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." Alexander Hamilton

The big guns! Serious scholars believe that Hamilton was a theist rationalist. He was a Christian throughout college, and later became rather indifferent. One must remember that the concept of atheism was nearly impossible back then, and being an infidel, (like Jefferson), was extraordinarily secret. Hamilton did convert towards the end of his life to Episcopalian. The information on could be found in this fascinating article at JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/view/00435597/di957151/95p0157p/0

bad form my friend.

Relevance to governance of the country: 0

Secularism: 4 Dogma: 0

“In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgments .... All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness." John Hancock

Great quote! Seriously. You found a good example. John Hancock is rather relevant too! Lucky for us, the Freemason Hancock and his rather imprudent views of religions role in government was left mostly in the Bay Colony, a place known for it's intolerance at one point (read about Roger Williams). I'll give you a point for this one.

Secularism: 4 Dogma: 1

"Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die . . . I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete." Patrick Henry

I am not fond of Patrick Henry. His contribution to the revolutionary war cannot be overlooked, but his staunch hatred for the Constitution is ignored for some reason. That's right my friend... Patrick Henry despised the Constitution. I prefer Jefferson or Paine any day... Also, it is not entirely certain that his "Give me Liberty" famous quote was even his... No points awarded here.

Secularism: 4 Dogma: 1

"It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being... [that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations... [and that] He would take this province under his protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defence and security in this time of danger." Benjamin Franklin

Franklin is a worthy Founder to quote, no doubt. I would award a point for this had he also not said:

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

"He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."

"But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."

Yikes. That's a load... and it goes on. See Franklin did not believe in Jesus as God...he wasn't a Christian. Not good for you, as you seem to promote a Christian government with your quotes... I think Secularists get the point here...

Secularism: 5 Dogma: 1

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." Patrick Henry

Ahhh! Another Henry quote! You know a fundie and revisionism history when you see two things, relatively unpopular Founding Father's quotes, and Patrick Henry.

I already answered my objections to him.

Secularism: 5 Dogma: 1

I could go on for hours adding quote after quote there are so many, but I wouldn't want to bore you for too long.

I'm sure you could. My turn:

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Ouch. That's a negative point, considering you were using Franklin...

Secularism: 5 Dogma: 0

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
-- George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790

Yikes. Secularism: 6 Dogma: 0

From here on out, I think that some of these should be worth far more than a measly point... Total at the end:

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity."
-- Thomas Paine (Paine of course is an ENDLESS supply of these...)

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

I love Jefferson. Seriously, this was the SECOND time he mentions the Separation of Church and State... this time mentioning the original from his letter to the Danbury Baptists. In my opinion, taking the side against Jefferson in this debate is not the wisest of decisions...Jefferson is another example of endless quotes... another hellbound infidel in the Christian mythology.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
-James Madison

This is kind of fun. Madison then goes on to describe these encroachment attempts... one of them, completely ironic I swear! is our friend Hancock's legislation. You should lose a hefty point for this, but you don't have any! Again, Madison is a treasure trove of quotes... I guess you are kind of lucky I'm sticking with one per Legend.

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other.
-- George Mason

Mason was a great guy, a neighbor of George Washington himself, favored the abolition of the Slave Trade. Few people recognize him for what he was... with James Madison, the co-author of the Bill of Rights. Most people George Mason is just a good Law School!


"In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."
-- Ethan Allen

Allen is my counter to your Henry. I could also add Thomas Young (gave Vermont it's name and participated in the Boston Tea Party), his mentor to the list of other Revolutionary War Heroes who could counter Henry's religiosity...

Allen you might recall captured Fort Ticonderoga.

I think since you had a very random person, Christopher Columbus, stuck in your quotes... I'll add another famous president's quote:

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln


*Yawn*

How hard will revisionists like you try and change what is the truth to your delusion, or what you see as reality?

Secularism: 12 Dogma: 0

 

[therealjjj77]

As a Christian, I would tend to agree that religion can be very diabolical and very corrupt. In fact, the scriptures say that Satan presents himself as an angel of light. Jesus Christ spent most of his time condemning what was being practiced as the Jewish religion in that region. So the Bible does not condone religion.

This whole discussion about what one person thought or another person thought doesn't really matter.

Let's first distinguish that the Bible and religion are two very different things.

Second, if we look at any country where athiesm is the state religion(China, Russia, etc.) true Christians(according to the Biblical usage; i.e. not Catholics or protestants, or any organized religion that's head is an earthly body or person) are terribly persecuted for congregating and teaching the scriptures.
Yet in the U.S., where we based our laws off of the ideas of soul liberty(a Biblical principal not found in athiestic, muslim, catholic, or protestant countries): that a person is responsible for their own soul and that responsibility lies between them and God; you find that persecution of any belief or custom, no matter how absurd it may seem, is not tolerated. The country was set up to not force any particular religion on the people. You find this distinguishing difference where one country, based upon this Biblical principal, allows all religions to carry out their beliefs as long as they do not violate other peoples' unalienable rights; while the other based on athiesm enforces persecution from the government toward it's citizen's for them believing something that seems contrary to the agenda of that government.

So it is clear a country basing it's principles on the Bible(not on a religion) will not tolerate religious persecution.

 

[therealjjj77]

To add a little bit more, it is clear to anyone who reads "The Declaration of Independence" that the founders not only recognized the Creator, but went on to "appeal... for rectitude of (their) intentions(from the) Supreme Judge" on their actions that made the 13 colonies separate from the crown of England. This is a legal document used in court rooms. You cannot have justice unless there is a recognition of right and wrong. The athiest believed in the ideals of evolution, that those who can triumph to the next generation, regardless of the means, would be supreme: and that this process of things is better for society as a whole. However, in a Biblical based law, those who are weak are protected from violation of others. The U.S. government was established as a servant to the people and to protect the individual(no matter how poor or destitute) from violation.

An athiest government is set up in a way that the stronger get to rule over the weaker and tax them without regard to their plight.

Can you answer me, how, from an athiest perspective, it would be wrong to rule over others and dominate the weaker in a society of survival of the fittest, like in the animal kingdom? How would there be any benefit obtained to society by protecting the weak?

Let's look again at "The Declaration of Independence".

In the very first sentence it speaks about "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,".

In other words, if it is the opinion of the strongest as to what political band you are tied to, then they would have no recourse to separate themselves from the Crown of England except they obtain more wealth and power then he, while being subject to him. However, since the Crown of England was not the highest of power, that there was one of greater power above him, which entitled them to their separation and equal station, then they had the ability and perogative to separate from the Crown of England and enjoy this entitlement from "Nature's God".

Furthermore, this idea of "truths to be self-evident" is something not found in athiest beliefs or the animal kingdom. The connotation given is that even if every person on the earth believed otherwise, these truths would still exist. They are held by God and not by man, so they cannot be abolished by man.

"That all men are created equal" is yet another truth not found in the animal kingdom. According to evolution that would be going in reverse by protecting the weak through making everyone equal under the law.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... (and) that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

Where are these rights found? In the Bible! And if there were no Creator, thereby no Rights granted among men, thereby no need for Governments! Then we go back to the athiest form of government, survival of the fittest.

So the basis of our government is for the protecting of these rights given to us by our Creator.

You benefit from this Biblical form of government in which your rights from your Creator are protected, whether you believe in him or not.

 

[Kade]

An athiest government is set up in a way that the stronger get to rule over the weaker and tax them without regard to their plight.

First, what is an atheist government... second, how would it be set up to promote strongest?

Can you answer me, how, from an athiest perspective, it would be wrong to rule over others and dominate the weaker in a society of survival of the fittest, like in the animal kingdom? How would there be any benefit obtained to society by protecting the weak?

That's twice that you have misspelled atheist. You have to explain what you are talking about, because I honestly have no idea... secular does not mean atheist.

Let's look again at "The Declaration of Independence".

In the very first sentence it speaks about "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,".

In other words, if it is the opinion of the strongest as to what political band you are tied to, then they would have no recourse to separate themselves from the Crown of England except they obtain more wealth and power then he, while being subject to him. However, since the Crown of England was not the highest of power, that there was one of greater power above him, which entitled them to their separation and equal station, then they had the ability and perogative to separate from the Crown of England and enjoy this entitlement from "Nature's God".

This was called the Divine Right of Kings... our country founded a SECULAR nation, devoid of rule by god, rather, laws derived from the innate natural and commons laws of men, Laws of Nature are no different than Laws of Nature's God... the fact that they even used Nature's God should be rather disconcerting to someone who would make a claim that this is a Christian Nation... the declaration is not a good place for someone to start who dislikes NATURAL law... try again.

Furthermore, this idea of "truths to be self-evident" is something not found in athiest beliefs or the animal kingdom. The connotation given is that even if every person on the earth believed otherwise, these truths would still exist. They are held by God and not by man, so they cannot be abolished by man.

Three times now... learn to spell. Self-evident beliefs is the core of secular philosophy. I hope you are joking. That Self-evident have anything to do with god is a blantant and cowardly injustice.

"That all men are created equal" is yet another truth not found in the animal kingdom. According to evolution that would be going in reverse by protecting the weak through making everyone equal under the law.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... (and) that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

Where are these rights found? In the Bible! And if there were no Creator, thereby no Rights granted among men, thereby no need for Governments! Then we go back to the athiest form of government, survival of the fittest.

So the basis of our government is for the protecting of these rights given to us by our Creator.

You benefit from this Biblical form of government in which your rights from your Creator are protected, whether you believe in him or not.

Four times now that you have misspelled atheist. The rights we have been given by Nature, or Creator, or Supreme Ruler of the World, or whatever the DEISTIC founding fathers thought has bearing on me in one way... that I am FREE from biblical tyranny, and the Divine Right of Kings. I am free from ignorant little men who would claim that my rights come from ancient texts... that my rights, those that I retain for myself, the most self-evident, cannot just be collected in one document, cannot be written about, because they are NATURAL. These rights are manifestly secular, without religious necessity... they are common law and natural rights... and they are self-evident.

a Natural Right is a right that exists regardless of society, government, or religious doctrine.

The question of what exactly are Natural Rights is a legitimate philosophical question... some of them were argued for and debated fiercely, of these, some are contained in the Bill of Rights... others are not... these include, in my opinion, the Freedom from religious compulsion, privacy, freedom of lifestyle, right to control your own body and functions of your body, freedom to reproduce...etc.

That you resort to the Bible for some of your rights is none of my business... that you intend to force me to obey to that piece of junk IS MY BUSINESS, and it will be by the same blood, and same passion that I defend this country against that attempt... that my children will not be raised by some 2,000 year old text, regardless of how holy YOU think it may be... It will be over my carcass, as I emphasize over and over, that the bible is ever used to enforce law in this country...

 

[therealjjj77]

Kade, have you even read the Declaration of Independence? When you do we can continue this discussion. It is very clear that the document that made the U.S. a separate nation described the Creator of nature as well as the laws which he made very apparent through his creation. To deny such is to defraud the document that makes our country separate from the crown of England. If you're going to continue ranting that Nature's God means there is no God, and that Creator doesn't mean what it means, fine. While you are reading the Declaration of Independence you may want to reference it with Romans ch 1-3 and you will see there is no mistaking what they wrote. These were men who acknowledged God and his laws. These were men who knew of God through the Bible.

 

[Kade]

Kade, have you even read the Declaration of Independence? When you do we can continue this discussion. It is very clear that the document that made the U.S. a separate nation described the Creator of nature as well as the laws which he made very apparent through his creation. To deny such is to defraud the document that makes our country separate from the crown of England. If you're going to continue ranting that Nature's God means there is no God, and that Creator doesn't mean what it means, fine. While you are reading the Declaration of Independence you may want to reference it with Romans ch 1-3 and you will see there is no mistaking what they wrote. These were men who acknowledged God and his laws. These were men who knew of God through the Bible.

It is required reading for my law degree...

Your most flawed statement lies in the last one... although most of what you said is flawed:

These were men who knew of God through the Bible.

Wrong.

Please read my feelings on this from before... I would ask that others join in on this, because it is getting tiring... majority of the most important founding fathers were DEIST... the bible had no say in the creation of this nation.