Why not a secular government?

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Legal diatribe aside, what's so bad about having a secular government? The government will not tell you what you can or cannot workship, and you don't have to worry about those with differnt beliefs using the government as a tool to further the proselytizing of their beliefs over yours. Would you prefer that Hinduism were adopted as the official religion of Kentucky? I can't see that flying too high with the Muslims and Christians in Kentucky. Who're the Hindu's to tell them what religion they belong to as a citizen of the state? Keep the faith in yourself, and offer it to those who seek it. Shout your praise from the hilltops, or put it on your bumper. But why feel the need to subject everyone to a belief they simply don't agree with through the mandate of law? This is not your country, this is not my country, this is our coutry so lets not piss on eachothers lawns and have a beer

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Legal diatribe aside, what's so bad about having a secular government?

What's so bad about having a government that accepts Christianity? That doesn't mean that the government has to be Christian-based, or that other religions aren't allowed; it means that the government can express it's Christian heritage. Our country was based on Christian values, and the majority of the population continues to follow Christian teachings. That is why the 10 commandments should be allowed in public places: not to start another Inquisition, but to express out history.

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Legal diatribe aside, what's so bad about having a secular government?

What's so bad about having a government that accepts Christianity? That doesn't mean that the government has to be Christian-based, or that other religions aren't allowed; it means that the government can express it's Christian heritage. Our country was based on Christian values, and the majority of the population continues to follow Christian teachings. That is why the 10 commandments should be allowed in public places: not to start another Inquisition, but to express out history.

A government can accept christianity without sticking christian heritage in everyones face. Just because it can't put up christian monuments doesn't mean christianity isn't acceptable.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Legal diatribe aside, what's so bad about having a secular government?

What's so bad about having a government that accepts Christianity? That doesn't mean that the government has to be Christian-based, or that other religions aren't allowed; it means that the government can express it's Christian heritage. Our country was based on Christian values, and the majority of the population continues to follow Christian teachings. That is why the 10 commandments should be allowed in public places: not to start another Inquisition, but to express out history.

It can only accept Christianity if it equally accepts every other form of worship and belief...THAT is what our country was founded on...that and the right to disagree with all concepts and seek change. Furthermore the fundamentalist pressures as well as the media hype in the last 150 years have GREATLY affected our possibilities at an HONEST history lesson. For every piece of support FOR something in our history there's an equal amount of support AGAINST the same thing.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

To me that's like saying a guy should be proud be because he happened to be born with a prticular skin color. And by the way, I accept Christianity, I'm not Christian, but I really don't have any problem with it. I just don't think a fragment of our society (regardless of its proportion) should have their beliefs held to a higher level of acknowledgment than any other. Be Christian, be happy, but don't force yourself on people. It's aggravating. This country is no more yours than mine, or anybody else's. As far as it being a part of our heritage, so was slavery, segregation, and McCarthyism. Is it time to enshrine those to?

 

[daniel1113]

That's not the point... one man's view is not being placed above another. Our heritage is simply being displayed. That doesn't mean that other religions and such can't express thir views in the same manner. The government can ADMIT it's past without supporting Christianity.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me that's like saying a guy should be proud be because he happened to be born with a prticular skin color. And by the way, I accept Christianity, I'm not Christian, but I really don't have any problem with it. I just don't think a fragment of our society (regardless of its proportion) should have their beliefs held to a higher level of acknowledgment than any other. Be Christian, be happy, but don't force yourself on people. It's aggravating. This country is no more yours than mine, or anybody else's. As far as it being a part of our heritage, so was slavery, segregation, and McCarthyism. Is it time to enshrine those to?

The government admits that slavery occured in the U.S., and even has a museum on the subject that is funded by our tax dollars (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/082003/08132003/1069507).

Under that same token, why can't the government admit it's Christian base, and build a museum about it?

Just because the government admits its past doesn't mean it supports it. No one is going to support slavery just because they went to a museum about it.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me that's like saying a guy should be proud be because he happened to be born with a prticular skin color. And by the way, I accept Christianity, I'm not Christian, but I really don't have any problem with it. I just don't think a fragment of our society (regardless of its proportion) should have their beliefs held to a higher level of acknowledgment than any other. Be Christian, be happy, but don't force yourself on people. It's aggravating. This country is no more yours than mine, or anybody else's. As far as it being a part of our heritage, so was slavery, segregation, and McCarthyism. Is it time to enshrine those to?

The government admits that slavery occured in the U.S., and even has a museum on the subject that is funded by our tax dollars (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/082003/08132003/1069507).

Under that same token, why can't the government admit it's Christian base, and build a museum about it?

Just because the government admits its past doesn't mean it supports it. No one is going to support slavery just because they went to a museum about it.

Apples and Oranges. Slavery is no longer practiced. Once Christianity has died out, then you can build a history museum about it.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

If someone is intimidated by the 10 commandments in a court house, they have some real problems. No one is going to change their religious views as a result of a statue. If they do, they weren't very strong in their beliefs to start off with. Now, if Judge Moore convicted a man to ten years in prison because he took "the name of the Lord thy God in vain", then we have a big problem; but as of now, there is no evidence to prove that anything of the sort has occured.

Why should we be allowed to punish people for stealing? After all, cannot the original law of "thou shalt not steal" be traced back to Moses and the ten commandments? Uh oh! It looks like the government is supporting religion.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

It's a good thing Moses came along when he did, otherwise all of civilization that existed the several millenia before the birth of Christ wouldn't know stealing was bad

 

[JellyBaby]

We have a secular federal government, one that happens to be based on christian principles and values and one that's designed from ideas and ideals put forth in the christian bible.

Actually, I really don't believe there's anything in the constitution forbidding Kentucky from creating a Church of Kentucky, if it really wanted to. Kentuckians can always flee in terror to Tennessee should the Church begin burning them at the stake. But the feds can't form a Church of America. But in any event Kentucky won't bother and we're assured the U.S. government can't do it either.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

If someone is intimidated by the 10 commandments in a court house, they have some real problems. No one is going to change their religious views as a result of a statue. If they do, they weren't very strong in their beliefs to start off with. Now, if Judge Moore convicted a man to ten years in prison because he took "the name of the Lord thy God in vain", then we have a big problem; but as of now, there is no evidence to prove that anything of the sort has occured.

Why should we be allowed to punish people for stealing? After all, cannot the original law of "thou shalt not steal" be traced back to Moses and the ten commandments? Uh oh! It looks like the government is supporting religion.

Like?

Maybe they worship a different God. Perhaps they worship Idols. I'm sure no one finds certain Commandments "offensive", but to ignore the Primary Commandments is dishonesty.

 

[magomago]

If someone is intimidated by the 10 commandments in a court house, they have some real problems

Quite the contrary people would. If you aren't Christian and walk in and see a 2 ton Monument of the 10 commandments and you know what that is as you approach your coutroom I'm sure would think for a second as whether they will rule on your case based on law or based on what they beleive is God.

All I know is that my mom definitely would - especially because she wears a hijab so it to her seeing the 2 ton monument would mean "We rule on Christian law and you suck if you are not one". Well she didn't tell me the "you suck" part but that is my way of saying it

After all, cannot the original law of "thou shalt not steal" be traced back to Moses and the ten commandments?

So you are telling me that before Moses people stole and it was morally accepted?

Okayy....

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

you need a history lesson

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html

 

[Kadarin]

The problem with a "Christian government" is that the rights of the minority must also be protected. Can you imagine the look on Chief Justice Moore's face if he were forced to accept some kind of Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist monument in the Alabama Judicial Building? I suspect a blood vessel or two in his face would explode.. The government should never have the appearance of being hostile towards other religions, because that interferes with everyone's right to participate in the political process.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

you need a history lesson

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html

You need a history lesson:

http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm

QUOTE:

Thomas Jefferson, the man "blamed" for the wall of separation between church and state said:

"I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"No power over the freedom of religion . . .[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

And last, but certainly not least:

Gerald Ford, quoted a speech made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955:

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be."

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The problem with a "Christian government" is that the rights of the minority must also be protected. Can you imagine the look on Chief Justice Moore's face if he were forced to accept some kind of Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist monument in the Alabama Judicial Building? I suspect a blood vessel or two in his face would explode.. The government should never have the appearance of being hostile towards other religions, because that interferes with everyone's right to participate in the political process.

The rights of the minority are MORE than protected in this country. In fact, it is to the point where a minority is regarded higher than the majority, and that is wrong. What ever happened to the great level of tolerance that you liberals preach (Oops, I shouldn't say preach. That probably offends some anti-Christian group)? Oh, that's right. By tolerance you mean tolerance of the minorities and immoral, not the silent majority.

 

[daniel1113]

Also, I thought it would be fitting for all of you to read the New England Charter of 1620 which can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/mass01.htm. Here are the opening lines:

JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. to all whom these Presents shall come, Greeting, Whereas, upon the humble Petition of divers of our well disposed Subjects, that intended to make several Plantations in the Parts of America, between the Degrees of thirty-ffoure and ffourty-five; We according to our princely Inclination, favouring much their worthy Disposition, in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty, as also by that Meanes to streatch out the Bounds of our Dominions, and to replenish those Deserts with People governed by Lawes and Magistrates, for the peaceable Commerce of all, that in time to come shall have occasion to traffique into those Territoryes, granted unto Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, Knights, Thomas Hanson, and Raleigh Gilbert, Esquires, and of their Associates, for the more speedy Accomplishment thereof, by our Letters-Pattent, bearing Date the Tenth Day of Aprill, in the Fourth Year of our Reign of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland the ffourtieth, free Liberty to divide themselves into two several Collonyes; the one called the first Collonye, to be undertaken and advanced by certain Knights, Gentlemen, and Merchants, in and about our Cyty of London; the other called the Second Collonye, to be undertaken and advanced by certaine Knights, Gentlemen, and Merchants, and their associates, in and about our Citties of Bristol, Exon, and our Towne of Plymouth, and other Places, as in and by our said Letters-Pattents, amongst other Things more att large it doth and may appears.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

you need a history lesson

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html

You need a history lesson:

http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm

QUOTE:

Thomas Jefferson, the man "blamed" for the wall of separation between church and state said:

"I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"No power over the freedom of religion . . .[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

And last, but certainly not least:

Gerald Ford, quoted a speech made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955:

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be."

The founding fathers of the United States were religiously neutral, and rightfully so. This is a well known fact.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
It's a good thing Moses came along when he did, otherwise all of civilization that existed the several millenia before the birth of Christ wouldn't know stealing was bad

Lol - Is this statement not dripping wet with sarcasm ? Anways I'd say that The Code of Hammurabi which was the basis and a model of most if not all law systems ( even Christian/Jewish laws ) had more of an influence on our society.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me that's like saying a guy should be proud be because he happened to be born with a prticular skin color. And by the way, I accept Christianity, I'm not Christian, but I really don't have any problem with it. I just don't think a fragment of our society (regardless of its proportion) should have their beliefs held to a higher level of acknowledgment than any other. Be Christian, be happy, but don't force yourself on people. It's aggravating. This country is no more yours than mine, or anybody else's. As far as it being a part of our heritage, so was slavery, segregation, and McCarthyism. Is it time to enshrine those to?

The government admits that slavery occured in the U.S., and even has a museum on the subject that is funded by our tax dollars (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/082003/08132003/1069507).

Under that same token, why can't the government admit it's Christian base, and build a museum about it?

Just because the government admits its past doesn't mean it supports it. No one is going to support slavery just because they went to a museum about it.

Because the government is NOT CHRISTIAN BASED. That's where I get really pi$$ed off when talking to fundies. Yes, some of our founding fathers were of the Christian faith, or some offshoot...but the country itself and ESPECIALLY it's government is IN NO WAY A RELIGIOUS GROUP/ORGANIZATION AND IT WILL NEVER BE! There are enough people willing to kill or die to ensure that that I feel confident in proclaiming it. God didn't give our forefathers this country, we stole it from the Indians fair and square </sarcasm>, every conceivable bit of writing or evidence supports the desire of our founders to NOT create a religious nation, but a nation where religious men could live free and prosper. Failure to learn that and accept it is an abomination to the legacy of those that fought for the first free nation.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

If someone is intimidated by the 10 commandments in a court house, they have some real problems. No one is going to change their religious views as a result of a statue. If they do, they weren't very strong in their beliefs to start off with. Now, if Judge Moore convicted a man to ten years in prison because he took "the name of the Lord thy God in vain", then we have a big problem; but as of now, there is no evidence to prove that anything of the sort has occured.

Why should we be allowed to punish people for stealing? After all, cannot the original law of "thou shalt not steal" be traced back to Moses and the ten commandments? Uh oh! It looks like the government is supporting religion.

No, in fact it can't. English law, which is where our law comes from, is derived from Hammurabi's code, which itself came from the general historic practice of various tribes and peoples predating Christ by between 2000 and 4000 years. This would predate Moses by 1000-3000 years, depending on which sources you believe. Our laws are NOT christian laws, they are the laws of men as created and then modified by man...influenced by various beliefs certainly, but BEGINNING LONG BEFORE any commandments as we know them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Admit is fine, acknowledge that Christianity may have in fact been a significant part of the lives of the men that drafted our constitution, but do not display it in such a way that would actually intimidate someone belonging to another faith when entering a court of law. I would suggest that if you reaaaally wanted to display 2 metric tons worth of Christian Law you do it in a historical context, perhaps a meuseum? Just somewhere other than where law is interepreted or made, because that just sends the wrong message.

you need a history lesson

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html

You need a history lesson:

http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm

QUOTE:

Thomas Jefferson, the man "blamed" for the wall of separation between church and state said:

"I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"No power over the freedom of religion . . .[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

And last, but certainly not least:

Gerald Ford, quoted a speech made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955:

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be."

Eisenhower was the culmination of McCarthyism and Ford of the red scare and vietnam debacle. They were brainwashed by the same media fed hypes and fears as everyone else of the decade, focused by the Knights of Columbus into yet another incarnation of religious proagandaism and political maneuverings...it happened during the civil war too, and before that the crusades, and so on. It is always easier to subvert men with emotion during stress and fear.

No one doubts that some founders and future leaders have been religious. Some catholic, some deist, some agnostic, and so on. What we debate is rather the beliefs of one elected representative in any way form the crux of a national religion or tendancy of religion.

 

[gopunk]

If someone is intimidated by the 10 commandments in a court house, they have some real problems. No one is going to change their religious views as a result of a statue. If they do, they weren't very strong in their beliefs to start off with. Now, if Judge Moore convicted a man to ten years in prison because he took "the name of the Lord thy God in vain", then we have a big problem; but as of now, there is no evidence to prove that anything of the sort has occured.

perhaps "intimidated" wasn't the right word. in any event, i think you and i both know why most people would want such a thing there... to send a message to non-christians, to say "look, our country was founded on OUR beliefs". everybody says it's about something else, but when it comes down to it, everybody knows this is just about a bunch of people wanting to toot their horns in the faces of others.

Why should we be allowed to punish people for stealing? After all, cannot the original law of "thou shalt not steal" be traced back to Moses and the ten commandments? Uh oh! It looks like the government is supporting religion.

there are quite a few civilizations that believed stealing was wrong, before christianity was even thought up.