Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: crusaders

  1. #1
    By nature christians are missionaries and crusaders..just like orthodox islamics they want NO separation between church and state...therefore they are unamerican b/c we have a constitution that says there is a separation..
    I think we need to go on a crusade to uncristianize the south..
    Do it for your country!

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] By nature christians are missionaries and crusaders..just like orthodox islamics they want NO separation between church and state...therefore they are unamerican b/c we have a constitution that says there is a separation..
    I think we need to go on a crusade to uncristianize the south..
    Do it for your country! [/b][/quote]
    Show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,217
    crusaders were a great jazz band in the '70's.

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b]
    I think we need to go on a crusade to uncristianize the south..
    [/b][/quote]
    How about a crusade where I walk up to your terminal and pop you in the mouth?

  5. #5
    come out sackdance..your party will learn to accept you.

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant+Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (JetFanTransplant @ Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] By nature christians are missionaries and crusaders..just like orthodox islamics they want NO separation between church and state...therefore they are unamerican b/c we have a constitution that says there is a separation..
    I think we need to go on a crusade to uncristianize the south..
    Do it for your country&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

    The section of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has been interpreted for a long time as meaning an implied "Separation of Church and State".

    In a similar argument, Article 4 has been interpreted to mean the "Right to Own Guns":

    [quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

    In both cases, the specific language we are seeking for clarification is simply not there. The "No establishment Clause" has been interpreted the way it has because the idea that a Ten Commandments Monument, for example, put in a public Governmental Building or other Publicly supported or enforcement structure (Court, Govt. Office, Police Station, etc.) is, by direct extension, an establishment or direct endorsement of one religion (In reality two, Catholicism and it&#39;s sub-set of various Protestant Christian Faiths, and the Hebrew faith) over all others. The implied bias is that those of the chosen faiths will be treated better by the supposedly neutral U.S. Govt. than those of differing faiths.

    In the second case, the "right to bear arms" was written so vaguely as to be almost impossible to truly know the meaning meant. It can just as easily be interpreted as a "Mandatory Military" Right as it can a Right to Own Guns, and any Guns we Wish, including the Bullets&#33;". Arms itself is a vague term. A sword is an "Arm". So is an Abrams M1A2 Tank or an A-10 Thunderbolt II (the Warthog) Anti-Tank Support Aircraft. Obviously, your average American Citizen is (correctly) not permitted to own a Warthog. However, if taken purely at face value, an "arm" could be interpreted to be ANY weapon of War that could potentially be obtained. Clearly, that is not the case in reality.

    As a society, we have to look at the sometimes-vague intentions of the Founding Fathers, and use those guidelines to best serve the interests and safety of the American People. That, above all else, is the defining reason for the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Government. To provide for the Safety and Well Being (within limits and reason) of the People who allow them, through the Democratic Process, to rule over them.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Darkstar Rising+Nov 5 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Darkstar Rising @ Nov 5 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant@Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] By nature christians are missionaries and crusaders..just like orthodox islamics they want NO separation between church and state...therefore they are unamerican b/c we have a constitution that says there is a separation..
    I think we need to go on a crusade to uncristianize the south..
    Do it for your country&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

    The section of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has been interpreted for a long time as meaning an implied "Separation of Church and State".

    In a similar argument, Article 4 has been interpreted to mean the "Right to Own Guns":

    [quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

    In both cases, the specific language we are seeking for clarification is simply not there. The "No establishment Clause" has been interpreted the way it has because the idea that a Ten Commandments Monument, for example, put in a public Governmental Building or other Publicly supported or enforcement structure (Court, Govt. Office, Police Station, etc.) is, by direct extension, an establishment or direct endorsement of one religion (In reality two, Catholicism and it&#39;s sub-set of various Protestant Christian Faiths, and the Hebrew faith) over all others. The implied bias is that those of the chosen faiths will be treated better by the supposedly neutral U.S. Govt. than those of differing faiths.

    In the second case, the "right to bear arms" was written so vaguely as to be almost impossible to truly know the meaning meant. It can just as easily be interpreted as a "Mandatory Military" Right as it can a Right to Own Guns, and any Guns we Wish, including the Bullets&#33;". Arms itself is a vague term. A sword is an "Arm". So is an Abrams M1A2 Tank or an A-10 Thunderbolt II (the Warthog) Anti-Tank Support Aircraft. Obviously, your average American Citizen is (correctly) not permitted to own a Warthog. However, if taken purely at face value, an "arm" could be interpreted to be ANY weapon of War that could potentially be obtained. Clearly, that is not the case in reality.

    As a society, we have to look at the sometimes-vague intentions of the Founding Fathers, and use those guidelines to best serve the interests and safety of the American People. That, above all else, is the defining reason for the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Government. To provide for the Safety and Well Being (within limits and reason) of the People who allow them, through the Democratic Process, to rule over them. [/b][/quote]
    So what your saying then is that there is NO PLACE in the constitution that states Separation of Church and State.

    Rather, it plainly states that the govt will not INTERFERE with freedom of religion or attempt to ESTABLISH as particular religion as the doctrine of the country.

    Thanks for clearing it up.

    Get your notebook, cause you are about to go to school:


    Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson&#39;s letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

    I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
    The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist&#39;s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
    When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

    The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

    The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God&#39;s ways were much higher than Man&#39;s ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

    There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

    Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960&#39;s. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country&#39;s.

    Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man&#39;s heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that&#39;s why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

    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 Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. 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. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? 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 founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

    In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn&#39;t want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard&#39;s Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God&#39;s protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990&#39;s -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

    There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone&#39;s morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man&#39;s ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

    1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

    2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

    3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

    4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 02:18 PM
    [b] come out sackdance..your party will learn to accept you. [/b][/quote]
    I feel better now. I just looked at your predictions for this election. :rolleyes:

  9. #9
    Bush admin. gives money to FAITH based charities..FAITH meaning CHRISTIAN charities..that is against the constitution..Bush is un american.

  10. #10
    [quote][b]Get your notebook, cause you are about to go to school:[/b][/quote]

    There is no need for such blatant ego and aggression JetsFanTransplant. I simply tried to answer a raised question about why some people think the way they do on this issue. It was in no way intended as an endorsement of that viewpoint. And to be honest, not a single fact in your obviously pre-saved "cut & paste" is new to me. In the future, you might wish to actually ask the person you are responding to before you arrogantly (and wrongly, in this case) assume they are your enemy.

    To be clear, I have no issue with Religious items in Public life at all. If the duly elected Representatives of a town, city, state or even the Federal Govt. want to put a Cross, the Ten Commandments, a Koran or any other Religious item in a visible and/or prominent Public Area, then that is the will of the duly elected Representatives and should be permitted. Democracy, in my view, trumps all (as long as it is within the guidelines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 03:30 PM
    [b] Bush admin. gives money to FAITH based charities..FAITH meaning CHRISTIAN charities..that is against the constitution..Bush is un american. [/b][/quote]
    This Rep and Christian does like the idea of federal funding for faith based charities.

    1. Who&#39;s faith? Christian? Islamic? Wiccan? These are all faiths and all have freedom of religion, or freedom to not practice religion at all.

    2. I&#39;d rather my faith not be influenced by the federal government. By receiving funds from them, they may decide to have a say so in how these funds are spent.

    That&#39;s just two reasons.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Darkstar Rising[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 02:42 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Get your notebook, cause you are about to go to school:[/b][/quote]

    There is no need for such blatant ego and aggression JetsFanTransplant. I simply tried to answer a raised question about why some people think the way they do on this issue. It was in no way intended as an endorsement of that viewpoint. And to be honest, not a single fact in your obviously pre-saved "cut & paste" is new to me. In the future, you might wish to actually ask the person you are responding to before you arrogantly (and wrongly, in this case) assume they are your enemy.

    To be clear, I have no issue with Religious items in Public life at all. If the duly elected Representatives of a town, city, state or even the Federal Govt. want to put a Cross, the Ten Commandments, a Koran or any other Religious item in a visible and/or prominent Public Area, then that is the will of the duly elected Representatives and should be permitted. Democracy, in my view, trumps all (as long as it is within the guidelines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights). [/b][/quote]
    I apologize for the &#39;tude I expressed. I just get so damn fired up about "those wacko Christians" and the myth about separation of church and state.

    There is no such thing as separation of church and state except in the minds of liberal judges.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us