Secular Country? Obama Sides With Jefferson, Madison, Paine

President Obama made one of the most important statements of his young presidency when he said in Turkey that the United States is not "a Christian nation."

Rob Boston was right when he noted on the Americans United for Separation of Church and State site, Obama's secular declaration "reflects the best of Jefferson's thinking."

Unfortunately, ahistorical social conservatives are not inclined to share the sense of presidents past or present that, in Obama's words, "(America is) a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage."

The president has taken hard hits in recent days for his announcement in Turkey that: "I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is –- although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population -– we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Constitutional rewritemen Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly disagree, as does noted historian and Biblical scholar Chuck Norris, who argues that, "the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous..."

As difficult as it may be counter with that sort of "reasoning," it probably makes sense to turn, once more, to Mr. Jefferson.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions," the third president wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, "I contemplate with sovereign 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."

Was Jefferson an outlier?

Well, James Madison, the essential arbiter on matters constitutional, explained that: "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

And the common sense of the most visionary of the founders, Tom Paine, led him to observe that: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Comments (171)

1. From the Treaty with Tripoli 1796-97, Article 11: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

   Of course, if Chuck Norris disagrees...gee, I'll bet Joe the Plumber agrees with Chucky. Yeah, that oughta settle it!

   Posted by jmusolino at 04/07/2009 @ 4:05pm

2. While I certainly agree that we are not a Christian nation, it is the height of arrogance to suggest as Nichols does that Christianity has played no influence upon our ideals on the roles and responsibilities of govt.

   It begins as it must with the Declaration of Independence which establishes that our rights come not from man but from our Creator.

   Congress begins each days session with a prayer from the Chaplain.

   Washington's Farewell Address.

   It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

   The National Day of Prayer has been a fixture of our national character through many presidents back to John Adams

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:15pm

3. More on the prayer and our national character.

   SCOTUS has even ruled that prayer in the legislature is valid (MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 -1983)

   The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. In the very courtrooms in which the United States District Judge and later three Circuit Judges heard and decided this case, the proceedings opened with an announcement that concluded, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The same invocation occurs at all sessions of this Court. [463 U.S. 783, 787]

   The tradition in many of the Colonies was, of course, linked to an established church, but the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, adopted the traditional procedure of opening its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain.

   Although prayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention, the First Congress, as one of [463 U.S. 783, 788] its early items of business, adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer. Thus, on April 7, 1789, the Senate appointed a committee "to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains." S. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1820 ed.). .). On April 9, 1789, a similar committee was appointed by the House of Representatives. On April 25, 1789, the Senate elected its first chaplain, id., at 16; the House followed suit on May 1, 1789, H. R. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1826 ed.). A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:20pm

4. This is a Democracy not a Theocracy too few people seem to understand the difference. There are times when I would love to see a temporary Theocratic takeover . Can you just picture Newt Gingrich forced to wear not one but two Scarlet Letters? In a truly Christian nation healthcare would be universal as would support for widows and orphans. Wouldn't that just frost those braying asses in the Republican party. Also, as Jesus was very specific in what he thought about moneylenders and moneychangers wouldn't you just love to see them squirm? They would be begging for a return to the good old days of Democratic government

   Posted by sstjames at 04/07/2009 @ 4:39pm

5. While I certainly agree that we are not a Christian nation,.......

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:15pm

   I'm surprised that you jumped into the PC madness. I actually think the US is a "Christian nation"....just as we are a Capitalist nation, a Western nation, a Sporty nation, violent nation, and so on and so forth.....

   All of these properly describe our nation as a matter of generalities and no one who is educated beyond middle school level, can possibly assume that as a "Christian nation", ALL Americans are Christians.

   Given the number of mass shootings in the most recent month, have we lived up to our "violent nation" image? Does this mean all of us are potentially violent and going Postal is taught in Sunday schools?

   Posted by Happy at 04/07/2009 @ 5:00pm

6. Larry, you'll note that in the Declaration of Independence the phrase is "endowed by their Creator". They didn't use the Judeo-Christian term, did they? And in the 21st Century, organized religion has, as has been the case so often throughout history, utterly divorced itself from morality, choosing instead to pursue wealth and power.

   Posted by jmusolino at 04/07/2009 @ 5:02pm

7. Larry, you'll note that in the Declaration of Independence the phrase is "endowed by their Creator". They didn't use the Judeo-Christian term, did they? And in the 21st Century, organized religion has, as has been the case so often throughout history, utterly divorced itself from morality, choosing instead to pursue wealth and power.

   Posted by jmusolino at 04/07/2009 @ 5:02pm

   I'm fully aware of the phraseology. What is significant to it is not the phraseology, but who they deem our rights to come from. Our rights do not come from man. This is counter to the view of most of the left who believe that it is govt that gives people their rights.

   And your blanket condemnation of religious faith as solely concerned with wealth and power is at best misguided/misinformed.

   Speaking from the view of the Christian faith, the vast majority of faithful Christians are not concerned about wealth and power. We are engaged in living out our faith, sharing the Good News of Christ in both word and deed. We feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give water to the thirsty, take in the homeless, adopt orphans, and visit those in prison.

   I'm sorry you allow the media to shape a mistaken view of the vast majority of faithful Christians.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 5:25pm

8. by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 5:25pm...

   Good post.

   What we are in danger of creating... by calling ourselves a "Christian Nation"... is a state aligned religious outlook that our forefathers were very wary of.

   Much of the migration to the new world was instigated by the desire for a genuine 'freedom of religion'... and, though most of these people were disputing 'christian' principles, the implicit meaning of 'freedom of religion' has been much more broadly interpreted than this from the beginning.

   By doing so... our Democracy avoids the insanities and the casualties of 'State sanctioned' holy wars... thus insulating the welfare of the country as a whole from one of the more consistently psychotic mass behaviors of human interactions...

   I would assert, however... that many of the 'more progressive than thou' atheists these days... are more intolerant of any religious sentiment than the spirit of the law could ever give credence to...

   ...as you will no doubt agree...;^)

   Posted by ttr at 04/07/2009 @ 6:12pm

9. How can anyone quote a slave-holding godless bastard like Jefferson?

   Posted by ACook at 04/07/2009 @ 6:31pm

10. ...as you will no doubt agree...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 04/07/2009 @ 6:

    yes, their's is a strange posture towards tolerance and diversity.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 6:56pm

11. "It begins as it must with the Declaration of Independence which establishes that our rights come not from man but from our Creator."

    Yes, "antisocialist," but note also that these rights, in the selfsame clause, are called "inalienable." Not "inalienable by man, but not by God," but just plain "inalienable."

    Neither God, nor people who claim to speak for God, have the right to deny us our inalienable rights.

    Nor do we entrust our government to a hereditary monarch whose right to rule is said to be a "divine right," that is, a right bestowed by God. Rather, we place faith in each other to elect our leaders.

    If this is a religious principle, then we must call it "vox populi, vox dei." Certainly, there is nothing specifically Christian about this principle. Call it humanist theism, if you like, or, if you prefer, religious humanism.

    Or, if we prefer, we can admit that our concept of government is secular, that is, humble enough to admit that it is our creation, not God's. From this it follows that though God may not be improvable, our government (God knows) most certainly is always in need of improvement.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 7:16pm

12. Given the number of mass shootings in the most recent month, have we lived up to our "violent nation" image? Does this mean all of us are potentially violent and going Postal is taught in Sunday schools?

    Posted by Happy at 04/07/2009 @ 5:00pm

    I think the point is that whether you can say that Christianity is the most dominant religion that this country is not governed according to Christianity. It has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with saying that religion does not control the country.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:21pm

13. "I'm fully aware of the phraseology. What is significant to it is not the phraseology, but who they deem our rights to come from. Our rights do not come from man. This is counter to the view of most of the left who believe that it is govt that gives people their rights. "

    No, the left believes that the government takes away rights. For instance Jim Crow laws. Which I think is accurate. You tried to claim that this is a Judeo-Christian nation because of the statement made in the Declaration. But as has been shown it didn't say God. It said creator. Creator can be interpreted to mean anything based on your belief system. If I believe I am created by the Earth then I get my rights from the Earth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:25pm

14. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 7:16pm

    I agree with the founders that our rights are inalienable from the Creator. The only way they can be inalienable by definition is if they are from a source other than us. Otherwise, they have the capability of being changed or removed.

    To place this in the hands of humanism as you cite is to give the rights a less than inalienable status. What man gives, they can take away.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 7:26pm

15. How can anyone quote a slave-holding godless bastard like Jefferson?

    Posted by ACook at 04/07/2009 @ 6:31pm

    You live in a country created by slave-holding bastards and I defy you to find one country on this planet whose founders did not commit some sort of terrible act.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:28pm

16. Posted by Happy at 04/07/2009 @ 5:00pm

    I think Happy that Liberty would agree with you on the "Christian Nation" claim but of course he is also right in that there is no such thing as a Christian nation. Christianity is a universal religion that transcends national loyalties. And ultimately it transcends temporal things like national identity. So if every American, if that were possible, lived up to every Christian precept, it would still not make America a Christian nation. That is where the athiests, agnostics and others worried about "state and church" miss the boat.

    Thus all that can be said is that America, perhaps more than any nation on earth, has been influenced by Christian doctrines and precepts and that largely because your founders were also. So on just about every front the atheists, agnostics and their fellow travellers are fighting to change and destroy many of the cultural attitudes that are the result of those Christian influences.

    To be topical, the drive for the recognition of same sex couplings or unions as marriages is against an American cultural tradition that is very firmly grounded in Christianity and the plain teaching of Jesus and the NT writers.

    I live in a very secular society, when measured against America, in which both sides, left and right, most of whom are, for all practical purposes atheists or agnostics, a few years ago passed a law in federal parliament defining marriage as being between a man and women only. My first response is to say that is based on a rational and non religious understanding of what "marriage" is. However as with America I lean to the proposition that they also, athiests and agnostics included, can't get away from their religious roots.

    That is the sense in which America is a "Christian" nation.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:39pm

17. by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 7:16pm...

    ...and it is in the best interest of 'man'... to accept full responsibility for the maintenance and oversight of the governing entities... with spiritual guidance as each man sees fit as an individual...

    Though the State can benefit a great deal from each individual's heartfelt spiritual insight and genuine development... it is of the utmost importance for practical and effective governance to avoid religious partiality at all costs.

    Tis a gift to be simple, tis a gift to be free...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 04/07/2009 @ 7:40pm

18. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:39pm

    Must have been following the polygamy argument too closely. We haven't got there yet so our law is man and woman (not women). (Sorry happy for the false alarm but probably not worth immigrating just yet).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:49pm

19. You live in a country created by slave-holding bastards and I defy you to find one country on this planet whose founders did not commit some sort of terrible act.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:28pm

    C3, I'm only speaking out about that one individual. And if the opportunity ever presented itself, I would truly piss on his grave.

    Some days I just don't understand how a nation can say it hates one president for destroying countless lives through war and yet embrace another president who equally destroyed countless lives through slavery (which is a form of war)?

    Posted by ACook at 04/07/2009 @ 8:09pm

20. "it is the height of arrogance to suggest as Nichols does that Christianity has played no influence upon our ideals on the roles and responsibilities of govt. " - antisocialist

    WHERE does Nichols suggest this, exactly? please point to the exact word or words in the above article where he comes even close, to implying those words that you so artlessly put in his mouth.

    personally, i believe that it is abundantly obvious that christianity has influenced our nation's system of government, but it is also abundantly obvious that what Nichols writes above is correct and accurate... so don't try to create a wedge issue where none exists. nobody is asking you or anyone else to choose between christianity and democracy.

    Posted by canaro71 at 04/07/2009 @ 9:10pm

21. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 7:16pm </i>

    I think this is where the balance gets very interesting. To start with, I agree with antisocialist that anchoring rights in human beings means they definitionally can't be inalienable; the only way they can be inalienable is if they can be anchored in something that's, well, an actual anchor (so to speak).

    At the same time, I also share your concern about the danger of policy driven by religion, even as I'd argue that a careful balance is necessary. On the one hand, any politician who presumes they know exactly what policy God wants (What Would Jesus Tax?) is a megalomaniac, plain and simple. At the same time, to suggest that religious precepts should or could have no impact on policy debates is equally problematic; anyone else remember Jimmy Stewart's speech as Senator Smith calling on his fellow Senators to "love thy neighbor" (a precept capable of acceptance by all but also specifically drawn from religious texts)?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/07/2009 @ 9:47pm

22. Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:15pm

    Before anybody accuses Larry of the sin of being open-minded...he's merely avoding being caught in an inconssitancy!

    See, earlier, he declared that most Americans who THINK they are Christians...really aren't. As part of his general theory that most Muslims (his figure was 85-90%) aren't "real Muslims", just "devotees of Islam"...itself a part of his attempt to reconcile his Islamophobia and his neo-conservatism.

    Ergo, if he steps up now and BLATENTLY (oh, sure, he'll try it subtlely) says that America is a "Christian nation"...he knows he'll get his previous "devotees" theory thrown in his face.

    But "Lord knows" he's just chomping at the bit to have it both ways!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 9:55pm

23. so don't try to create a wedge issue where none exists. nobody is asking you or anyone else to choose between christianity and democracy. Posted by canaro71 at 04/07/2009 @ 9:10pm

    Exactly. The only way christian doctrine can survive intact after ages of hypocrisy is to constantly engage in a defensive, revisionist debate whenever logic rears it's ugly head. And that's what 'belief' is all about'. Totally subjective religious philosophy based on mythology.

    Let's start with Abraham and why god allowed two forms of faith to occur that would conflict, even be at war with one another; if he was all powerful and mighty, why would he allow such a thing to happen?

    One might reason that God started a lot of unnecessary conflict by his actions (or inaction). He should have made Sarah fertile to begin with instead of allowing Ishmael to be born; he had the power, supposedly. This seems to be an axial mystery that speaks directly to the overall claims of validity of BOTH forms of 'faith'. A giant hole that can only be addressed by using the age old line of bullshit that started the whole process of dislocated logic... "God works in mysterious ways".

    Posted by ficheye at 04/07/2009 @ 10:16pm

24. We haven't got there yet so our law is man and woman (not women). (Sorry happy for the false alarm but probably not worth immigrating just yet).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 7:49pm

    :~)......But it surely is achievable.....for a more secular country (than the US) that actually defined "marriage" the "Christian nation" way.

    Hey, this month's National Geographics has a 24-page article, "Australia's Dry Run", that deals with your thirsty Murray-Darlin Basin. Looked through the photo captions but haven't had time to read it!

    Posted by Happy at 04/07/2009 @ 10:23pm

25. Some days I just don't understand how a nation can say it hates one president for destroying countless lives through war and yet embrace another president who equally destroyed countless lives through slavery (which is a form of war)?

    Posted by ACook at 04/07/2009 @ 8:09pm

    I'm not defending Thomas Jefferson's lack of insight in owning slaves. But you also have to remember that it was a different time. People did not view slavery then as we do now. There's a lot of things we do now that I am sure 200 years down the line will be looked at by future people's and scoffed at.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 10:36pm

26. <i>Posted by ficheye at 04/07/2009 @ 10:16pm </i>

    Unfortunately, this is a slew of bad arguments. I'll address the primary two.

    First, the foundational premise that belief is mutually exclusive with logic. Put most simply...why? If your premise is that completely LITERALIST belief is logically problematic, I can grant you that easily. Why does this apply to belief as a whole.

    Second, the more specific argument that history belies the notion of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God suffers from two fatal flaws. First, it presupposes that we have far greater knowledge than we in fact possess. "God acts in mysterious ways" isn't just a cute slogan; it's a recognition that even though the actions of a perfect moral actor must in some ways resonate with our own understandings of morality, our finite minds and limited historical perspective prevent complete understanding of why intervention might not occur at X specific time.

    Second, the argument actually self-destructs. In order for moral claims to have truth-value (i.e. for "X is right" to be true or false), they rely upon a metaphysical anchor point that is both personal and perfectly good. Why? Quite simply, because any premise needs a foundation that makes it both coherent and meaningful, particularly for moral claims, which distinguish themselves by making truth-claims AND by claiming a kind of authority over actions. Positing the lack of said anchor point entails by necessity that objective right and wrong (being good or bad regardless of how many people think otherwise) cannot exist. If you're willing to accept that conclusion, so be it, but it seems contrary to our basic moral experience.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/07/2009 @ 10:47pm

27. Perhaps because we don't know history well enough, it is easy to imagine that Jefferson, in the Danbury Baptist affair was concerned about religion impinging on the state's prerogatives.

    The context was the oppression of the Baptists and there seems little doubt that he was promoting freedom from persecution by other denominations as some sought to become the "established church". This was happening in some of the colonies.

    The "separation of church and state" is essentially a Protestant doctrine originating with Luther (from whom Madison developed his position), and reaching the form the founders used. It in turn was derived from Baptist theology as the following suggests. The context is the freedom that all men should have to practice their religion according to their opinion and dictates of personal conscience, without the interference of the state through an established church:

    "The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island.[6][7] It was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[8] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference." wiki

    The dishonesty of those who would use this expression of separation of church and state to limit individual Christians and churches having an opinion on or agitating for or against civil legislation is obvious i.e. opinions and conscience are not thus limited to religion.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 10:50pm

28. The following goes to show that the best ideas are religious in origin:

    Martin Luther's book, On Secular Authority, was an ardent expression of the principle of Liberty of Conscience. "Liberty of conscience" is the principle that forbids human authorities from coercing people's spiritual beliefs.

    In this book, Luther insisted that God requires voluntary religious beliefs. Compelled or coerced faith is insincere and must never be allowed. Luther insisted that "liberty of conscience" was one of Jesus Christ's principles.

    According to Luther, the civil government's role is simply to keep outward peace in society. The civil government has no business enforcing spiritual laws. "The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth," Luther insisted.

    Echoing Luther, writing on religious liberty, Thomas Jefferson stated "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Jefferson may not have had Luther specifically in mind, but was perhaps an heir to the Protestant tradition which gave birth to this sentiment.

    Addressing the question of whether the state should permit its citizens to believe religious views which are heterodox, Luther said, "heresy can never be prevented by force... heresy is a spiritual matter which no iron can strike, no fire burn, no water drown." In other words, it is folly to legislate and enforce religious beliefs.

    Luther's articulation of the parameters of civil government was a monumental step in the development of the separation of church and state. He argued for a clear distinction between two separate spheres: civil and spiritual. This is known as the Doctrine of the two kingdoms.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:02pm

29. I would just like to add that Wikipedia should not be used if you want people to take you seriously. Follow the links at the bottom and pull quotes from those cites, if reputable.

    Also, our Founding Fathers were not atheists. Many of them were Christians and some were even pastors. While this is a point of historical fact which cannot be overlooked, these Christians drafted a document which removed religion from law. A wise move considering the co-mingling of the two inflamed the despotism which ran rampant across Europe for hundreds of years.

    They removed religion from our laws, not from what we can believe personally or express among a group. In fact, this may surprise some, the Founding Fathers, were not all the same denomination. Some were Puritans, some Quakers, others theists, and yes, the odd atheist or agnostic. They could not help but bring their shared values into the discussion of our most fundamental law. The State shall not recognize, nor have an official religion. They understood that religion is first a private matter, between the individual and his or her God; second religion if turned into a sacred cow, can destroy a nation.

    Posted by joshua.b at 04/07/2009 @ 11:14pm

30. Again it is obvious that today's secularists, unlike Madison, are one dimensional and have nothing, to offer, that deals with the free exercise of religious conscience in a society where religion is important to many.

    "James Madison explicitly credited Martin Luther as the theorist who "led the way" in providing the proper distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres.[1]"

    John Calvin echoed Luther's "two kingdoms" teaching in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

    "There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly.

    The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience."

    wiki

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:23pm

31. "I would just like to add that Wikipedia should not be used if you want people to take you seriously. Follow the links at the bottom and pull quotes from those cites, if reputable."

    Wikipedia is no better or worse a source than any other source ont he internet. You may scoff at it but because the internet is inherently free and anyone can post to it and say anything they want it means that even if a source looks reputable it doesn't mean it is.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:28pm

32. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:23pm

    Again you are making generalization without fact to back up the generalization. I think many people believe that you are allowed to practice your religion freely and I think a thinking person realizes that you will bring that morality to the laws you support. However I think that there is a point where the state steps in and has to say that a law is based on religious morality instead of a seeking of equality. A person does not have to be secular, but a country should be.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:31pm

33. Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

    Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:

    Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

    That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":

    [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

    With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 11:51pm

34. who works ill to his neighbor."

    That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

    Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

    Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 11:53pm

35. were Christians and some were even pastors. While this is a point of historical fact which cannot be overlooked, these Christians drafted a document which removed religion from law.

    Posted by joshua.b at 04/07/2009 @ 11:14pm

    Your history is correct but your conclusion I suggest skims the contextual thrust of the the purpose of the "wall". It was to prevent any "established church" being formed i.e. a state church lording it over the consciences of individuals. Christians or otherwise. Though I take it that is your meaning, you could be taken to mean religion in general. There seems to me to be a lot of religious sentiment expressed in all those founding documents.

    The Brits hardly seem to have been destroyed by having a state church whose head is also its monarch. But I think you mean something different?

    I know about wiki but you will find here that facts and commentary are accepted only on the basis of whether or not the expert source is a card carrying member of the left or right wing. So wiki probably is not the worst place to start from.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:55pm

36. All levels of government in the US are of course officially neutral toward religion and thus secular as institutions. Perfectly obvious. And wonderfully beneficial for all. At the time of the country's founding, many Christian leaders led the call for a religiously neutral government (established churches in some of the colonies had already been or soon would be disestablished). How could there be a state religion in the new US when many of the people who had come here were fleeing persecution by state religions? And how could there be a single state church with so many Christian traditions already thick on the ground?

    It is meaningless to say that the US is a "Christian nation." True, much of our civilization has sprung from Christianity, directly or indirectly. It is of course true that this is a "majority Christian nation" (in terms of the population's religious adherence) just as Turkey, with an officially secular government, is clearly a "majority Muslim nation." The wider society of the US is in some ways increasingly secular, largely because the elites who dominate public life tend to be secular and are to a significant extent openly hostile to people of faith (especially the large majority that is Christian). Of course the society these elites have created just ain't anything to brag about. It's a pathetic, self-destructive mess and certainly won't endure.

    One of the secrets of the vitality and dynamism of religion in America is that there is no official religion (of course there are other reasons for religion's success as well). Anti-religious zealots would be better off pushing for a state religion, because there is no surer recipe for killing the faith of millions than to let the state have influence over it (cf. Britain, Germany).

    Posted by feinfein at 04/08/2009 @ 12:02am

37. The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.

    However, if critics of public religious expression believe that only a Virginian may speak for the nation on the issue of religion (they usually cite either Madison or Jefferson), then why not George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights"? Or Richard Henry Lee who not only framed Virginia's proposals but who also was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights? Or why not George Washington? Perhaps the reason that these other Virginians are ignored (as are most of the other Framers) is because both their words and actions unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite only his "Detached Memoranda."

    George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words "So help me God!" to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. His "Inaugural Address" was filled with numerous religious references, and following that address, he and the Congress "proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where Divine service was performed."

    Only weeks later, Washington signed his first major federal bill - the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. That act

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:03am

38. stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the "schools and the means of education" in that territory must encourage the "religion, morality, and knowledge" that was "necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind." Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, and it still appears in State constitutions today. Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America's four "organic" or foundational laws.

    I just can't stand all the disinformation and "following lies" that we continually see displayed here about the founding fathers and their intent reguarding religious practice!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:06am

39. Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will." 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, "[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States." 3

    Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious"; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion"; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith"; 6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation--a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as "the puny efforts of Paine." 8

    When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, "Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?" 9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, "He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:16am

40. their faith in the religion of their fathers." 10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds." 11 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 12

    Yea, the founders certainly had much to say about Paine!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:19am

41. Thanks to Chuck Norris for reminding everyone of the truth and having the courage to risk debasement for telling it!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:51am

42. http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/08/2009 @ 01:21am

43. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:23pm

    Again you are making generalization without fact to back up the generalization. I think many people believe that you are allowed to practice your religion freely and I think a thinking person realizes that you will bring that morality to the laws you support. However I think that there is a point where the state steps in and has to say that a law is based on religious morality instead of a seeking of equality…

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:31pm

    Well I was being provocative but if you want substantiating facts tell me which ones you need and I'll see what I can do.

    What I've been suggesting and hinting at is that the liberating principle of separation of church and state was not given to us by atheists, agnostics, secularists or religion generally but it is derived essentially and solely from the Christian religion.

    The Protestant reformers in looking at the way a powerful Church, using the state apparatus, was able to torture and kill heretics, went back to the bible using their newly formulated "Sola Scriptura" principle. There and with the use of well-trained intellects they rediscovered the Christian concept of two distinct entities, secular human government and Christ's kingdom (the church). So there was all that theological development of what the state is and what the church is and why they exist in different categories. That is the origin of the rationale for the modern secular state, which is neither a religious state nor for that matter an atheist state, but one in which one's religious convictions are not the business of the state or its proxy. That because Christianity demands the separation of Christ's kingdom and the state.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 02:14am

44. ... However I think that there is a point where the state steps in and has to say that a law is based on religious morality instead of a seeking of equality…

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:31pm

    Perhaps you could express that a little differently as it conjures up the picture of doors being smashed in at midnight by the state's law enforcement officers.

    I trust the state doesn't have that right in your country. That I would have thought would be a job for your state or federal legislature and courts.

    That of course raises the issue of citizens, Christian and others, opposing such changes with all the means allowed by the state. That legitimate means of trying to make (keep) America a better place, according to their understanding, in no way, I suggest, impinges upon the separation of church and state principle. They are merely exercising a democratic right granted to them by the state (as are those with a different point of view who wish to take similar action).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 02:41am

45. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 02:14am

    Mostly my generalization comment was saying your saying that those on the left attack religion. I feel liek the religious on this forum often play the victim of some great abuse. While they are the majority in this country.

    "Perhaps you could express that a little differently as it conjures up the picture of doors being smashed in at midnight by the state's law enforcement officers. "

    This made me laugh. I suppose yes I could have worded that differently.

    "That of course raises the issue of citizens, Christian and others, opposing such changes with all the means allowed by the state. That legitimate means of trying to make (keep) America a better place, according to their understanding, in no way, I suggest, impinges upon the separation of church and state principle. They are merely exercising a democratic right granted to them by the state (as are those with a different point of view who wish to take similar action)."

    I agree with you that you have every right to push a law according to your own morality and it is by definition the state supreme court and the supreme courts duty to decide if that law is in fact just or if it is a law that foists upon others inequality due to it's religious implications. For example forcing kids to say prayer in school, banning same sex marriage so on and so forth.

    We constantly hear about "activist" judges stepping in and telling people that a law is unconstitutional and they are derided by many people because they are overstepping their bounds. But is not the job of activist judges to discern the Constitutionality of certain laws, whether that is what the general public wants or not, not just to acquiesce to the will of the people. Which I believe is why they are chosen by Presidents.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 03:30am

46. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 12:51am

    The only part he wrote himself.

    With no citation of his Cut & Paste....he plagiarized the rest.

    Would God approve of that????

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 06:19am

47. ACook, Throw mud at Jefferson if you like but he was one of the main influences of the Constitution of the United States (see the wikipedia quote below). There may come a day where we find that animals are more intelligent than we had originally thought and in the future people may not eat meat at all. In the future, they may point their fingers at us and call us barbarians, murderers etc.

    "The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers"."

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/08/2009 @ 06:51am

48. One of the most eloquent defenses of the division between Church and State is a religious one, and it comes from the Amish. Here is a quotation from the preface of the AUSBUND (46th known edition, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 2003):

    "Dann eine Oberkeit ist gesetzt, die augenscheinlich bösen Werke, und nicht den bösen Glauben zu strafen: sintemal der Unglaube ein unsichtbar Ding ist, sowohl als der rechte Glaube eine Ergreifung derer Dinge, die man nicht siehet. So giebts die Natur, daß auch dessen Strafe und Belohnung Gott (der ins Verborgene sieht) allein zugehört."

    "For a government is established to punish the evil deeds that are visible to our eyes, and not evil belief, because false belief is always an invisible thing, just as proper belief consists of things that one cannot see. Naturally, reward and punishment in regard to faith belong to God alone (who can see all that is hidden)."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/08/2009 @ 07:40am

49. Here's two basic questions for the "Christian nation" crowd...

    1. What document is our legal and governmental system based on?

    2. How many times is "God" or a "Creator" mentioned in it?

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 08:00am

50. Hey, this month's National Geographics has a 24-page article, "Australia's Dry Run", that deals with your thirsty Murray-Darlin Basin. Looked through the photo captions but haven't had time to read it!

    Posted by Happy at 04/07/2009 @ 10:23pm

    Missed that Happy but was working today or at least was supposed to be but I got a bit too engrossed in the "secular state" thing. Was checking the sums for a chemicals processing plant so if it blows up I can blame the "framers" of your Constitution (oh well if you want a job well done get a busy person to do it).

    That has been a cyclical thing but has been exacerbated by improvement of the soils in the catchment areas. Australia has some very ancient weathered soils that are only marginal for agriculture and in making them viable for that purpose run off into the Murray-Darling system has decreased over time. i.e. soils are now deeper, contain more organic material and thus retain more water, so less run off. Thus it is not merely lower rainfall in play.

    The Murray River, Australia's longest, is the Northern border of Victoria that separates us from New South Wales. (Our side of it if my memory serves me correctly so those New South Welshmen scored one on us at Federation (of the states- formerly British colonies) in 1901.

    I read somewhere that the Darling, which joins the Murray in NSW and at 900 miles long is the third longest, has dried up over 40 times since 1885. I will have to read that National Geographic article. Thanks for the advice.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 08:14am

51. Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 08:53am

    Well, hard to argue on gun control laws or abortion rights and use the Magna Carta, isn't it????

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 08:55am

52. Before anybody accuses Larry of the sin of being open-minded...he's merely avoding being caught in an inconssitancy!

    See, earlier, he declared that most Americans who THINK they are Christians...really aren't. As part of his general theory that most Muslims (his figure was 85-90%) aren't "real Muslims", just "devotees of Islam"...itself a part of his attempt to reconcile his Islamophobia and his neo-conservatism.

    Ergo, if he steps up now and BLATENTLY (oh, sure, he'll try it subtlely) says that America is a "Christian nation"...he knows he'll get his previous "devotees" theory thrown in his face.

    But "Lord knows" he's just chomping at the bit to have it both ways!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 9:55pm

    Why do you attempt to sow the seeds of hypocrisy where none exists?

    I have never posted on this site any affirmation that this is a Christian nation. I have posted to the contrary. And that is because it is consistent with what I have taught over the decades as a Pastor.

    I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. IT NEVER WAS AND NEVER SHALL BE.

    I hope that's clear Mask. The Jesus that I serve said His kingdom is not of this world. The message He gave and was carried forward by the Apostles was that believers lived in this world, but we are not of this world. Our world, our home is elsewhere

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:16am

53. If we are a Christian Nation, Christ is pissed.

    Why is it that so many that espouse violence as The Answer, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, antisocialist, call themselves followers of the Prince of Peace? Why do they oppose universal healthcare, reduction of the military and a more equitable distribution of wealth?

    Keeping paradox in ones head is not bad, but trying to be both an xtian and a free-marketeer-greed-rules-all seems to me a basis for terminal insanity.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 09:31am

54. Why is it that so many that espouse violence as The Answer, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, antisocialist, call themselves followers of the Prince of Peace? Why do they oppose universal healthcare, reduction of the military and a more equitable distribution of wealth?

    Keeping paradox in ones head is not bad, but trying to be both an xtian and a free-marketeer-greed-rules-all seems to me a basis for terminal insanity.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 09:31am

    1. I don't espouse violence as "The Answer". However Jesus does affirm the necessity of bearing the sword against evil.

    2. I oppose UHC because it's against our constitution and removes liberty.

    3. Equitable redistribution of wealth is a marxist anti-Christian concept when it comes through govt coercion.

    4. I am not a supporter of greed in any way, nor do I condone greed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:41am

55. Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:16am

    Actually, I hoped you would post that to the point of irrevocable clarification, Larry.

    Thank you. To find you definitively and unquestionably on the opposite side of guys like RIO, SJCHER, etc. on issues like this is very helpful.

    BTW...my other theory works as well. If there are few "real Christians" just "devotees", then it lets you off the hook for attacking Islam and still supporting neo-conservatism since there are few "real Muslims" jsut "devotees of Islam"!

    BTW, BTW....YOU are a "real Christian", right, not just a "devotee"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 10:36am

56. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/08/2009 @ 06:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    ACOOK is a christian woman who has no problem with christianity being supported by the government. at least her type of traditional, rightwing style christianity.

    she also seems to have more problems with any dead slaveholder whose views are quoted by libs, progs, and lefties than with those dead slaveholders whose public pronouncements support traditional conservative christianity....

    but nothing unusual about the cognitive dissonance involved here...those who belong to religious groups

    1. that think they are 100% correct and those (the majority of their fellow shaved apes) who believe anything else burn in hell forever...

    2. such as conservative christians...

    3. shall ever endeavor to force feed all others their religion through government, since disbelievers will never be shut up and put in their place without the complicity or negligence of government and the use of force...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/08/2009 @ 10:49am

57. Oh please tell me which article of the constitution bans universal healthcare?

    I'm saddened by all the nonsense being espoused here. Jesus would not advocate for violence under any circumstances. Jesus told the wealthy tax collector he had little chance of getting into heaven because he loved his money more than his God. Jesus spoke of caring for the widows and orphans. He also upheld tithing...you know giving 10% of the gross to God. Charitable giving was to be in addition to that. Oh yes, he wasn't much concerned about whether you could claim that contribution as a tax deduction. I shudder to think of the fate of all so-called Christians who have so little of true Christian charity in their make-up. Let's not forget that Jesus taught that he who is without sin should cast the first stone...Jesus would NOT be a free market capitalist, mainly because he recognized that the love of money separates man from God.

    The United States is not a Christian nation because it does not worship God, it worships money and guns. It is my country and I love it and I much prefer honest secularism to lying religiosity.

    Posted by sstjames at 04/08/2009 @ 11:07am

58. Posted by sstjames at 04/08/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

    i like your form of christianity.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/08/2009 @ 11:13am

59. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The U.S. respects all religions. Some religions allow same sex marriages. Why doesn't the U.S. recognize those marriages? Why is the state in the position of approving marriages?

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/08/2009 @ 11:30am

60. The Flying Spaghetti Monster would be appalled at this blasphemy. The United States has always been a pastafarian nation. Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were all devout pastafarians! Repent pasta sinners! For the Flying Spaghetti Monster died for your sins! You won't get away with it. The FSM will hunt you down and crucify you!

    All hail the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    Posted by parrotuya at 04/08/2009 @ 11:39am

61. Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:41am

    1. I don't espouse violence as "The Answer". However Jesus does affirm the necessity of bearing the sword against evil.

    Love your enemy & then kill him? (Jesus was like the Founding Fathers, he said a lot of things he didn't really mean)

    2.I oppose UHC because it's against our constitution and removes liberty.

    What does restoration of health have to do with liberty? You're free to debilitate & die at any time & in any way you so choose. However, don't invalidate the terms of your insurance policy.

    3. Equitable redistribution of wealth is a marxist anti-Christian concept when it comes through govt coercion.

    Inequitable distribution of wealth is good (a capitalist concept) when it comes through govt coercion?

    4. I am not a supporter of greed in any way, nor do I condone greed.

    But you won't raise a finger to lessen it, will you?

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/08/2009 @ 12:04pm

62. Nichols misses the point, as do the Norris's and Limbaugh's of the world, when they argue the pros and cons of our "Christian-ness" The fact is when the Founding Fathers created the framework by which we now live, we WERE a Christian nation, with small enclaves, perhaps, of Jewish settlements in cities representing the only diversity. So when conservatives speak of some of the mighty jumps in "Church & State" type policies striking the FF's as ridiculous, they are correct, but only because the founding fatehers knew nothing else: Religious diversity is much greater today.

    I have no issues with non Christians: You either know its true or you don't. My problem with secularists is that when they try to "maintain the intergrity of the constitution" with, say, restricting prayer before a state sponsered football game,they usually wind up violating first amemdment rights on other levels, unintentional as they may be doing it.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/08/2009 @ 12:12pm

63. "Well Done" to ALL who've taken time to discuss this issue of whether or not the USA is a "secular" nation. May I remind everyone that "secular" (per Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed) is defined as:

    "1a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal; 1b: not overtly or specif. religious; 1c: not ecclesiastical or clerical;"

    "2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specif: of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation."

    Also, as Thom. Jefferson personally had NO affiliation with any established religion, I'd suggest there is no inherent inconsistency with his championing "individual rights" while at the same time being a slave owner ivo the context of the time & accepted practices in which he lived (1743-1826) i.e., 183-266 yrs ago.

    I submit instead, that those who even begin to try to 'judge' Jefferson's behavior then, by 21st century standards today, are far more inconsistent, if not truly hypocritical themselves.

    Lastly, having personally visited over 40 countries in my lifetime, seeing firsthand the living conditions & behaviors of humans living across the spectrum of socio-economic, political & RELIGIOUS beliefs, I suggest that this WORLD of our's, i.e., PLANET EARTH, with ALL its species & life forms, including the ENVIRONMENT encompassing it all, would be in FAR more positive condition today if WE all:

    1. LOVED OUR NEIGHBORS (INCLUDING NON-HUMANS) as we love ourselves.

    2. TREATED ALL OTHERS & "THINGS" as we'd like to be treated ourselves.

    And should we find we personally cannot 'accept' or 'believe' in the 'standards' of the locale in which find ourselves, we either move (if economically able to do so) - or adapt to them - or, like so many species before us - accept extinction.

    Posted by rwkoch at 04/08/2009 @ 12:12pm

64. "restricting prayer before a state sponsered football game,"

    Does God care who wins the Class "C" State football championship? Does Her concern have a connection to the level of play, ie: does She pay more attention to Class "A" than "C" or boys football over girls field hockey? I never remember the debate team having a public prayer.

    Never understood that need to have a ...collectivist mass prayer for an athletic team. If one wants to pray to FSM, Jesus, a triumpherate, Shiva or whatever for the safety of ones kid, then do it where it belongs, in your head. If god is real, She will hear your prayer just as well from silent meditation as from a PA system.

    Better yet, rather than rely on an unreliable deity to protect ones child, don't put them in a football game where the odds of being injured for life are not in their favor.

    ---

    Why is the state in the position of approving marriages?

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/08/2009 @ 11:30am

    Because the State is in charge of protecting property and marriage is a form of property control/distribution.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 12:41pm

65. CRAB, You've missed the point almost as much as Nichols did.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/08/2009 @ 12:46pm

66. "1. I don't espouse violence as "The Answer". However Jesus does affirm the necessity of bearing the sword against evil. "

    But so many of those you kill are not evil. They may happen to live in the same town or village, may be standing next to evil, may be the child of someone filled with evil or simply have a different world view from yours.

    And you advocate for their slaughter, be they in Falluja or the Korean peninsula.

    I too am interested to see where in the Owners Manual it says Single Payer health care is unconstitutional. According to you the income tax meets that criteria, yet the amendment exists. And, were it up to you, the 1st Amendment would be gutted to fit your extreme views on the gathering of like minded individuals.

    I guess what I am saying is:

    you are a blazing hypocrite

    you have a forest in your eye.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 12:48pm

67. I am not a biblical scholar, nor am I a religious expert, nor am I a political theorist. However, the truly amazing thing about America is that we have built a system of laws under which our society is governed, and that system of laws was built on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. While that system of laws owes much to that religious tradition, it is not bound by that tradition, which is what some in America would like to see. In some ways, it is much more bound to the traditions of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, than to the Bible.

    President Obama's (how I truly enjoy typing that) statements represent the CORE reason America has been successful in the past, and why we can be successful in the future. Religion and faith are personal matters. Politics, for obvious reasons, is not personal at all, but communal. It is that search for commonality between humans that religion, be it Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Humanism or whatever, can inform the process, like it informs our tradition of laws, but not be bound by it.

    I applaud our Founding Fathers, for having the strength of character to have these discussions, in which reason ruled, knowing full well that war was upon them. I do not think there are very man politicians today who have the strength of character to do or say anything similar; they're all too worried about being re-elected instead of being concerned about the fate of our country and our world.

    Obama gets it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/08/2009 @ 12:57pm

68. "Thanks to Chuck Norris for reminding everyone of the truth and having the courage to risk debasement for telling it!"

    Posted by comancheamerican @ 12:51am

    It is strange indeed when one of the "Hollywood Elite", even one of its D-List has-beens, steps out of formation with Tinseltown's StalinistLeft dogmas, as UpChuck has done.

    Anyway, COMA-UNAMERICAN's typically in(s)ane and meagre outburst calls to mind the whole roster of revealed rightwing "Truths" such as...

    * Terri Schiavo is alive and ready to commence a new career as a break dancer;

    * An Obama supporter visciously mugged Ashley Todd and drew a "B" backwards on her cheek

    * Humans co-inhabited the earth with dinosaurs

    * Evolution is a fraud

    * The media, and the media alone, elected Obama and NOT 69,500,000 Americans. Particularly if you discount the votes of people brainwashed and mesmerized by Obama's media slaves

    * Climate Change is a media event and conspiracy, as is the whole earth science profession along with Al "Emmanuel Goldstein" Gore

    * Rapture, you bet! Beam me up

    * Senator David Shitter (R-LA) is an authoratative voice on the theory and practice of family values

    * US troops will be showered with sweets and kisses tossed in the air upon entering Baghdad

    * The whole world supports George W Loser's invasion of Iraq with the lone exception of Jacques Chirac

    * There is a no-holds-barred War on Christmas being waged right now, perhaps even with live ammo

    * Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime possessed WMDs out the ass, as UNSCOM and UNMOVIC darkly warned

    * Metrosexual pansy George W Loser is, in reality, a manly and masculine warrior/"business""man" who will lead the economy to dizzying new heights following his own scintallating career in the private sector.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

69. Posted by william.harry13 at 04/08/2009 @ 12:46pm

    Really?

    By not allowing a Muslim prayer before a football game, how does that inhibit your freedom to form a church?

    How much time would you allow so that all religions could say their piece before kickoff?

    Using a state sponsored PA system to say a prayer for a particular version of a particular form of Christianity seems to me to be a slippery slope to state sponsored religion.

    "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship,"-Justice Stevens

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 12:59pm

70. The income tax is clearly not unconstitutional, first off, because an amendment was passed that SPEIFICALLY AUTHORIZED it, so if antisocialist is actually making that argument I want to correct it here.

    Second, and related, how in the world is universal health care unconstitutional? One, it seems to fit under the Commerce Clause. Two, even if it doesn't, the federal government may be able to tell states "you should do X or you won't get some form of health-care-related funding." It might be slightly risky since the Court tends to not like the federal government passing off political accountability to the states, but it stands at least a solid chance even if the Commerce Power can't be applied.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 1:03pm

71. What SINGLE doc did you mean to imply?-----Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 09:19am

    Sorry for late response. That would be...

    the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 1:06pm

72. How can anyone quote a slave-holding godless bastard like Jefferson?

    Posted by ACook at 04/07/2009 @ 6:31pm

    Happens all the time, look at the Source:

    Leviticus 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

    1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

    "If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.

    Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 1:07pm

73. Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 1:03pm

    Let's get Luvvys clarification then. As I recall, he has stated many times that he views income tax as unconstitutional. Willing to eat some crow if I am wrong.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 1:12pm

74. CRAB,

    The constitution statesthat Congress won't make any laws respecting the establishment of religion "or the free exercise thereof". THAT phrase, (which by the way, unlike 'Separation of church and state' is actually IN the amendment) is violated by those who think they are protecting me all the time. So is freedom of expression. A better example might be the girl in Maryland somewhere who was going to give 3 reasons why she was able to achieve SUMMA CUM LAUDE honors in school. One of the reasons was her faith in Jesus Christ, and the public school told her she had to leave that one out. So now you have representatives of the state telling an 18 year old girl what she can and cannot say in public.

    Time for the revolution!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/08/2009 @ 1:27pm

75. Another blackcopermedia moment, religion, the hairs are up. It is time like Tools says Flush it all away! I forget the name but it is perfect for this time!

    Posted by thesid at 04/08/2009 @ 1:41pm

76. Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 1:07pm

    Do you realize it IS slightly easier for Larry to make the case that God didn't approve of polygamy...

    over the case that God didn't approve of slavery!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 2:28pm

77. Obama gets it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/08/2009 @ 12:57pm

    yeah, from goldman sachs....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2009 @ 2:32pm

78. Here is a great (paraphrase) Thomas Jefferson quote (which challenges the right-wing belief that the Founding Fathers were all Bible thumpers):

    "It does me no harm for my neighbor to believe in 20 gods, or no god at all. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    Another time, in a letter to John Adams, Jefferson referred to the "fable" of the virgin birth.

    And of course, there was his famous secular version of the bible, in which he rewrote it, taking out all the miraculous elements (the crucifixion, miricles, etc).

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:37pm

79. Do you realize it IS slightly easier for Larry to make the case that God didn't approve of polygamy...

    over the case that God didn't approve of slavery!

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 2:28pm

    The whole idea that we can possibly know what God "thinks" (what he approves and disapproves of, etc) is absurd, isn't it?

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:39pm

80. Of course, once someone claims to "know" what God thinks, there is no arguing with that person (because no one is allowed to disagree with God, are they?).

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:40pm

81. Posted by abell12ct at 04/08/2009 @ 11:30am

    since when is marriage a religious ceremony? there are civil ceremonies everywhere everyday, like at your local city hall, where religion plays no part. i don't recall any religion being mentioned at my own wedding and our marriage certificate makes no mention of it. a marriage is a vow, a promise if you will, to love and respect your partner and that's it. sorry to disappoint you, but you shouldn't need any religion to tell you that.

    Posted by kennyboy13 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:58pm

82. i should also add that it's a legal contract and the "power vested in me" is bestowed by the state.

    Posted by kennyboy13 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:15pm

83. <i>Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 1:07pm </i>

    *sigh* Oh dear...it really is unfortunate to see arguments that should have died long ago.

    The underlying assumption here is that when a command is given, it's automatically meant as a statement of objective moral truth, and so if something isn't condemned in Leviticus, clearly it's OK. This is false, because it ignores the fact that moral progress (whether internally or nudged by, shall we say, external actors?) must often be a gradual phenomenon. If you're really looking for more fundamental statements, how about the ones talking about how all human beings are children of God and therefore, by implication, should not be regarded as property?

    <i>Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:39pm </i>

    I mean, if taken to extremes, yes, but as a categorical claim, why? That seems to presuppose a God who never undertakes or undertook communicative action? What basis is there to think THAT?

    <i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:56pm </i>

    Eh? Why does action presuppose opposition to start with? Moreover, implicating thermodynamics as a fundamental principle now means that if the universe is not absolutely entropic in the status quo, it must have begun. Seems like a slight wrinkle...

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 3:17pm

84. Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 2:28pm

    Who amongst us would kill our son to prove our devotion to God?

    God-" Go kill your son.

    Just kidding. It was a test.

    Let me have mine killed in your place."

    Great religion. It has something for everybody, murder, slavery, justice, brother-in-law marriage, charity, genocide, forgiveness, jihad, contradiction and absolutes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 3:21pm

85. Posted by william.harry13 at 04/08/2009 @ 1:27pm

    As I understand Supreme Court opinions, nobody has been denied a right to practice religion in their homes or places of worship. What is forbidden is to have one persons, or one groups, version of religion forced upon a captive audience.

    The question I pose to you, based on your example is: If a student wanted to announce that one reason she achieved Cum Laude was because Satan taught her the value of discipline...would you approve of her speech to your children?

    ----

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 3:17pm

    doesn't your stance create a theory of "moral relativism"? And is that not something the right wing has fought against?

    My point to ACOOK was that opposing a slave holders comments removes her major moral guide, The Bible.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 3:32pm

86. Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 2:56pm

    Or try "The Last Answer" by Isaac Asimov.

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 3:34pm

87. I miss Asimov. His wit, his keen intellect, his strident secularism (not to mention his proficiency in writing literally hundreds of books on every subject known to man!).

    By the way, he wife revealed just a few years ago that he actually died of AIDS (from a blood transfusion, during that period when it wasn't entirely safe).

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:42pm

88. I also like Asimov's answer to Dick Cavet, on the old Cavet Show:

    Cavet: "Mr. Asimov, do you believe in God?"

    Asimov, not wanting to cause an uproar, equivocated. ""Which God is that Mr Cavet?" Cavet: "Come now Mr. Asimov, you know which God, the Judeo-Christian one. Surely someone like you has tried to find God?"

    Asimov: "Well, I figure, if he's so smart, maybe I should let him find me!"

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:45pm

89. That seems to presuppose a God who never undertakes or undertook communicative action? What basis is there to think THAT?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 3:17pm

    Wait a minute, don't they ALL claim God did so? (Or, many of them.) You have simply retstaed the question - since "God" said a number of different things in the various "revealed sources" and so on, and since they all claim to tbe from the "true" God, how am I, as an individual, supposed to know which one (or any of them) are the authentic ones?

    So once again, I ask, how can we "know" what God thinks about anything?

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:50pm

90. Assuming he "thinks" at all.

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:51pm

91. Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 5:25pm

    Larry, who says our rights come from the government? From my spot on the left, I completely disagree with that idea. On the other hand, it seems that a lot of people on the right subscribed to that idea when the right wing ran the government, but I would posit that our rights some from the simple act of being born. Hence, whether one is theist or atheist, our rights are not man-made, but simply part of being human.

    And, unfortunately, you'd have to grant that, in fact, for a lot of people, religion is (and always has been) about wealth and power. Now, I should probably have aimed that observation more at hierarchies, but even among the rank and file, the proselytizing often becomes more about an attempt to exercise control over the lives of others. And it hasn't been just the hierarchies that have historically persecuted those who dared believe what they themselves chose to believe. Now, for others - those who actually walk the walk, as it were - that's not the case, because they're too busy trying to help those less fortunate. Of course, you'll find that in various degrees all over the religious/non-religious map. I know atheists and agnostics who are far more spiritual and far more decent in terms of walking that walk than Christians whom I know. And vice versa.

    Posted by jmusolino at 04/08/2009 @ 3:52pm

92. Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 12:48pm

    Let's get Luvvys clarification then. As I recall, he has stated many times that he views income tax as unconstitutional. Willing to eat some crow if I am wrong. Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 1:12pm

    1. I've stated 100's of times here that Universal Health Care is unconstitutional as it is a power not enumerated to Congress ((McCulloch v. Maryland-Constitution is one of enumerated powers)

    The founders especially Madison and Jefferson were very specific that the general welfare clause was not intended to give Congress broad powers, but only those specified in the Constitution).

    A stalwart liberal, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. believes that a constitutional amendment is required and has put one before Congress

    http://tinyurl.com/dehh39

    The constitution recognizes our Federal govt as one of limited or enumerated powers. All other powers are thus given to the states and/or the people as stated in the 10th amendment.

    Thrawn's Commerce Clause loophole approach is fatally flawed right from the start as this would not be regulating commerce. The govt would be the provider.

    2. The income tax is unfortunately now constitutional due to the 16th amendment. The idea of a progressive income tax was introduced to no surprise by the Socialist Labor Party in 1887.

    I hope one day we will repeal this tyranny on the people. As Chief Justice Marshall and Daniel Webster said in the McCulloch v Maryland case: "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 4:00pm

93. So once again, I ask, how can we "know" what God thinks about anything? Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:50pm

    Of course G-d wants us to know His will and purpose. Some things lie outside our need to know; but in many areas G-d is very specific and wants us to know so we don't stray from an acceptable relationship. Here are some specific verses relating to this.

    Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,

    Eph 1:9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,

    Col 1:9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

    Jhn 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

    Hbr 13:21 make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom [be] glory forever and ever. Amen.

    1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

    1Pe 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 4:19pm

94. 'Of course G-d wants us to know His will and purpose. Some things lie outside our need to know; but in many areas G-d is very specific and wants us to know so we don't stray from an acceptable relationship'

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Hmmm....our G-d, our Govt. You suppose that G-d has right of executive privilege and Universe security concerns? "Need to know basis" sure sounds familiar.

    No wonder when I ask why and for what reason stuff happens I don't receive an answer.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/08/2009 @ 4:53pm

95. There's a reason it's called -- The United States of America, not the United Religions of America, not the United White Straight Men of America, nor the United New Con Chicken Hawk Repubs of America, ...; perhaps the individual was meant to be greater than the sum of all the parts one is destined to interact with....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

96. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:29pm</i>

    Interesting, and very fascinating. I once heard someone argue that quantum mechanics can actually be a mechanism by which God acts in the world.

    <i>Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2009 @ 3:32pm </i>

    No, it doesn't, because it doesn't presume that ALL moral pronouncements are meant to apply specifically to the time at which they were uttered.

    Here's the way I picture it. You have an ultimate "anchor principle," as it were (love the Lord thy God, and love thy neighbor as thyself). Those are non-relative. Actions that by necessity violate either of these are objectively wrong.

    But how do those two basic principles get embedded in everyday life? Not by receiving a comprehensive list of do's and don'ts, but by continual, gradual progress (sometimes more gradual, sometimes much more sudden). That's why I think that many of these commandments have to be taken in context, even though I don't think it entails relativism. "Eye for an eye" is a perfect example; it can be seen not as writing retribution into stone (haha, yes, I know), but rather as placing a LIMIT on what was then a kind of escalating retribution.

    <i>Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 3:50pm </i>

    Sure, a lot of different groups make that claim, and then the next step is to try and adjudicate between those based on reason and experience. I believe that Christianity is true, but partly because that adjudication process is often challenging, I refuse to believe that a good God condemns those whose honest exploration doesn't result in Christianity.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

97. Snowball,

    In the early 20th century, it actuall was the Republicans who were the progressives (hard to believe, I know).

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

98. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 4:00pm </i>

    Government would be the provider? All right; are you, by any chance, familiar with the Market Participant Doctrine in Commerce Clause jurisprudence?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

99. Sure, a lot of different groups make that claim, and then the next step is to try and adjudicate between those based on reason and experience. I believe that Christianity is true, but partly because that adjudication process is often challenging, I refuse to believe that a good God condemns those whose honest exploration doesn't result in Christianity. Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

    Thrawn,

    I'm impressed, you are a genuinely reasonable Christian.

    Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:06pm

100. God-R-US -- since by definition god is omnipotent and omnipresent. We're just not all that into being aware of ourselves...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/08/2009 @ 5:10pm

101. Thrawn,

     Do you believe we can specifically know what "God's views" are on singular (particularly political) issues?

     For example, whether he is for or against the death penalty, or for or against gay marriage, or for or against a particular war?

     I remember Pope John Paul 2nd was against the war in Iraq, calling it (rightly so, in my view) an unjust war. Of course he claimed that this was not merely HIS view as a human being, but in effect, "God's pov." I would call this hubris, claiming to know what God would "want" or "believe in" (even though I agreed with the Pope - and possibly God)!

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:12pm

102. In other words (what I am really driving at), is where do we draw the line in terms of people claiming that their views are not merely "opinion" but literally sanctioned by God?

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:13pm

103. I assume I don't have to explain the dangers of such thinking - witness Bin Laden, etc.

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:14pm

104. I assume I don't have to explain the dangers of such thinking - witness Bin Laden, etc.

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Try closer to home. GW Bush for instance.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/08/2009 @ 5:22pm

105. Posted by OneVote at 04/08/2009 @ 5:22pm

     I haven't forgotten George Bush (how can we?). One of my fave Bush quotes:

     "I trust God speaks through me; without that, I couldn't do my job."

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:29pm

106. Snowball,

     True, Teddy Roosvelt (A Republican)was the quintessential progressive president. He broke up trusts, bagn some rudimentary regulatins of the national economy, and (my favorite) was the first president to not always and automatically take the side of management in labor-owner disputes and strikes, etc. All great things that today what we might call "liberal" or "progressive."

     Of course he wasn't a socialist! Amazing that we have to pint that out! But is there any word that is more abused by the right these days, than "socialist"? They talk as if one is either Ronald Reagan, or Joseph Stalin! As if there is nothing in between!

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:33pm

107. I like knowing that I'm on a "need to know" basis with God. That implies that if I need to know it, (s)he'll talk to me. So, since I've not heard God talking to me lately (or ever), then I guess I know what I need to know about God. And I don't even go to church.

     I like that. It goes well with "God gave you a brain, it's up to you to use it."

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:34pm

108. I left out, Roosevelt was also our first environmentalist president of sorts. He created many of our national parks, etc.

     Of course on foreign policy, he was an imperialist.

     But, you have to take the bad with the good I guess.

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:35pm

109. Government would be the provider? All right; are you, by any chance, familiar with the Market Participant Doctrine in Commerce Clause jurisprudence?

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

     How does that support your contention? It has no bearing on giving the Federal govt unenumerated powers. It dealt with States intrusion into commerce and not placing undue restrictions against commercial competition.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:36pm

110. For example, whether he is for or against the death penalty, or for or against gay marriage, or for or against a particular war?

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:12pm

     Yeah, doubt if god even sees life and death within the same limitations we do...

     Since energy only changes, nothing is ever really wasted.

     Yet it can be directed or influenced.

     Flow.

     In a well designed painting, even an arbitrary color or a clash of contrasting color placement, can be useful to create enough energy and emphasis while directing the visual rhythm from one point to the next.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/08/2009 @ 5:37pm

111. I say be wary of ANYONE who claims to KNOW exactly what God wants, thinks, or believes.

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:37pm

112. but it seems contrary to our basic moral experience. Posted by Thrawn at 04/07/2009 @ 10:47pm

     It does? Sorry. Your dissection of my 'argument' was very well worded, but incredibly convoluted, leading to a dead end in the usual maze created by believers in order to sustain the dream.

     However, at a later date when I have more time, I will address the issue on another thread which will allow it, which for me is:

     'BASIC INCONSISTENCIES IN THE FOUNDATION OF BELIEF AS IT HAS TO DO WITH WESTERN RELIGIONS, AND WHY SUSPENSION OF LOGIC HAS TO TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IN ILLOGICAL PREMISES THEREIN'.

     We'll have a go at it. As usual, I predict there will be no winner or loser... that's the conundrum that this type of discussion sets up. And what of Abraham? You left him far behind, a hazy dream.

     Posted by ficheye at 04/08/2009 @ 5:41pm

113. Fich,

     Try reading Freud's views on religion (Future of an Illusion, etc).

     If you are in an atheistic mood, it's ripping good stuff.

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:43pm

114. Robertson said Sharon had a stroke because God was smoting him for giving back Gaza. He also once claimed he and his followers turned back a hurricane that was heading their way, due to divine intervention in response to prayer by him and his minions. Oh, and I left out, when he and Falwell said the 9/11 attacks happened because God "allowed" it, in response to our immoral lifestyle (gays, witches, ACLU, etc).

     Captain Looney-Tunes (as I call him).

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:47pm

115. "I trust God speaks through me; without that, I couldn't do my job."

     Posted by FDR43 at 04/08/2009 @ 5:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I wonde if he believes in the "humble servant" theory or "G-d's image apotheosis" theory?

     "I am the decider"......I am opting for the latter.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/08/2009 @ 5:51pm

116. If G-d isn't speaking to you, then it means you aren't in the family; I look forward to my talks with the Lord every day, just as He promised.

     John 16:13-14

     13But when He, the Spirit of Truth (the Truth-giving Spirit) comes, He will guide you into all the Truth (the whole, full Truth). For He will not speak His own message [on His own authority]; but He will tell whatever He hears [from the Father; He will give the message that has been given to Him], and He will announce and declare to you the things that are to come [that will happen in the future].

     14He will honor and glorify Me, because He will take of (receive, draw upon) what is Mine and will reveal (declare, disclose, transmit) it to you.

     John 14:21-23

     21The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]

     22Judas, not Iscariot, asked Him, Lord, how is it that You will reveal Yourself [make Yourself real] to us and not to the world?

     23Jesus answered, If a person [really] loves Me, he will keep My word [obey My teaching]; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home (abode, special dwelling place) with him.

     The resurrected Christ promise to those who believe; Revelation 3:20

     20Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears and listens to and heeds My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will eat with him, and he [will eat] with Me.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:56pm

117. Here's a guy many of you know who now firmly believes that G-d speaks to him and directs his life

     http://www.brianheadwelch.net/media.html

     http://tinyurl.com/cpewe8

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 6:22pm

118. Unfortunately most people that her voices in their head telling them what to do cannot distinguish between their own demons and that of those beyond themselves...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/08/2009 @ 6:27pm

119. er, hear

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/08/2009 @ 6:31pm

120. 'BASIC INCONSISTENCIES IN THE FOUNDATION OF BELIEF AS IT HAS TO DO WITH WESTERN RELIGIONS, AND WHY SUSPENSION OF LOGIC HAS TO TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IN ILLOGICAL PREMISES THEREIN'.

     We'll have a go at it. As usual, I predict there will be no winner or loser...

     Posted by ficheye at 04/08/2009 @ 5:41pm

     Think you are on pretty shaky ground with your assertion about suspended logic (levitation?) Fishie.

     Theism of which Christianity is a subset starts off with a few basic premises. Here is one called the Kalam Argument. It had its origin in Medieval Arabic philosophy. Below are its three basic premises.

     See if you can get your own logic down from the ceiling and show how these premises do not logically lead to a first cause. ( Which of cause may lead beyond "a mind" to God). As well as logic you can refer to Evolution or the Big Bang to spruce up the premises if you think this may help. But of course the latter approach requires a different set of premises but logic is still logic. Anyway good luck.

     1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

     2. The universe began to exist.

     3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 7:09pm

121. We do not have a state religion in this country, established by the government or recognized as the official religion by the government, such as in other countries.

     Thus we do not have government law determined by the religious law and therefore have religious law forced upon the citizenry.

     This is the intent of the Constitution and the words of Jefferson with regard to "separation of church and state".

     The Constitution does not prohibit, and Jefferson did not imply, that religious ideas have no place in public life. That is up to the people of this country to argue about.

     Neither the Constitution, nor Jefferson's words, were meant to be a vehicle used to scour religion from public life.

     Yet this is what has happened in recent times, usually under the pretext that crabwalk above contended, that you can't force religion upon a "captive audience".

     What is different about religion than any other subject in the public domain? As people go out in public they are exposed to a lot of ideas and actions by people that may not meet with their liking, but by and large they have to tolerate it.

     It is not possible to make society such that any where any person goes the setting is exactly to their liking and they are never irritated or bothered by what someone else does.

     Yet this is what has been done with regard to religion. I read an article one time about a kid who was doing a poster in kindergarten class, and he put Jesus in his picture. When the posters the kids did were put on the wall, and the teacher saw Jesus in this one child's poster, down came the poster!

     The parents appealed to the principal, who sided with the teacher, then they took it to court, which sided with the school (no surprise there).

     That is way overboard and not at all what Jefferson meant.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/08/2009 @ 7:46pm

122. To expand upon what I said above, apparently the teacher claimed she did not want to favor one religion over another, or something like that, again the concept that some might be offended.

     The reality is that kindergarten kids are more likely to get into arguments or fights over different things such as sports teams, rather than religion.

     If a kid put a poster on the wall that had a depiction of a Boston Red Sox player, wouldn't that be imposing the Red Sox upon and be offensive to any kids that were New York Yankee fans?

     Are we supposed to find something in the Constitution that bans pictures of Red Sox players up on the wall? Why not carry it a step further and ban the Red Sox, period?

     As a Yankee fan that concept does sound intriguing, but I know that is not practical nor does the Constitution allow for it, and I have to realize there are Red Sox fans out there I have to tolerate, and rather than try to ban them or their team it is better to let Derek Jeter take care of matters on the field instead.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/08/2009 @ 7:53pm

123. Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 7:23pm

     Well I was just trying to flush F out on his claim that a theistic religion like Christianity is illogical. If he was familiar with Christianity and other theistic religions like Islam he would have known that since Medieval times and even before they were very well read in Greek philosophy and they were masters in it. So logic was their bread and butter.

     The point about the Kalam (cosmological) Argument is that given the premises are valid the only conclusion one can reach is that the universe must have a cause.

     The defeater of this argument rests on what you touched on. Is there an infinite regress? That was the line the Arabs took and sought to show, they were great mathematicians, that an actual infinite was impossible.

     If you are familiar with Bertrand Russell you will be aware that he tried to show that mathematics could be reduced to pure logic. Kurt Godel with his incompleteness theorem sort of stuffed up his holy grail search. It was the great German mathematician, David Hilbert, with his Hotel of Infinite Rooms paradox, that probably finished that project off. Hilert's paradox purports to show the impossibility of an actual infinite.

     Getting back to "Bertie", he used to say the first cause is the universe. That was until the Big Bang suggested only 14 or so billion years old meant the universe could not be the first cause. ( Parallel universes may satisfy some of Bertie's disciples).

     Perhaps the Arabs were not only good philosophers but also a bit scientifically prescient re the big bang.

     But don't quote me on that.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 8:22pm

124. "I read an article one time about a kid who was doing a poster in kindergarten class, and he put Jesus in his picture...."----Posted by sjchermak at 04/08/2009 @ 7:46pm

     Really? Where'd you read that article, SJ?

     (Hint--"I don't remember now, but that's not important." always a good comeback!)

     Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 9:39pm

125. A long time ago, in New Mexico, some missionaries were doing their thing spreading the good word and did so to a number of native Americans they had come across.

     The native Americans listened patiently about the saviour figure who gave his life to be one with his God, and, thinking the missionaries wanted such communion also, proceeded to nail them to crosses too.

     And that's why there's a city named "Las Cruces".

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 9:47pm

     then praise to G-d, they died bearing witness to Christ and went home to glory.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:06pm

126. I am almost convinced that these 'thought puzzles' and the systems of logic they beget are the hallmark of a nomadic peoples and the source of their brilliance; to reduce to first principles thus and make the ideas easier to carry to the next oasis, if you will.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 9:24pm

     Thanks for the url . I will try to get up to speed with it when I get home to my oasis tonight. Not sure I'll sparkle even there though. (1.13pm Thursday here now).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 10:15pm

127. 1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence Posted by lrjones4 at 04/08/2009 @ 7:09pm

     Much like Thrawn, Mr. Jones...(and I respect both of your writing skills), you seem to avoid the 'religious belief' cul-de-sac, and head out into the hinterlands of existential physics. 'I think therefore I am' is not what I'm going for here, but you can pursue that avenue if you wish.

     My actual point is that I find (me) that the basic tenets of western religion require a suspension of logic in certain instances which requires a blind belief in mythologies that they spring from. For instance, I do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Joseph and Mary were married before she was visited by god. It doesn't take too much thought to imagine a real world around them, where humans ate, drank liquids, worked, slept, and, yes, had sex. So it takes a great leap into imaginary realities to believe that they lived this pristine existence, holding hands and looking deep into each others eyes for long hours while sheep baa'd and doves cooed. Not likely. Myth.

     So going deep into the conundrums of metaphysical mechanics and, indeed, bizarre and hazy linguistic mazework does not address my point, though you might think it does... and that addresses, almost exactly, the nature of the rift between believers and non. Along with the inevitable obfuscatory subjectivism.

     My real problem with blind western religion is the Abraham story, and why god allowed Sarah to bear children only after Ishmael was born of Hagar. There's trouble there, with that god. Tell me about that, not about the big bang.

     Snowy seems to know more what I'm saying. Try not to design a bridge when a board will do.

     Posted by ficheye at 04/08/2009 @ 11:15pm

128. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Just what the founding fathers admired, debasement originating from the incoherent foulness of evil!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 11:20pm

129. From an atheist and neo-Darwinist perspective, "endowed by our creator" reads, "inherited via the algorithm that we call evolution". Also, from this atheists and socialists point of view, religion today, even more so than throughout the various dark ages over which it has reigned, facilitates atrocities that would be impossible to contemplate rationally. It offers itself as a reliable tool for sociopathic demagoguery and domination of peoples often even to their own destruction. Conversely, it offers the fertile soil in which such hate filled vitriol thrives.

     While it is improvable that religion causes more good than harm, it is easily proved that religion is not a prerequisite for good - as demonstrated in the parable of the good Samaritan. And it is beyond dispute that today, religion fans the flame of irrational hatred throughout the world. History - i.e. the history of civilization - also demonstrates a pattern. Also today, where religion holds power, the destructive potential of religion has been exponentially magnified by our technology and our numbers as our expansion overwhelms the rest of "creation".

     That "endowed by our creator" was posited into our polemic "Declaration of Independence", or even that it was employed as a pretense of that polemic does not by any stretch of the imagination declare a precedence of the polemic over the mechanics of the Constitution. That is made clear in the writings of the authors and affirmed by the First Amendment.

     That our first President referred to God in a populist polemic of his own, therefore we are a "Christian Nation" is also a non sequitur. Although polls indicate it unlikely at this time, should we elect an atheist to the Oval Office this would not make us an "atheist nation". And our last Presidents' frequent lin

     Posted by Jmdemko at 04/09/2009 @ 04:37am

130. And our last Presidents' frequent linking of policy to his favorite philosopher demonstrates my first point laconically.

     That our legislators link themselves likewise to the state religion - as declaring that Christianity is the foundation of our nation implies - does not amend the Constitution

     That our representatives overtly partake in public prayer - contrary to the polemic of Jesus on the conduct of prayer - in the hallowed halls of hypocrisy, again does not trump the Constitution. Nor does tradition override the Constitution.

     Thank evolution for the Constitution. Thank evolution that we evolved reason, that we do occasionally employ to override the visceral programing inherited from reptilian ancestors whom it served well. Thank evolution for the gem of the age of reason that still offers a potential framework for seven billion of us to occupy this planet without destroying it or ourselves. (Not implying that we won't. Evolution has no divine resolution - no resolution of any kind.)

     It is not sacred - and the concept of the sacred and the profane are not foreign to atheists - it is not perfect, but fortunately it too, contains the mechanics to evolve - for better or for worse. We, the people, are the environment to which must adapt. Extinction is too, a possibility.

     By the way, I cringe at the word and the anticoncept implied by the word atheist. What do you call someone who doesn't believe in the Easter Bunny, or goblins on halloween, or the fat red prince of consumerism patterned from a Christian saint.

     Posted by Jmdemko at 04/09/2009 @ 04:42am

131. Mask,

     I figured my example was one where it would draw the demand for a link.

     I do remember the source where I read it, it was in a local paper.

     I refuse to go research this in the paper's archives or on Google.

     There are times when I have provided links to comments I made, but I have a new policy. If a lib pest demands a link, then I do NOT provide a link, or go find a link and provide it if I did not have it before.

     You know as well as I that this circumstance exists in public school today - where in a lot of schools it is almost forbidden to interject religion into anything when a kid is in the school building.

     I heard conversation where I eat breakfast one morning about how a kid got into trouble at a local school because she mentioned God during a commencement speech.

     Obviously I have no link to conversations I hear.

     I know in your case the purpose of most of your questions is to be a pest, but in general terms this demand for links gets absurd.

     Sometimes people get into discussions where comments are made about things but the conversations are not in an "arena" where proof is "required".

     This is not some kind of court of law. I have asked this question before, what did people do before they had computers.

     Nowadays if two people are having a face to face argument they could pull out their netbooks and search Google and find links and then instant message or email replies back and forth!

     You, of course, will declare my opinions invalid because they do not have proof, or "truthiness", but so what?

     Remember, when links are demanded of Conservatives on this site and then provided, libs then say the sources are invalid.

     You know as well as I God has been taken out of the public schools.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 06:33am

132. "I do remember the source where I read it, it was in a local paper.

     I refuse to go research this in the paper's archives or on Google."---Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 06:33am

     What local paper then? I'll look it up for you.

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 07:54am

133. Will the American people be prayed into the next administration, which will be confronted by a possible nuclear Iran and an already nuclear Pakistan, by a half-educated pulpit-pounder [Rick Warren] raised in the belief that the Armageddon solution is one to be anticipated with positive glee? As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans--non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers--are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.

     This quite simply cannot stand. Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. -- Christopher Hitchens -- Slate -- 19 December, 2008

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/09/2009 @ 08:00am

134. then praise to G-d, they died bearing witness to Christ and went home to glory.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:06pm

     And met with 70 virgins...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2009 @ 08:22am

135. ((Always a good time for some Carlin))

     "...Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

     He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit! But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried.

     I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up. Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades."....

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 08:49am

136. " Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude.

     And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man..."---- George Carlin

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 08:49am

137. then praise to G-d, they died bearing witness to Christ and went home to glory.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:06pm

     And met with 70 virgins...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2009 @ 08:22am

     Nonsense and you know it. Only Islam holds to that ridiculous claim. As Jesus taught, life in heaven is not like earth. There is no sex, no marriage. that is a earthly bond designed in part to help us understand the unique bond in the trinity and the promise in Genesis that the two shall become one. Sex, besides being an earthly pleasure within marriage, provides a means of experiencing that oneness that has occurred spiritually between two people.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 09:08am

138. "..... you seem to avoid the 'religious belief' cul-de-sac, and head out into the hinterlands of existential physics. 'I think therefore I am' is not what I'm going for here, but you can pursue that avenue if you wish. ..."

     Merely demonstrating, F, that there are arguments for theism that are logical in the formal sense. I was picking up on your claim that belief in God is illogical.

     The Kalam Argument (there are other sound logical arguments for the existence of God as well) given premises that have as much validity as their denial, even in terms of 21st century science, provides a logical basis for the claim that the universe has a first cause. Some who are not theists accept that and come to the position that there is "a mind" or intelligence directing evolutionary processes.

     Fred Hoyle who, had a few loopy ideas about evolution, needed "a mind" and didn't mind losing friends amongst scientists, provocatively said:

     "The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

     Theists go a step further and claim the "intelligence" is a transcendent personal God. Some in the scientific and other disciplines are theistic evolutionists like your Francis Collins, who headed up the HG Project, others are not.

     So unless you were using "suspended logic" as a sort of swear word against theists or the Christian variety in particular the facts aren't on your side.

     Your problem is not the reality of your existence (I think therefore I exist). I think you and I are quite happy to accept you exist. A more profound question is does God exist and what is God?

     The Kalam Argument is just one place to begin answering that question.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/09/2009 @ 09:39am

139. I would just like to add that Wikipedia should not be used if you want people to take you seriously.

     this is nonsense. Wiki is based on an Encyclopedia Britannica, a perfectly acceptable source.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2009 @ 09:47am

140. god said to Abraham "kill me a son", Abe said "god, you must be putting me on"

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2009 @ 10:09am

141. god said to Abraham "kill me a son", Abe said "god, you must be putting me on"

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2009 @ 10:09am

     It's a great song by Dylan. I used to sing it along with all of his early work.

     However, it certainly missed the lesson G-d was bringing to Abraham.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:19am

142. 'Wiki is based on an Encyclopedia Britannica, a perfectly acceptable source.' -- emile duBois

     'MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Neil Waters had never seen anything quite like it. "I was looking at a stack of final examinations," said Waters, a professor of Japanese studies at Middlebury College in Vermont, "and I found several instances of misinformation that [were] identical from one student to another."

     All of those students in Waters' Japanese history class late last year had been steered wrong by the same source -- Wikipedia, the sprawling online encyclopedia that has revolutionized how ordinary people find information.

     Wikipedia is a marvel of Web innovation and utility, but the incident in Waters' class, added to several celebrated controversies in which entries for famous people were found to be false, raises a troubling question: Just how accurate is Wikipedia, and can you trust what it tells you?

     For Middlebury College's history department, the answer is plain: Not totally, and not always. The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers...

     Just this year, a Wikipedia entry falsely proclaimed that the comedian Sinbad was dead. ("Saturday, I rose from the dead," he said.) Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued last month to find out who anonymously posted, falsely, that he abused drugs. And a prolific and highly trusted contributor believed to be a professor was unmasked as a 24-year-old college dropout.' -- MSNBC -- 29 March, 2007 -- http://www.ms nbc.msn.com/id/17740041/

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/09/2009 @ 10:44am

143. "Abe, think for yourself once in awhile, schmuck!"

     Maybe I missed it too.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/09/2009 @ 10:26am

     My take on Abe:

     Abe was moved by vision...was sacrificing his ONLY son, Ishmael (before Isaac was born), was stopped by his own conscience (not an angel), and as he looked down at his son, with knife in hand, noticed the 'Ram of Providence'...and averted tragedy.

     I believe the lesson is deep and profound:

     We are fallible (Abe thought he had a lock on just what to do) and unable to recognize that providence and clairvoyancy are beyond the reach of our petty logic.

     Sometimes you have to trust that YOU DON'T KNOW the whole story.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/09/2009 @ 10:49am

     You did. Abraham did hear G-d. This was the ultimate testing of how much Abraham was willing to trust G-d ultimate goodness and plans for him.

     Would if called to do so, he even sacrifice what he had longed all his life for, if G-d required it of him? The answer became yes. His desire to know, love, and serve G-d was proven to be greater than his earthly wants and desires.

     Having demonstrated that his first love was G-d and not his family or his personal desires, G-d provided. Abraham trusted that G-d would somehow do what was right.

     Many believers since then have been tested by G-d to the limits of all they hold dear. Some fail and show they love the world more. Some demonstrate that their faith is real.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 11:14am

144. Posted by snowball666 at 04/09/2009 @ 10:49am

     Thanks Triple6. Thoughtful post. Was thinking how to answer F. Can't think of a better way.

     Also liked your post that left you with nothing but Paradoxs .

     Off for a few days hols over Easter. Will look at the reference you gave me on Godel et al when I get back.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/09/2009 @ 11:28am

145. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 11:14am </i>

     *sigh*

     This always frustrates me when someone brings up the story of Abraham and Isaac. EVERYONE seems to say "well, it's about sacrificing what you cling to most," and so on. But that's not true. We're not just talking about some farm that he really treasured or even a beloved pet, we're talking about his son, who in addition to being very precious to Abraham, was a HUMAN BEING. This means that if the story is taken completely as written, God commanded Abraham to commit murder. That's a pretty big problem...

     Now, I suppose one could argue that this was meant to be a REPUDIATION of human sacrifice, that human life wasn't held nearly as valuable then and so God was teaching a lesson. Maybe you could make that argument. The difference, of course, between that theory and the one antisocialist is raising is this: if a voice tells you to kill your child, no matter how much it feels like God, you absolutely don't do it.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2009 @ 11:35am

146. Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 11:14am

     See? You HAVE to look at it that way, or else it makes the early Hebrews look like a bunch of primitive savages...or God look like a homicidal psychotic.

     Just reading the story as is, isn't good!

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 11:55am

147. then praise to G-d, they died bearing witness to Christ and went home to glory.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:06pm

     And met with 70 virgins...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2009 @ 08:22am

     Nonsense and you know it. Only Islam holds to that ridiculous claim. As Jesus taught, life in heaven is not like earth. There is no sex, no marriage.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 09:08am |

     Who said anything about sex? They wouldn't be virgins if there were sex in heaven.

     Suppose consuming depleted uranium and nuking countries isn't just fine-- since there's none of that in heaven either...?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2009 @ 11:55am

148. '...human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind...' -- Tom Paine

     'I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever."...' -- Christopher Hitchens -- Slate.com -- 5 May, 2008

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/09/2009 @ 12:34pm

149. See? You HAVE to look at it that way, or else it makes the early Hebrews look like a bunch of primitive savages...or God look like a homicidal psychotic.

     Just reading the story as is, isn't good!

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 11:55am

     You display the difference between those who read G-d's word because they believe it is true and those who don't.

     Even as a child, the meaning of this passage was clear to me. I didn't know anything about a concept of primitive savages.

     1 Corinthians 2:14

     But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

     As Jesus taught in Matthew 13:10-13

     His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?"

     He replied, "You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. That is why I use these parables,

     For they look, but they don't really see. They hear, but they don't really listen or understand.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 12:43pm

150. Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 12:43pm

     Yes, Larry that's the Biblical way of saying "You're stupid because you don't see things my way!"

     or a varient on the old "The Bible is true...How do you know?...Cuz the Bible says so and the Bible is true!"

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 1:13pm

151. did Abraham believe he would be reunited with his son in the Kingdom? Or did he believe he was making the sacrifice permanently? Did he really have 'skin in the game' or not?---Posted by snowball666 at 04/09/2009 @ 1:10pm

     He answered that...

     "His desire to know, love, and serve G-d was proven to be greater than his earthly wants and desires."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 11:14am

     Didn't matter. God was telling him to kill his son and that was "good enough". The boy's life was (and SHOULD BE according to Larry) meaningless to him in the face of an order of God.

     If Abraham knew that "it would be okay in the end" (reunited in Heaven, God WOULD stay his hand), then the whole thing was a put-on.

     Abraham HAD to believe that he would kill his son and never see him again, or else it was a show.

     BTW, this is the reason despite their claim to being "pro-life", fundy/evangeys like Larry are really "pro-death", willing to see sons off to war to die "for a greater good" or "what God is telling them is a greater good" with nary a second thought.

     Hard-core Christianity is a death-cult. For the simple fact that by their own admission, life is nearly meaningless and easily disposed of (except when it comes to the 9 months before delivery) if it's for "a good cause".

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 1:21pm

152. Yes, Larry that's the Biblical way of saying "You're stupid because you don't see things my way!"

     or a varient on the old "The Bible is true...How do you know?...Cuz the Bible says so and the Bible is true!"

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 1:13pm

     I guess that's why the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart there is no G-d".

     No, it's not a variant on that at all. If Jesus is G-d as He claimed to be and He said that He would send the Holy Spirit who was equal to Him; then we believers receive instruction just as if Jesus Himself was instructing us and making things clear to us. But also that Jesus said, those who don't want to believe G-d, won't, no matter what evidence is presented to them (as in the story of the rich man and Lazarus).

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 1:34pm

153. And here I was thinking it was a good way to keep from getting busted by the Romans.

     A question, Anti: did Abraham believe he would be reunited with his son in the Kingdom? Or did he believe he was making the sacrifice permanently? Did he really have 'skin in the game' or not?

     Was he a Knight of Faith or a Knight of Infinite Resignation?

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/09/2009 @ 1:10pm

     Abraham believed that G-d would do what was right.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 1:37pm

154. "Sometimes you have to trust that YOU DON'T KNOW the whole story." posted by snowball.

     I couldn't have said it better. Nice!

     Especially true when it comes to religion, politics and science.

     Change is the only constant in the universe.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/09/2009 @ 1:44pm

155. Hard-core Christianity is a death-cult. For the simple fact that by their own admission, life is nearly meaningless and easily disposed of (except when it comes to the 9 months before delivery) if it's for "a good cause".

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 1:21pm

     Your statement is ridiculous. Life is treasured and valuable. But what is more valuable is your soul. this body is temporary. Even a godless fool knows he cannot live forever. But what happens to your soul is the most important thing. And to value this short time of living in this body over the eternity of the soul is to truly lack perspective.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 1:50pm

156. That's the weird thing, GOD being all like omnipotent/omnipresent - the alpha/omega of everything, means time is a done deal . S/HE doesn't tell anyone to do anything-- that hasn't already been done. God's 'will' has been done without an ask; w/out a tell.

     "For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.' " Matthew 4:5-6

     When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]." --John 8:44

     One might just want to check all ethereal voices one hears at the door.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2009 @ 2:04pm

157. Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 1:34pm

     First, I have NOT said there is no God...if so, please quote me or stop lying.

     Second....

     "Your statement is ridiculous. Life is treasured and valuable. But what is more valuable is your soul. this body is temporary."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 1:50pm

     That affirms my position not contradicts it, Larry. What "value" do you place on life if the soul is MORE valuable?

     Look at it from your own perspective...the body is temporary, a mere fraction of a second of God's time, yes? The soul infinite. Ergo, to place ANY true value on life...any...would be to weight a smidgeon of time against eternity...which would be illogical, given the difference between incredibly small and cosmically large.

     It's like saying "I value and treasure a penny...though I am wealthy (due to "being saved") by a count of BILLIONS of dollars."

     Or put it this way, did Jesus' ministry on Earth have THE SAME or "slightly less" value than His death (and Resurrection, if you like)? If anywhere close to "equal", you deny the greater importance of the Crucifixion, since ALL "hope and salvation" depend on THAT...not what he did at the Sermon on the Mount.

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 2:55pm

158. BTW, before this thread heads down the hole.....one last great irony.

     "President Obama made one of the most important statements of his young presidency when he said in Turkey that the United States is not "a Christian nation.""

     Now we had a lot of right-wingers respond to that with outrage...except one.

     Larry believes the SAME THING as Obama...but no criticisms of HIM from his otherwise pals here?!??!?!???

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 3:22pm

159. Happy Easter or Passover, everyone.

     Your Founding Fathers really would want you to.

     That's why they put His name on the dollar bill, don'cha know?

     Posted by william.harry13 at 04/09/2009 @ 3:23pm

160. The Bible is written in English...and I can read English. Show me a nation of believers like these: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. John 14:12 ." Then I will believe that you are a Christian for sure and not a false prophet in sheep's clothing.

     Posted by denim39 at 04/09/2009 @ 8:09pm

161. I know this wasn't your point at all, and probably would be an unfair characterization of it if I were trying to characterize it...but the first thought on reading your post was:

     "If King James English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me!"

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2009 @ 11:49pm

162. The Bible is written in English.

     er, no. it is translated into english. big diff.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2009 @ 08:58am

163. Now, I suppose one could argue that this was meant to be a REPUDIATION of human sacrifice,

     yes, this is the meaning of the story.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2009 @ 09:02am

164. 'When you can quote me a psalm in Aramaic, then I'll know you're a Christian for sure, and not just a sheep.'

     This website is a gold mine for good quotes!

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/10/2009 @ 2:55pm

165. the classic education one might get in Europe:

     Latin, starting in "fifth" grade

     Ancient Greek

     Ancient Hebrew

     Aramaic

     the goal of this education? to read the bible as it was written.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2009 @ 3:43pm

166. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=snowball666

     so?

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/11/2009 @ 10:13am

167. However Jesus does affirm the necessity of bearing the sword against evil.

     this is a lie. there are many instances where Geez preferred mercy over justice.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/11/2009 @ 10:36am

168. no offense was taken.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/12/2009 @ 09:41am

169. "To place this in the hands of humanism as you cite is to give the rights a less than inalienable status. What man gives, they can take away.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

     Not at all, the humanist idea is that, since we are moral agents capable, for the most part, of free will and accountability for our decisions, that we have an intrinsic right to liberty. Likewise, since all humans are such moral agents, there is no intrinsic right for one human to rule another. As a leader of a peasant revolt said, "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentlemen?"

     Further, the phrase "endowed by their Creator" could also entail Deist views of God, and thus not be Judeo-Christian at all.

     Finally, would someone like to take a shot at the Judeo-Christian origins of separation of powers, federalism, the merits of a bicameral legislature, etc.? These are the core elements of the American structure.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/12/2009 @ 9:52pm

170. <i>Posted by brunowe at 04/12/2009 @ 9:52pm </i>

     I think there's actually an argument to be made about those origins, but it's far from direct. The argument is that corruption is not something deriving from lack of education, but is an inextricable part of human nature. As such, we want to divide up power and check power against power so that the corruption power brings will not lead to ruin.

     On the humanism argument...it doesn't work because it makes a huge leap. Why does the fact that we have free will convey any kind of intrinsic right? First of all, you're making a leap from something we observe in reality to a moral claim about human beings. Second of all, this leap is particularly problematic given that without a fundamental moral point of reference (one which is not contingent, for instance), the absolute moral claim regarding the existence of rights has no ontological foundation.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/13/2009 @ 11:27am

171. With Obama's checkered past in Jeremiah Wright's church, he has reason to not be too theocratic. That bombastic preacher had a racist congregation with an Afrocentric theology based on materialism. Father Phleger, one of Obama's mentors, is a Hitler look alike berating Hillary Clinton. I any case, perhaps I am glad that Obama has distanced himself from these folks who have bought into liberation theology and seem to be twisted by Chicago's machine politics championed by Mayor Richard J. Daley, Senior, who seemed to know how to get dead people to vote and homeless people to vote two and three times.

     Posted by shorewater at 04/13/2009 @ 5:51pm