Assailing Christmas and other American Traditions
In case you haven’t noticed in the last several years, the attacks on Christmas and other traditions, mostly those related to religion, are under increasing attack. Now mind you, I don’t mean ALL religions are being attacked. No, that would be ludicrous and those attacks would be considered, hypocritically by many, to be unfair and un-American. I say “hypocritically” because most of the people who would jump up and decry attacks on non-Christian groups would be DOING so based on the same principles that should apply to protecting Christians and traditions based on Christianity- yet, they selectively remain silent.
However, if you attack a Christian, a Christian based tradition, or any group that is quasi Christian based, and you will not only get free reign to do so, but also, support from the secular left based media in the form of ignoring or suppressing the fact that such attacks are taking place in the first place.
You can find these attacks everywhere. You will find crosses on public AND private land being attacked across the nation. Some people even go so far as to protest crosses at locations on highways where people have died in accidents. How/why? Because, the roads are public and they say that is a “Church and State” issue. Amazing. Boy Scouts are having their right to use public schools free or at discounted rates for their meetings. For what reason? Same reason: schools are public, and some idiots who have cereal box law degrees think that it is a Church and State separation issue. This list could go on and on… Creche/manger scenes on the City Hall lawn; the Ten Commandments in a municipal courthouse; “One Nation, Under God” in the pledge of allegiance; prayer or benediction given by coaches or players before a sporting event, etc…
Yet we see other areas where the same circumstances appear/occur, yet nothing is done with them. Examples? “In God We Trust” on money; the Ten Commandments in the halls of the SCOTUS; a prayer being said before the opening of a congressional session; the swearing in of certain public officials on Bibles…
Tactical Preferences of the Left
Why are some areas attacked, and others not? The first important I want to make here is: because this battle is fought in the margins. Why?
Because the chicken shits (forgive me, but I loathe them) that are working on these kinds of actions are afraid. Afraid of? Of the overwhelming majority finding OUT that they are doing what they are doing, and noticing enough, getting ticked off enough, to rise up and make their hue and cry so loud that those in the positions to make decisions on such issues (Mayors, School Boards, Council Members) would have no choice than to NOT buckle to their attempts to strip this country of its religious background.
And why are they trying to keep it quiet, and take the low lying fruit? For several reasons:
- To establish precedents that will support going for larger, higher fruit
- They know many of these issues are decided by local officials, who may easily be influenced by threat of actions, litigation, or other pressures (ACLU).
- It is harder to change something BACK than it is to change it ONCE.
- If they can strip the lower echelons of society of these practices and observances (like in schools), then eventually the “electorate” will forget about it; their resolve will weaken; their focus will shift. The power of the majority will then wane, and later, the left will then have an easier time with things such as Gay Marriage.
Essentially, this is a battle in which they attempt to utilize the strategy of quiet incrementalism, often succeeding due to threat of legal action, rather than on actual legal merit/standing. The other reason they succeed, and this is not to be taken lightly- the silence of the majority.
The Latest Atrocity
In Washington State, the audacious Christine Gregoire has allowed to be posted, within the State Capitol, a very anti-religion message, next to the Christmas display. I will allow others to fry this atrocity from other angles. The only real point I want to make about this is: I am tired of idiots allowing other idiots access to specific events or holidays or celebrations, in the name of supposed political correctness; equal time; or some kind of perceived “right” to have their position be the “balancing” point against some other position.
What do I mean?
Well, why do you think someone like a weak kneed liberal Governor such as Gregoire would allow such a display? Here is why: Read above where I said this- “because this battle is fought in the margins.”
This was attempted because it is not legislation; it is not legal action such as a lawsuit; it is not even threats from the ACLU. It is the response of a “fair” minded idiot (Gregoire) who no longer has control over any kind of black and white, right and wrong metal acuity that allows her to cry “NO! Inappropriate!”
Instead, she decided to buckle, because it was the path of least resistance, that allowed for the perception of “fairness”.
Why is it NOT fair? Here is the second strong point I want to make here:
- Just because you have a mouth, a mind, and an opinion, this does not guarantee you the same opportunity, time, and place to make your point as some other group.
For example- you don’t make your point about a bride being a slut at a wedding. You don’t tell a judge he’s a damn idiot for his ruling IN the courthouse. You don’t get to run up on the podium at any public event and just start ranting about your position being the opposite of the speaker’s. You just don’t. But, alas, we see that kind of mentality from the children on the left all the time.
And, although a State Capitol is a government building, you don’t have the right to just set up any kind of “counter” theory or thought right next to that display of the event, simply for the sake of “equal time”, “free speech”, or an oportunity to make your point by being disruptive.
Another way to explain this is, Christmas displays are displayed during Christmas, representing Christmas. Therefore, there is some kind of justification for the display. There is no corresponding atheist holiday, happening at the same time, that allows them to spew their filth. The elements of our government and society that allow for this kind of “group fairness-think” is based, again, not in law, but in some kind of quasi, hypocritically applied attempt at “fairness” and “equal time”.
And, also underpinning this problem is- the misunderstanding of so. so many idiots in this country, concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Establishment Clause
Liberals absolutely rape the concept of the Establishment Clause, and turn it into their own bastardized theory of “NO RELIGION SHALL BE PRESENT IN ANY ASPECT OF ANYTHING THAT IS UNDER GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.”
This is an abomination (I know they love that word to, but that is for another day, when we talk about ‘Gay Marriage’) of the intent of the Establishment Clause. The intent of the establishment clause is best understood by understanding two things:
- The fundamental principles of our nation’s founders…
- The exact wording of the clause itself.
We will deal only with the wording itself, and perhaps I will deal with the fundamental principles of our founding fathers- in a historical, referential way- on another day.
The Wording
This is simple. Really. It only gets convoluted when you deal with assholes who don’t know what the meaning of the word “is”, is…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Man. This is so simple, it is scary to consider that so many idiots can take it far beyond what it was intended to mean.
It is made up of two parts, really. One is the Establishment part, the other is the Freedom part. You of course find the two parts on either side of the comma. Liberal idiots… are you paying attention?
Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
This means two things, conjoined:
- Congress shall create nothing in legislative form…
- …that has anything to do with establishing a religion, State or Federal, that all must adhere to, or may be oppressed by.
In some ways, an even more important word here is, “Congress”. In a broad, sweeping manner, one can discount that ANY action of a lower government agency to allow, and notice I use the word “allow”, the expression of Christian principles in a public forum controlled by the government, as being a violation of the establishment clause. A judge is not Congress. A Governor is not Congress. A Mayor is not congress. And, showing a manger, or a copy of the Ten Commandments, is not an “establishment” of religion, nor is it in any way a “law”. Simple so far, right?
Free Exercise Clause: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Even more simple. Again, we start with the most important aspect of the clause, the word “congress”, followed by enacting any law, that would “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
Put another way, the Establishment Clause ONLY prohibits the Congress from making law (shall make no law) creating a State religion (respecting and establishment of religion) or prohibiting free exercise OF religion.
Damn. That’s so simple, even a caveman could get it. Focusing on the keywords, you really cannot get lost in the definition of this one. Yet the left twists it to suit their needs daily.
Liberal idiots from all walks of life think that the Establishment Clause protects people (like them) from the “expression” of religion in their presence. In other words, they cling to the belief that “freedom OF religion” means “freedom FROM religion”.
Nope. Not any more than it prevents me from walking down the street or acting out in any public place, stating “red” is the best color, that I like radishes, or that President so and so sucks.
Let me give you an example of how their minds work (or fail to work). Walking down the street, they see a manger scene on the property of City Hall. They immediately jump to their diluted-by-socialistic, left-leaning teacher infused High School civics education, and recall the words “separation of Church and State.” “Well, hell,” they think, “that is Church crap on some State crap. We need to see that that gets ‘separated’.”
What is missing from this equation? I know most of you, if you are conservative, already get it. What is missing is, “Congress”, “laws”, or any form of “establishing” religion. Our “separation of Church and State” concept is manifested in a meaningful and legal manner ONLY in the Establishment Clause. The concept of separation of Church and State is so often misused by the left and like minded idiots that they regularly tout THAT as opposed to the actual wording of the Establishment Clause. This is kind of like saying “pro life” instead of using the word “abortion”, or “progressive” instead of “liberal”.
Our society has become a bunch of watered down, no cajones (see English/Spanish dictionary for “balls”), intellectual wusses in which we have purposefully but regretfully swung the pendulum of fairness so far to the wrong side of “justice” that people of strong opinion or ideological and intellectual conviction fear societal prosecution for stating their feelings about such things as gay marriage, for fear of being called a bigot, fired, demoted, or chastised by some liberal rag of a newspaper.
Do you see the pattern here? Do you see the pattern of low lying fruit, incremental attacks, the threats of lawsuits (which have no merit); the attempts to oppress majority thought or principles, by simply using fear and shouting you down in churches, radio, and television?
Interestingly, you can find an additional component of the makeup of the character (or lack thereof) of these people when you compare them with terrorists:
- The more they get, the more success and power they achieve, they don’t slow down, and back off, content with their success or progress. They instead become MORE aggressive, more militant.
- They are more than willing to use in your face, violent and confrontational tactics to further their agenda. Legislation will not work, nor will posing their argument in the theater of societal intellectual intercourse. They spike trees to protect owls, causing loggers to become injured. They start fires in houses that aren’t compliant with their ideal “green construction” practices. They’ll beat your ass if you cross their picket lines and work. They riot in the streets when things don’t go their way.
Conclusion
The left is peppered with intellectual midgets capable of great destruction to the fabric of our, your society. If left unchecked, they will sway opinion of low end officials and boards/committees, until, incrementally, they have eroded your societal traditions from the GROUND UP, as opposed to from the top down, with legislation. They cannot legislate most of what they wish to do, because it simply holds no legal merit, or constitutional muster, even though they constantly wave the bill of rights (and other amendments) in your face, using their carefully crafted but erroneously founded, twisted, illogical misrepresentation of the intent or true meaning of said amendments.
What’s really at stake here is, YOUR freedom to express your religious beliefs in a public square/ manner/location. What you must do is rise up with your like-minded brothers, and speak loudly with one voice werever this kind of quiet, under the radar movement attempts to take hold. Once you rise up in numbers, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this can be beat back down just by sheer numbers, and ATTENTION brought on by the then interested press, (interested in the size of the protest).
Your biggest enemy is not them. It is the silence of those who would, could, should care. If you sit on your hands, you give them tacit approval… and the dominoes will fall.
And with that, Michael Karger went bye bye. He is now redirected to http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__Then_vs_Than
every tie he tries to get on here.
You would ban me you hypocritical prick. It just goes to show that those who don’t know the truth really don’t care to find it.
Which is what I find so humorous about your site. You claim to know the answers. Yet you refuse to hear any argument from the “liberals” .
Want to know how I found this site? I was searching alternative conservative sites to do some research about alternative arguments. It’s called educating yourself. Something you clearly have no interest in. Instead you insist on claiming your superiority.
I have no problem with people holding different values THAN I do. Just don’t cram it down my throat and I won’t force my values on you.
Do I think you are stupid? Absolutely not. I just think you are too afraid to ask questions. Instead you sit on here and tell yourself that you know the answers to all of life’s questions.
As far as my grammatical mistakes, I didn’t realize you had taken such an interest in my grammar lately. Seems like you don’t have any valid arguments. Instead, you find any insignificant errors in my posts to make yourself look superior.
I hate to break it to you, but I’ve read a few other blog posts on here. Your grammar is horrendous. I’m glad you found out that it’s hard for me to give a crap about then and than when I’m typing 100 word per minute on a conversational site. Maybe if you spent less time looking so far into my grammar errors you’d be able to realize that I do have an intelligent argument to pose.
I came on here looking for an intelligent discussion. You turned it into some sort of fight. Good job.
Now as far as the faith discussion…
Faith, for SO many, is out of fear. The bible preaches that turning away from God is a one way ticket to hell. That is fear mongering from the source. The bible is nothing but a self fulfilling prophecy organized to get any gullible fool to enlist in it’s army of followers.
And being that I have read the bible several times, I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about.
I think you are confusing Atheists with lazy idiots with no life plans. There are plenty of Atheists that understand that there is a certain responsibility that comes with living in society (why do you think I read Camus and other “godless” philosophers?). I have given up on the Christian faith, but I still practice ethics. I just practice them for reasons different then many.
If you don’t think that it’s harder to be an Atheist than a Christian in the US, then you only need to look to government for proof. An Atheist can’t get elected into office. An Atheist is constantly being harassed for their beliefs ( or lack thereof). We are constantly being labeled as “horrible people.” Christians have hundreds of millions of other Christians to seek comfort and confidence in. It doesn’t take work to believe in Christianity and keep the faith when everyone tells you that you should believe. Very few people are out there telling Christians that they are wrong. But Christians are constantly telling others how they are wrong. I even have an agnostic telling me I’m wrong.
I mean for gods sake my mom told me that I was going to hell.
I could very well be wrong about Christianity. And I could very well spend all eternity in hell. But then again, Christians could be wrong and Islam could be right.
Con1, you have finally figured me out. I am in fact a communist. I’m a socialist in practice, but ideally a Marxist. So now you probably understand why I read Camus. I also consider Marx one of the greatest philosophers of the last 200 years.
I don’t believe that Stephen Hawking can park a car. Then again he knows more about physics and the Universe then you or I could ever even imagine. You should watch those pretentious statements. They debase your arguments.
Real quick, before you open your mouth and get banned for wasting everyone’s time on here with your ugliness, please check out the following site:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__Then_vs_Than
When you have mastered the High School level use of these words, perhaps you can graduate on to deeper topics like internal combustion, or the laws of thermodynamics. Camus, existentialism, and other topics might take a little longer for you to grasp. And, really… Camus? Why is it not a surprise you read the work of a communist?
You really should not be dabbling with the “God” concept until “then” and “than” are mastered. It is like discussing the size of the universe when you have a hard time parallel parking your car.
You have revealed ore about yourself than you can possibly imagine.
Faith is not, for so many, out of fear. It is an exercise, work.
Atheists ARE free. There is no reason for them to do anything. They are completely free to exercise their “nothing” anywhere they want. You can even do it in your sleep. The problem people like you and Hitchens have is not only can you just not let others be, but you are arrogant and hateful. This insistence in being “allowed” to believe nothing shows more that you are uncomfortable and not capable of accepting that many think you are wrong. Get over it.
There goes that “then” monster again. Yes, please, do go read.
I am done with you now. Thanks for the, um, enlightenment. It was more “then” I could have expected.
1. I am extremely humble. When I am in the presence of someone who deserves my humility then I will be humble. I don’t see anyone here who deserves my humility.
2. I’m not saying that all Christians are nutjobs. I was referencing Christians who are nutjobs. I am for freedom of religion. I am also for freedom from religion (that means freedom for atheists).
The reason why I am for freedom of religion is because I can say that I stand for no religion. You supposedly think that means I am against religion when that simply is not true.
But then again my definition of religion differs from many. And that is a completely different philosophical discussion that I would gladly partake in if you’d like.
3. I believe that faith is nothing but a crutch for a cripple. Faith is blind following. Faith is the enemy of reason.
If one man believes in a floating being that grants him wishes in exchange for praise we call him crazy. If 10 million people believe in it we call it religion.
Validation does not come with numbers. Proof lies in reason, not self-fulfilling prophecies.
4. I’m not trying to kick you around. I’m trying to enlighten you. Have a little humility and maybe you’d realize that.
It doesn’t take much to be a Christian(believe me, I was one). Any coward can be a Christian. After all, most people of the faith follow it because they fear an eternity in a river of fire. It has nothing to do with the “strength” to be a Christian. It takes weakness to be one. That is the point of modern religion. It is a crutch for the mentally crippled.
It takes far more will power to be an atheist then you could ever imagine. You are constantly being told how much of an asshole you are, the fact that you are going to hell, and you are constantly confronting the fact that there is no omniscient being helping you along in life. Other then the help you receive from friends, YOU ARE ALONE in this universe.
Now tell me, what is harder to live by? The promise that if you live right you will live eternally in a land of joy, or the promise that we as humans are alone and have no joy of any other life then the one we are in right now.
Don’t you think that moral Atheists work harder to be moral then Christians? Christians have a list to go by, we have to figure it out for ourselves. It’s like building a sky scraper without blueprints.
Agnosticism is nothing but a hop,skip and a jump away from atheism. You are like me, but you haven’t read “The God Delusion.” Another book that I highly recommend.
I’m glad that you love me. I love you too.
Now I am finally going to read some damn Camus…
1. You make my day. I love you. You are my hero. Really. You make SO many points for me and against yourself just by opening your mouth. You could never begin to understand, because you are who you are, you are sooooo useful to so many. This makes you, a, um, tool. And for that, I love you.
2. Vengeful God? Pleading? Begging? As I said, you know nothing, or little, of humility. This is evidenced by how you act, here.
3. You’re defending religious freedom? Which “religion” are you standing for? I think we need this clarified. I guess you stood up freedom of religion when you say things like “garbage” and “tool”, or “nutjob Christian”. Yes, you stallion of freedom, you Rambo of hypocrisy.
4. Agnostic. “Not sure. Have some doubts.” Done with definition. Too much for ya understand? Still, I loathe people like you. Why? Because you have nothing to offer. You seethe with ugliness. You cry for freedom for your beliefs, but try to squash others like bugs, with your hatred. You are a class A-1 asshole.
Which is where IIIIIIIIIII come in. Being “agnostic”, you get heat and shit from me that you WON’T get from most Christians. Why? Because, quite honestly, they are better than you. They are trying to practice what they preach. I have a little freedom. So, you, unfortunately, can’t kick me around, like you kick THEM around.
And I really have to ask how I am cramming religion down your throat. Cite a Bible passage I cited to you. Cite one scripture I have told you to read, from ANY religion. Cite one SCINTILLA of evidence I shove ANYTHING down your throat, except something you cannot handle… common sense, fairness, and truth you cannot refute.
“I can’t believe you keep coming back for more.” I really think you need help. “I” keep coming back? It is MY site!!! YOU keep coming back. And, in another bit of irony, I want to thank you. You are the best tool I’ve had for a long time. Thanks for coming back, and back, and back.
We love you here. You are welcome. Come on in anytime you want to learn.
And, I never look in the mirror to see myself. Wrong place to look. Even for an agnostic.
But you wouldn’t understand that, now, would you?
Good luck. You’ll need it. Even if there is no God. Heck- especially if there is no God…
I considering pleading to a vengeful god for a happy life to be begging. But then again that’s just my “opinion.”
The fact that you are an agnostic just makes you look like even more of a fool. I’d expect this kind of garbage from some “nutjob christian,” but now I’ve seen everything. I highly doubt you even know what the heck agnostic really means.
Bud, I’m the only person here trying to defend religious freedom. You are the one cramming religion down my throat. It doesn’t seem like you are doing much to protect the constitution or the will of our founding fathers. I’ve already made you look like a complete tool in here. I can’t believe you keep coming back for more.
Why don’t you take a look in the mirror and get back to me.
Con1, that was fabulous! I agree with every word. God Bless you in the new year.
Happy. So happy you are here, talking about types of people who — nevermind.
Good luck out there with your happiness.
As for “begging”, I don’t really see a lot of that. Humility, yes. Begging, no.
And by the way- this might shock the hell out of you… I am agnostic. I just don’t like pukes like you f-ing with religious folks, or religious freedoms in this Country.
Atheism is really nice. You should try it sometime. You don’t have to worry about begging a God for a speck of happiness. You can just be happy. Plus you don’t have to follow illogical rules just because “the book says so.”
Also, I’m not a Jesus Hater… In fact I believe Jesus was a very good man (assuming he actually existed) with plenty of exceptional philosophy. But he wasn’t the son of God.
Don’t let the Jesus haters run ya off. They busted into the Kool Aid. Bad atheists…. BAAAD atheists!
Jesus Christ as the “Lord and Savior” is a myth. There is no God. There is no afterlife. The more people realize that, the better off this country will be. The more people realize that, the better off the world will be.
Anyone who fusses about what name we give to christs birthday has materialized it just as much as the ones who fight the word christmas.
I think the place you are at right now is very dangerous. You have began to rewrite some of Gods laws it seems. Since when is being liberal a sin?
If America stopped making weapons for one week, we would have enough money to feed the world for a year. Yet we refuse to stop making weapons and thousands of people die each day from starvation.
When Jesus walked the earth, he didn’t show us which political party we should side with, if anything he created one. Jesus constantly taught about a lifestyle that was an alternative to the imperialistic ways of Rome. Today, America is not much different than Rome. We are the most violent country in the world and one of the richest. We control the majority of the worlds wealth and as a result, we are causing poverty all over the world. Somehow, we also manage to be one of the most predominantly christian societies the world has ever known. This tells me something. Christians aren’t living like christians anymore. They are living like Americans. Jesus didn’t teach us how to be Americans. As a matter of fact, most of the things he taught was the complete opposite to the American dream.
I urge you to reconsider your beliefs in these areas. You can vote any way you like for the rest of your life, I just ask that you have more respect for members of the christian body who consider themselves liberal.
Remember, Jesus taught us how to love, Democrats and Republicans.
Long live the one and only true king, Jesus Christ the Redeemer. Amen.
A. That treaty is US law.
B. I realize it does nothing to alter the constitution. The point however it to show that the US has a strong history of supporting secularism. Founding fathers worked on that Treaty.
C. It seems as though as soon as I show you evidence that proves you wrong you try to downplay its importance. It’s very similar to conspiracy theorists that, when presented with damning evidence, they simply write it off as lies or a “compromise” that no one really committed to being true. It doesn’t work like that people. James Madison himself wrote that Treaty. There would be no necessity for him to add that article unless he thought it to be true.
D. You reaaaaallly don’t want to get into a debate with me about the “legality” of such statements and legislation.
But that is okay. I have plenty more where that came from.
“And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”
-Thomas Jefferson
” Therefore, the constitutional terminology, by which to state the constitutional principle, as it now applies to all levels of government, is “separation between Religion and Government” ”
-James Madison
So basically a founding father has said that the constitution explicitly explains the separation and that it applies to all levels of government.
“Governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions”
-James Madison
“. . . I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, as least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U.S., would rally, as they did in Virg[ini]a when religious liberty was a Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding [in spite of] the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded ag[ain]st. And in a Govt of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law [emphasis added], was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virg[ini]a where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt”
-James Madison
“I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe [credit] the absence of any regulation [law], respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country”
-George Washington
referencing the issue of Christianity and other non-christians in the states Washington said…
“All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
And again, I have more I just have to reference a few of my books to find them.
Ok- here’s an interesting point of view for anyone who actually has a lick of common or legal sense here:
A treaty has nothing to do with U.S. law, or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or any of the other amendments to the Constitution.
Ask the Indian’s about treaty’s.
Additionally, let’s please not be so ignorant as to think that how we deal and bargain with other countries has never dealt with deceit.
Okay for anyone who actually cares here, here is one point of evidence showing that this is not and should not become a Christian nation…
11th article of the Treaty of Tripoli signed by the US Senate in 1797
“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.”
That was agreed to by every member of congress and George Washington.
I feel the need to warn all of you who read my post that I am in fact a liberal. A young college liberal to be exact. So this is not going to be a flattering review of the blog post above…
First off I consider myself to be a fairly strong liberal. But, contrary to conservative propaganda, I am not a know-nothing tool. Just as I don’t assume that all conservatives are simple-minded fools, I would expect conservatives to recognize that not all liberals are stupid. I feel like the stupidity is fairly equally spread.
-The first issue I have here is the assumption that liberals pushing to protect secularization of the government are only attacking Christianity. I’m not familiar with this conspiracy. And this is coming from someone who is fairly heavily involved with the liberal movement.
In the US, the overwhelming religion is Christianity. That means that when issues arise involving church and state, they are more then likely going to involve Christianity. So it may very well be a coincidence that a lot of cases you read about in the news involve Christianity. Believe me, Pelosi doesn’t have an underground office campaigning to destroy Christianity. haha
-The second issue I have is your Washington Capital post. Yes it is true that an anti-religion sign was allowed to be posted in the state capital. It was right next to a nativity scene and a Christmas scene. The state of Washington is not really favoring any religion.
If you believe in freedom of speech, which I’m sure you do as any American should, you should realize that if a nativity scene is set up, those who are opposed to it have equal right to protest it.
What I think the problem here is that the state really shouldn’t have anything to do with anything dealing with religion. Whether thats a 50 foot tall poster of Jesus in their courtrooms or a 50 foot tall poster of Richard Dawkins (for those who don’t know who he is, he is one of the leading Atheists in the world).
This had nothing to do with the fact that anyone was a liberal or a conservative.
-Lastly and possibly most importantly, I want to discuss the separation of church and state.
There is the 1st amendment that both denies congress from passing religious legislation, but also allows for the free exercise of religion.
Basically this means that the government stays out of religion and religion stays out of government.
Now as far as the possiblity of the founding fathers leaving religious law up to the citizens, I highly doubt that possibility.
First off, nearly all of the founding fathers were agnostic or atheist. I have quotational evidence to support that if you’d like.
But more importantly,above all, they were all secularists. That means that they believed that religion should play no roll in the function of government and government must stay out of a churches business (assuming the church has not broken any laws).
Being more specific, I highly recommend that you read the letters written by Thomas Jefferson discussing the separation of Church and State. Many other founding fathers also wrote about it.
So what this all means is that propositions like California’s 8 and Arizona’s 102 (my hometown) are unconstitutional. This is because of the fact that it is using law based on religion to discriminate against a group of people.
This also means that things like nativity scenes have no place on city hall grounds. Just as a massive statue of Buddha or a big inflatable Quran have no place on city hall grounds. That goes for any other government property as well.
The bottom line here is that people want all religion out of government business. It isn’t just religion A or B. Its the entire alphabet.
Yours Truly,
Michael Karger