Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The United States Supereme Court's War on the Sovereignty of God
Vision Forum ^ | July 8, 2005 | Douglas W. Phillips, Esq

Posted on 07/11/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by Warhammer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: Tailgunner Joe

"The founders understood that Americans have a right to prefer Christians for our leaders."

The Founders also understood that Americans do not have a right to *require* leaders to be Christians. They didn't want any one faith promoted over or in the absence of any other.


61 posted on 07/12/2005 1:59:55 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury

Does officially swearing "So Help Me God" with your hand on the Bible violate the First Amendment? The Founders sure didn't think so!


62 posted on 07/12/2005 2:00:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
You are an extremist by that definition because of your chicken little crying wolf about the "Christian Taliban" wants to establish theocracy in the USA. You will fail in your secular extremist quest to turn the war on terror into a bolshevik war on religion

Hey, you were almost perfect. You only missed Nazi. But still that's pretty good for you.

The founders understood that Americans have a right to prefer Christians for our leaders.

And that's in the Constitution....where?

63 posted on 07/12/2005 2:10:13 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Keep preaching doom and gloom about how the right wing want to take away our civil rights. While you're trying to undermine the conservative movement, Christian conservatives will be fighting the real terror threat. They'll keep you safe enough to spout your anti-Christian opinions.
64 posted on 07/12/2005 2:15:17 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I would repeat my question to you, but I guess your silence on it is your answer.

Keep preaching doom and gloom about how the right wing want to take away our civil rights.

Didn't realize I was doing any preaching. You are quite sensitive about anyone who feels the Constitution has some meaning other than Sunday church services. As for our civil rights, I do consider that the 14th Amendment is one of the rights that the radical right would either ignore or repeal. Because to require a Christianity test for justices, that particular amendment to our Constitution would be violated.

While you're trying to undermine the conservative movement,

I seriously doubt you have any concept of conservatism.

Christian conservatives will be fighting the real terror threat.

How so?

They'll keep you safe enough to spout your anti-Christian opinions.

I'm not sure if you are confused or what. I do not recall "spouting" any anti-Christian opinions. The only spouting I recall is someone referring to me as a Bolshevik because I believe in the First Amendment.

65 posted on 07/12/2005 2:42:32 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Yep, you are preaching like the most self-righteous bible-thumper, except you are a self-righteous liberal preaching about the evils of Christianity.

This nation's was founded upon Christian principles. Christianity is the basis of morality and law. You and the ACLU can do all you can to try to change that and purge religious influence from our government, but you will fail. He who spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

66 posted on 07/12/2005 3:01:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Look Joe, perhaps you need to drop back down and debate with those at your level. I have enjoyed discussing these issues with a number of well read Christians who can appreciate an in-depth two-way exchange of ideas. Religious discussions should not devolve into the sort of silly insults you have injected into this one.

I'm not questioning anyone's faith, and if have read any of my posts, you will know I have accorded Christianity its due in the formation of this nation. But quite frankly, your particular faith appears a tad fragile, and you see attacks where none exist. Your immediate reaction to anyone questioning the theme of this thread is to attack, insult and otherwise hurl baseless charges and epithets.

When you start throwing around words like conservative and liberal, you might want to go to a dictionary and find out what they really mean. You might just be surprised.

67 posted on 07/12/2005 3:30:10 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
One thing I know about liberals, they love to bash Christianity and go on about how terrible the Crusades were and how those rotten flag-waving Christian are just like the Taliban. Just like you.
68 posted on 07/12/2005 3:44:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: highball
The Constitution is about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That includes faiths.

No that is not what the Constitution is about. It is about establishing legitimate roles for the government, and the first ten Amendments were about protecting the rights of people and states from the power of the government. Whether someone says a prayer at a graduation ceremony should be of no concern to the government.

A faith cannot be promoted by the government just because it's the majority faith.

Promoting faith? I just want the government to respect the will of the people as long as it does not actually infringe on rights of individuals. No where in the Constitution does it say people can not be exposed to other people religion. Quite to the contrary, it says the opposite, people have freedom to express their religion.

Perhaps you'd have no problem with a predominantly Muslim municipality promoting Islam as the "true faith" over Christianity?

I have no problem with them expressing their religion. Attacking someone else's religion is not appropriate.

69 posted on 07/12/2005 3:46:50 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Does officially swearing "So Help Me God" with your hand on the Bible violate the First Amendment? The Founders sure didn't think so!

I agree with the Founders.

70 posted on 07/12/2005 3:59:35 PM PDT by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Just like you.

Just like me what?

71 posted on 07/12/2005 4:24:42 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
While I am as certain that there is no God, just as certain as I presume the Pope is that there is a God, still I am certain that there is a moral truth, that we should all seek out and follow

How are you certain that there is no God? Have you searched throughout the entire universe? Do you possess omniscience? If not, then you cannot be certain of such a universal negative, and therefor your assertion of certainty is groundless and false.

You cannot account for morality apart from God. You cannot derive an "ought" merely from what is, which in your view, is nothing but matter in motion. There are no "good" and "bad" atoms.

Cordially,

72 posted on 07/13/2005 8:40:09 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Don't worry - I do not have scientific evidence and reproducible experiments that will convince all competent listeners, or even just yourself, that there is not a God.

And don't worry - you evidence sufficient cluelessness of what I believe that there is no chance I can explain it to you in a way that you find plausible, much less persuasive.

I have searched far and wide for authors that might reflect my beliefs, and describe them better than can I. The closest I've found is Daniel Dennett.

73 posted on 07/13/2005 10:45:02 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury
Everyone makes a big deal about the first half of that Amendment, and glosses over the second half. The first half states, in essence, that Congress shall make no law which either establishes OR DIS-ESTABLISHES religion. The second half expands on that by stating that no law can be made at the National level to prohibit the free (meaning unencumbered) exercise of religion by the citizenry. In short, Congress has no authority to either endorse or prohibit religious expression of any kind. Today, Congress oversteps that authority.

John Adams understood quite well that our government would only continue to function well as long as it was understood that the government does have a stake in promoting morality and religious expression.

We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

74 posted on 07/13/2005 10:55:42 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Faith in Christ is the evidence of God's choosing, not the cause of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Thank you for your reply.

Don't worry - I do not have scientific evidence and reproducible experiments that will convince all competent listeners, or even just yourself, that there is not a God.

I didn't ask you to convince me. I assume from your words that you are a physicalist, in which case there would be no "convincing" in the first place, because under a physicalist premise there is no truth, understanding, meaning, mind, self or anything to be "convinced" other than the purely physical forces of random collisions of subatomic particles. I asked you how you were certain, because your certainty would require omniscience. No offense intended, but the claim of certainty of knowledge of no God is a tacit claim to be a "know-it-all".

And don't worry - you evidence sufficient cluelessness of what I believe that there is no chance I can explain it to you in a way that you find plausible, much less persuasive.

I can only go by the words you use. Thank you for the link to Dennett. I am familiar with his ideas, if that is indeed what they should be called, because if he is correct then his thoughts too are nothing but the result of irrational causes; they are all empty sensations created by chemical conditions and random collisions of protons and neutrons.

Cordially,

75 posted on 07/14/2005 8:58:47 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
You have no idea what I believe. That's ok.

Have a good day.

76 posted on 07/14/2005 12:11:44 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson