Posted on 06/27/2002 11:26:19 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer---UNDER STATE/SATAN...Atheist secular materialists through evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations(separation of state/religion)--TRUTH-GOD...made these absolutes relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...
pro-atheism...the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning!!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION
ps...evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism!
Basically...
to summarize---
we have an established religion---ATHEISM...a monopoly forbidding the freedom of speech-thought(pc brainwashing)-religion!
Yes it does matter. God refers explicitly to the Judeo-Christian God and NO other.
Uh, God is the supreme being, so even if the framers of the Constitution may have (may have, because we really aren't sure) intended it to be the Judeo-Christian "God", the "God" referred to is the same almighty supreme being of most mainstream religions. Even though muslims initially were worshipping Allah as a moon-god, the most powerful of many of their pagan gods, I think they generally worship Allah today as the one almighty God.
Were you on the O.J. jury?
Someone said that having students recite the pledge in school violated the 10th Amendment, since the Federal Government is not empowered by the constitution to mandate a pledge. My point was that public schools are state-run institutions, so such an argument holds no water.
God as a creator, not as a religion, is that source (as the Fathers stated many times). That creator maintains the Legitimate Moral Authority that endows our inalienable right to life and liberty. Without that "God" (Legitimate Moral Authority, due to authorship) inalienable rights (and basic morality) become institutions of man, allowing man to change or remove at will what he reasons best.
It is impossible to remove God from our Republic or Western Civilization without undermining the authority of inalienable rights. And as we all know without inalienable rights outside man and his reason, man becomes wild or ruled.
The establishment clause is part of this philosophy; that government cannot legitimately force a person to conform to a religion as that violates the inalienable rights endowed by the Moral Authority (God). The establishment clause does not separate God from Government, it verbalizes the constraint Government has regarding God and His creations. And by it's very existence affirms Gods Moral Authority and authorship of Life.
I also guess that the same judges wouldn't consider it 'coercion' when children who have creationist parents and/or beliefs are subjected to the theory of evolution. They also probably wouldn't consider it 'coercion' when students who are at the ripe old age of 5 years old are subjected to books like "Heathers 2 Mommies" and other information that their parents don't want them 'taught' at school.
The whole thing is crazy, jmo.
Your point is true. One might also add that relevant language utterly precludes the federal government from making any sort of regulation having to do with local/regional/national religious bodies. All such questions were designed by the Founding Fathers to be handled by the state governments in accordance with the principle of federalism, iluminated by the acknowledgement of the great religious diversity which existed among the original 13 states. This clause of the first amendment, indeed is, IMHO, the greatest bolster of federalism in the constitution aside from the 10th since it shows the principle already being practiced at the beginning of the republic.
This is true in the original sense of the word, however, this word has many meanings (see m-w.com) one of which is "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT"
In this sense of the word, one may clearly believe in sin without having a belief in divine laws. Sorry for the quibble :)
What most forget is that a majority of the founding fathers were Christians. Read the Declaration of Independence and notice how many references to God there is. Also notice what it says about inaleinable rights, given to us by the creator. Where does the Bill of rights come from? Not men, but God. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention separation of church and state. These two documents tell us one thing, God is an intangable part of our government and our way of life. The atheist/communists/socailist want that changed so they may rule us like in China or the former soviet republic.
WITHOUT INALIENABLE RIGHTS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR, THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHTS.
What most forget is that a majority of the founding fathers were Christians. Read the Declaration of Independence and notice how many references to God there is. Also notice what it says about inaleinable rights, given to us by the creator. Where does the Bill of rights come from? Not men, but God. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention separation of church and state. These two documents tell us one thing, God is an intangable part of our government and our way of life. The atheist/communists/socailist want that changed so they may rule us like in China or the former soviet republic.
WITHOUT INALIENABLE RIGHTS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR, THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHTS.
So I was thinking what about this example of using God?
When you testify in a court of law, you must place your hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God
In this case, the person is being compelled to swear the oath to God. Is this Constitutional? Are atheists compelled to take the oath? Are atheists compelled to tell the truth in a court?
There has been a significant trend in the Supreme Court to judge that there is "an establishment of religion" whenever any religious expression is sponsored or allowed at a state funded institution or a public event with which the state is in any way involved. That trend was taken farthest, to my knowledge, in the Santa Fe, Texas case, decided in June 2000, which involved school-sponsored pre-game inspirational remarks by a student which might include a prayer if the student so chose. The logic of that decision, as I remember, was that one's rights are violated if anyone expresses religious faith in one's hearing on a state-sponsored occasion.
So on this reasoning, it doesn't matter whether the Pledge is voluntary or not; if the state sponsors or allows any reference to "God" as a real entity however defined, "religion" is being "established." It is difficult to see why this reasoning does not forbid the posting of the Declaration of Independence in schools.
The rational answer to this is that in the 18th century the phrase "an establishment of religion" had a precise meaning. The Framers were not equating "religion" with "religiosity" or declaring that religious faith must be kept quiet in the public square. Until the 19th century, the basic definition of "religion" in western society was Cicero's "a way of worshiping the gods." In other words, "an establishment of religion" means putting state power behind one way of "worshiping the gods" at the expense of others. It meant giving one way of "worshiping the gods" the status the Anglican Church had in England, the Lutheran churches in the German princedoms, and the Roman Catholic Church had in other European countries. The Anglican example was the central one, since the Framers were Whigs, and the specter of corrupt prelates making deals with kings to their own advantage was one of the central themes of the Whig version of English history.
The recent jurisprudence that equates "an establishment of religion" with anything that can be considered religion-friendly in public life, however non-coercive, reflects the tendency of the courts, following left-wing attitudes, to turn the First Amendment into a declaration of each person's right to "freedom from religion." The First Amendment never had anything to do with protecting the tender ears of secularists from the jarring effect of the public pronouncement of the word "God."
I agree there is only one. Arguing that the founders had meant some abstract notion of some god rather than THE God is facetious.
Well, yeah, they did, and that's what got the atheists peeved. Until 1954, there wasn't a problem. When "under God" was added by congress, some interpreted that as an establishment/endorsement of religion. Granted, congress did not order it to be said in the classrooms, but when it was uttered containing the "congress-mandated" phrase, it became an issue.
The student in the case was allowed to omit "under God" when reciting the pledge, but this was not sufficient for her jerk-off dad who wants his 15 minutes.
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.