Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

"you know it's a Myth"


whomper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nowhere in the Constitution is it said that there is to be a separation of church and state. In fact, it was the desire of the Founders that faith be an integral part of our Government.

 

You wanna explain what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote this:

 

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 & State."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nowhere in the Constitution is it said that there is to be a separation of church and state.

Really?

 

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

 

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

 

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era. It possibly could have been thought up of as a consensus to the diversity of religions in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution's creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti-establishment clause is in the 1st amendment. In case you forget in the future, that's the first one.

 

ok ok I see where it says separation of church and state. Well it doesn't really but I know they really meant to right that. It's kinda like where the 9th amendment says groundhog day will be celebrated with eating fish sticks and stomping weasels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do christians attack atheists on billboards? Unbelievable... and really, quite sad.

 

No, they like to use little pamphlets with cute little cartoons on them telling you that you will burn in hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior. Fear mongering 101.

 

The billboard is stupid and was erected just to get a rise out a group of people and attack their beliefs. They have the right to do it, but their intentions have no merit other than to piss someone off. Use the money spent on the billboard for something useful like say food for people who've lost their jobs and can't put a meal on the table for their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what prompted the American Atheists to put the thing up. But its kinds clever (IMO, of course) and it is certainly thought provoking and/or encourages discussion - which I don't think can ever be a bad thing.

 

Some people are drama queens and, as my esteemed colleague Uncle Steve said, look to get upset at things. I don't understand why somebody would be that upset at that billboard, pretty much as I don't understand why people get upset at nativity scenes.

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God given rights are what make this country exceptional, because we are the exception to all 5000 years of past human history, in that we base our Government not on rights granted by a man, but rights inherited from God himself, and formed a Government simply to protect out God given rights.

Wow, what a unique blend of lunacy, idiocy, and arrogance.

 

First off, let's just cut to the chase. Do you mean to imply that the US was the first government to base their laws on some divine word? Seriously? Do you know anything at all about World History? The US actually took a step in the exact opposite direction, and merely offered up a little "shout out" to god by saying that they thought god wanted people to live free. Prior to that, it was, "God made me king, now kneel before me."

 

So, that brings up the bit about god, not man, giving us these rights? Says freaking who? The guys who wrote the Constitution? Then why didn't it take like 5 minutes to write the thing? Why did it take more than one guy? I mean, if these are all handed down by god, what's up for debate? They could have all met.

 

"OK, did everyone get the memo from the big guy? Yes? OK, then there's nothing to talk about, let's just write this down and get on with things."

 

The reality is that these were all men. Men who, while likely cut from better cloth than those who represent us now, had agendas and wants and people to answer to. So, they all got together and came up with a set of rules that everyone was cool with. Some wanted this, some wanted that, and they made deals and arrangements. Ultimately, they came up with an amazing document that has stood up as one of the finest (if not the finest) set of rules ever written to govern a nation. But they didn't write it by walking up to the top of a freaking mountain and have god etch it out on a stone. No, they sat down and came up with a set of rules that they all agreed are basic things that none of us should be subjected to from another one of us.

 

And, like unta mentions, what about slaves? Did god change his mind 100 years later? Or did the black guy that god told to make sure they don't forget to include him and the woman that god told to show up and remind them that they should vote as well, somehow miss the party? And if that's the case, doesn't this whole, "God gave us these rules" bit sort of go out the window? Because why wouldn't god just give them the whole list? Why did god tell one guy, "Don't forget the bit about free assembly" and another guy, "Oh, and guns, you're going to want those." "Oh, and Thom, I almost forgot. If someone wants you to testify against yourself, tell him to screw himself."

 

So, yes, this is a great nation and the Constitution is perhaps the most important reason why. But let's give credit where it is due. To the visionary men who gathered and negotiated the exceptional contract that governs this nation.

 

Oh and btw, the bit about "god given rights" is actually in the declaration of independence which was merely their eff you to England, not something in the Constitution.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok ok I see where it says separation of church and state. Well it doesn't really but I know they really meant to right that. It's kinda like where the 9th amendment says groundhog day will be celebrated with eating fish sticks and stomping weasels.

It's more like how the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns, but we still know what the founders meant. Well, at least those of us who aren't being obtusely literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully support their right to put up the billboard but it makes me wonder...why?? The billboard depicts the birth of Jesus and calls it BS -- okay, so what is your point? What are you offering as an alternative? It comes off as bitter, pissing on everyone else's parade because they believe in something.

 

I'd like to see a billboard that depicts the insanity of consumerism this time of year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny. I thought you've always hated America.

:wacko:

(twirling mustache) yes but zees one eet made me hate her eeven more zan mai usual beret wearing, gauloise smoking, skeeny ass, existenshialeest, woody allen loving self

:tup:

 

 

It's more like how the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns, but we still know what the founders meant. Well, at least those of us who aren't being obtusely literal.

 

I've always hated that "where in the constitution does it say..." argument, just never found a really good way to express how silly it is. I'll be using that one, thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that these were all men. Men who, while likely cut from better cloth than those who represent us now, had agendas and wants and people to answer to. So, they all got together and came up with a set of rules that everyone was cool with. Some wanted this, some wanted that, and they made deals and arrangements. Ultimately, they came up with an amazing document that has stood up as one of the finest (if not the finest) set of rules ever written to govern a nation. But they didn't write it by walking up to the top of a freaking mountain and have god etch it out on a stone. No, they sat down and came up with a set of rules that they all agreed are basic things that none of us should be subjected to from another one of us.

 

"...so basically what Jefferson was saying was 'the place we came from was pretty bogus; and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, we'll just be bogus, too' "

 

- Noted US historian Jeffrey Spicoli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously asking here Rovers . . . how are they "crapping on a religious holiday"? How is this an "attack"?

 

The story of the three wise men following a star isnt even accepted by all branches of Christianity! For all intents and purposes, it IS a myth. They arent saying "F'k Christmas, Jesus and the horse they rode in on", cause then they WOULD be attacking Christianity and quickly find that isnt very popular. They are trying to make a point that a lot of religion is based on collective faith that certain things have happened, and that they believe their lack of faith is equal to using reason. Is it tasteless, and not very likely to "de-convert" anyone? No. But did it get its intended response of nationwide attention for their "cause"? Yep.

 

The christian belief system has weathered much worse than a billboard, and I am quite confident it will continue on despite this minor setback. . . :wacko:

 

And the "not a Christian Nation" I think refers to the fact we have no official state-sponsored religion. You are exactly right that most Americans identify themselves as being Christian, but it isnt sponsored by the state . . .

 

Detlef said "crapping on XMAS" (another bastardization of a religious holiday, it's CHRISTmas, not XMAS) and my post was a dirdect reponse to that. Read better. Comprehend more.

 

Next, some christian churches insist on believing every single thing in the bible as literal truth, like Adam and Eve. Other churches take the bible less literally, and believe in the bible as symbolic truth. The Catholic church does not deny the theory of eveolution for instance, although much earlier in the church's history they did accept the bible as literal truth, as fact in every way.

 

What I don't understand here is the motivation. I have to assume it is hate based. Someone hates christianity so much they are willing to pay for a billboard. Look, I shake my head at the far christian right too, the literal born agains and the "witnesses" but I don't get the idea behind trying to recruit and convert people to atheism. Religion only becomes a problem with the extremists, be they muslim, christian or whatever. Peace and tolerance is the foundation of any real religion, and what is wrong with that? This guy with the billboard seems to have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yukon, again, I did not say it was crapping on a religious holiday, Detlef did and I responded. Read better. Comprehend more.

fixed the spelling for yah

So, pray tell, name one founding father that was not a christian?

adams

paine

jefferson

franklin

and i think there were a couple more that would not fall under what a" christian" is or believes in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklin, Davis et al, where raised in christian doctrine, and all believed in God. They questioned the diety of Christ, certainly. They did not however disregard the message of Christ, and in my opinion there values were very much based on christian values. Did they fit a strict definition of being a christian? No... but their values system was certtainly based on it. They questioned the deity of Christ. They believed in God. They basically believed in the christian definition of God as well. I guess that would make them unpronounced Jews? Close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information