|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 8, 2014 20:26:50 GMT
I'd really have to see actual quotes to believe this. It sounds like another one of your hyperbolic overreactions. What you, and some other insecure Christians can't seem to grasp, is that most moral principles are not exclusive to Christianity. Many of the world's religions espouse pretty much the same moral values as Christianity. It really doesn't matter if the FF were Christians or not. They recognized and acknowledged that not everyone had to believe the same things they did, and they were very careful and deliberate about trying to ensure freedom of religion for everyone-not just Christians. I have seen some very well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the "were our FF Christians?" debate. Your diatribe here is definitely not one of them. Actors in a show inserting their personal opinions into said show? That's all it takes to convince you that you're right? I have no problem with some of our FF being Christians. I have no problem with them espousing the more noble principles of Christianity. I do have a big problem with people like you who aren't satisfied with that, and want to twist what the FF did into something else entirely. The point that you are missing is that, while today we can see examples of the same moral principles outside of Christianity, many of the Founding Fathers (including the ones who were deist) believed Christianity is where those moral principles are rooted. You can certainly disagree with them but the things they wrote in regards to these principles specifically show they believed Christian principles were the foundation of moral decency and therefore made a good foundation for our governmental principles. YOU obviously disagree and that's okay. That doesn't change the history of the nation. And I think it's pretty rude to assume anyone who reads the words written by the Founding Fathers and finds Christianity so deeply rooted there is therefore an "insecure Christian" who can't grasp what you have determined is truth.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 12:13:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 20:34:06 GMT
Then you misunderstood. I think lynlam, and some (SOME) others are insecure Christians. The word "anyone" was not used by me-it was used by you. Seems to be a bit more of that hyperbolic overreaction.
People who cannot let go of the fact that others disagree with their religious beliefs and interpretations come off as very insecure. It's ok if people disagree with you. It really is. You don't have to change their minds or constantly berate them for believing different things than you do.
I never said that I know the truth about the FF. I specifically said that I have seen well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the "were they Christians?" debate. I am perfectly fine if others do not share my beliefs about the FF. I am not ok with people trying to turn our country into something different than the FF intended.
I'll say it again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 8, 2014 20:54:29 GMT
Then I think you're still misunderstanding the point. The FF are pretty darn clear that they believed in using Christian principles when establishing our nation's laws because they believed those principles are the foundation of morality and the kind of human behaviors they wanted to encourage in this country. Not all of them ascribed to Christianity as their personal faith, but they agreed that the principles of Christianity were what they wanted to use as a foundation. That doesn't mean they felt everyone had to PRACTICE Christianity in order to BE moral. It's okay if you want to disagree with the FF's, but to assign them a different set of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own words is what I disagree with. It just seems you're assigning your own opinion of faith onto the FF when their writings were clearly stating otherwise. You think Lynlam is insecure for assigning her beliefs to the FF's intentions but you're doing the very same thing. Stick with the primary sources.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 8, 2014 21:03:13 GMT
whether they believed in God or not...they were big big believers in separation of church and state and to have no national religion or religious test for office....our country had a history of freedom of and freedom from religion Freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right, freedom from is not.You will have to explain that further. Neither the phrase 'freedom of religion' nor 'freedom from religion' are found in your Constitution. What the first amendment does say is that the government is prohibited from creating laws respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. I'm curious what that actually means to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 12:13:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 21:05:47 GMT
.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 12:13:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 21:07:06 GMT
Then I think you're still misunderstanding the point. The FF are pretty darn clear that they believed in using Christian principles when establishing our nation's laws because they believed those principles are the foundation of morality and the kind of human behaviors they wanted to encourage in this country. Not all of them ascribed to Christianity as their personal faith, but they agreed that the principles of Christianity were what they wanted to use as a foundation. That doesn't mean they felt everyone had to PRACTICE Christianity in order to BE moral. It's okay if you want to disagree with the FF's, but to assign them a different set of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own words is what I disagree with. It just seems you're assigning your own opinion of faith onto the FF when their writings were clearly stating otherwise. You think Lynlam is insecure for assigning her beliefs to the FF's intentions but you're doing the very same thing. Stick with the primary sources. *sigh* I never said that they did. As a matter of fact, ^that's^ (the bolded part) exactly what I believe. That's what's important-NOT whether or not the FF actually *were* Christians. If they were, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT IF THEY WERE, it still doesn't mean that they designed this nation as a Christian nation. They placed the utmost value on personal freedoms, including freedom of RELIGION. I'm going to stop engaging with you now, because it's like *you* are the one deliberately misunderstanding, all so you can jump to lynlam's defense. Or, because you really like circular arguments. You're starting to remind me an awful lot of a certain right-fighting pea.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 8, 2014 21:17:59 GMT
I'm not defending lynlam. Just pointing out where I disagreed with what you had written. Now it seems like you were trying to say the same thing I've been saying- just not so clearly. (By the way, I'm not defending Lynlam simply because, like you, I disagree that the FF were all Christians.) I just didn't care for how you phrased your opinion. Interesting that you say I'm "right fighting" in having a discussion with you. Please do feel free to stop engaging with me if that's the case. It's clear you only want to have a discussion where everyone thinks like you do. All the while you're arguing your opinion just as strongly as I am. Doesn't matter who you think I remind you of- it's a manner of discourse that I tire of. You get your opinion and can clarify and argue, but if someone opposing you defends their thoughts and clarifies, they're the "right fighter". *sigh* is right.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 8, 2014 21:27:26 GMT
KatyCupcake is noregrets? That explains so much.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jul 8, 2014 21:40:14 GMT
"turn our country into to something different than our ff intended" the ff couldn't agree among themselves exactly what was intended. they compromised and made the best model they could...they didn't intend for our country and laws to remain stagnant and rigid...heck...it wasn't til after the constitution was written that we got our bill of rights...we have the whole amendment process so the country could change its laws and growth with the change in society.
we can't pick and choose which ff to follow...heck jefferson and adams didn't talk for 12 yrs...Washington despised many policies of jefferson...and vice versa...their own thoughts changed as the reality of the country changed. jefferson railed against having a navy..campaigned on it...then he formed the first navy. which intention do we follow? standing armies were scary to the local people with memories of the British army...so we didn't have a standing army for years.
they called each other nasty names in print and on campaigns...they argued and disagreed...pretty hard to get a general "intentions"...this is a too simple picture of the mess that was the new United States of America..and its politics.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 8, 2014 21:50:07 GMT
Very true, ntsf. Very good reminder. The Constitutional Convention nearly failed more than once because the Framers couldn't agree on many things. But there are a set a principles they could agree upon- just putting those principles into action proved much more messy then they anticipated.
The Bill of Rights was added after the Constitution was written, but that was because it was a condition required in order to get the Constitution ratified. The Federalists thought "natures laws" and "inalienable rights" were obvious and didn't need to be spelled out. Anti-Federalists feared if they weren't specifically listed, they'd eventually be ignored. I'm kind of glad the Anti-Federalists pushed so hard for the Bill of Rights.
As for Jefferson- well he was hoping the US would just be one big agricultural country that could keep to ourselves. No big, crowded, nasty cities and no entanglements and alliances with other nations to muddy things up. Reality is, we can't exist in a bubble and I think every president we've ever had has had to change his stand on a few things once he realizes the magnitude of the job.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 9, 2014 0:25:53 GMT
Freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right, freedom from is not. You will have to explain that further. Neither the phrase 'freedom of religion' nor 'freedom from religion' are found in your Constitution. What the first amendment does say is that the government is prohibited from creating laws respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. I'm curious what that actually means to you. I'm not sure what you want explained, it seems very clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by meridon on Jul 9, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
whether they believed in God or not...they were big big believers in separation of church and state and to have no national religion or religious test for office....our country had a history of freedom of and freedom from religion Freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right, freedom from is not.Freedom of= free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. Freedom from = establishment clause of the 1st amendment. I could list a litany of cases that were designed to protect people from having to practice a particular religion, but somehow I think it would be a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 9, 2014 0:45:12 GMT
The Constitution does not guarantee you will never have to come into contact with Religion. You are free to practice whichever religion you choose and you are free from the government forcing any religion upon you. But you are not free "from" religion. Religion will exist around you and you will still be impacted by others' religions. I think some people interpret the 1st Amendment to mean they shouldn't have to ever see a cross memorial at a National monument, a menorah in a town hall, In God We Trust on currency, etc.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 9, 2014 1:28:06 GMT
You will have to explain that further. Neither the phrase 'freedom of religion' nor 'freedom from religion' are found in your Constitution. What the first amendment does say is that the government is prohibited from creating laws respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. I'm curious what that actually means to you. I'm not sure what you want explained, it seems very clear to me.Well, it's clear to me but from your previous comment I'm not confident that it's clear to you. That's why I asked.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 9, 2014 1:34:00 GMT
The Constitution does not guarantee you will never have to come into contact with Religion. You are free to practice whichever religion you choose and you are free from the government forcing any religion upon you. But you are not free "from" religion. Religion will exist around you and you will still be impacted by others' religions. I think some people interpret the 1st Amendment to mean they shouldn't have to ever see a cross memorial at a National monument, a menorah in a town hall, In God We Trust on currency, etc. I don't know anyone who interprets it that way. I do know that there is an 'all or nothing' expectation and the courts seem to be upholding that. If you want to put a monument to the Ten Commandments on you front lawn, have at 'er. If you want to put it on the courthouse lawn, expect a Baphomet statue to follow.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 9, 2014 1:39:42 GMT
I think some people's interpretation of "establishing a religion" is really really loose.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 9, 2014 7:42:48 GMT
The Constitution does not guarantee you will never have to come into contact with Religion. You are free to practice whichever religion you choose and you are free from the government forcing any religion upon you. But you are not free "from" religion. Religion will exist around you and you will still be impacted by others' religions. I think some people interpret the 1st Amendment to mean they shouldn't have to ever see a cross memorial at a National monument, a menorah in a town hall, In God We Trust on currency, etc. This is a fake argument constructed by the right that no liberal with a brain would ever subscribe to. It's all so that people like Rainbow can perform "there's no such thing as freedom from religion" hit & runs in these threads. Asking not to have someone else's religious beliefs forced on us is 100% not the same thing as expecting to never be exposed to the concept or existence of religion in any form, ever. "Having someone else's religious beliefs forced on us" = passing laws based on your own personal religious beliefs that affect everyone, whether they agree with you or not. Example: religious people and non-religious people alike all pretty much agree that murder is bad. Therefore, having laws against murder is not forcing your religion on me, even if it's part of your religious belief and not part of mine. Having laws that liquor can't be sold on Sundays is 100% forcing your religious beliefs on me. My Sabbath is on Saturday. My friend's Sabbath is on Friday. And there's a boatload of other, more serious laws that are basically conservative Christians forcing their religious beliefs on everyone, believer or not. THAT is what we're complaining about when we talk about freedom from religion. Not just "In God We Trust."
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 9, 2014 9:23:24 GMT
While blue laws may have taken root from religious practices, on this side of the pond as well as in the Good Ol' U.S. of A., today they are fully embraced by labor unions, certain counties. certain states and certain nations who are trying to ensure quality of work and life for their citizens.
This same rational is what has allowed the Supreme Court to uphold the Blue Laws that you speak of - they are no longer considered religious practices, they are considered labor protections. In fact, some of the most stringent blue laws are in the Bluest States... Many European countries also have the same laws on the book and one would hardly accuse countries like Germany, France or Austria among others of "forcing religion" down the throats of their citizens....
So, as you consider yourself someone who leans left, you should champion the prohibition of liquor sales on Sunday, as it is allowing those workers to have quality time off with their families. In fact, you should champion all retailers to take the day off - much like they do in Europe. In fact, while you are at it, only open said stores from 10 am -2 (or 4) pm on Saturday as well, so they can rush home and enjoy a full weekend. See you a Blue Law and raise you a half-day Saturday!
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 9, 2014 10:21:32 GMT
The Constitution does not guarantee you will never have to come into contact with Religion. You are free to practice whichever religion you choose and you are free from the government forcing any religion upon you. But you are not free "from" religion. Religion will exist around you and you will still be impacted by others' religions. I think some people interpret the 1st Amendment to mean they shouldn't have to ever see a cross memorial at a National monument, a menorah in a town hall, In God We Trust on currency, etc. Yep. Religion is here to stay.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 9, 2014 10:26:13 GMT
While blue laws may have taken root from religious practices, on this side of the pond as well as in the Good Ol' U.S. of A., today they are fully embraced by labor unions, certain counties. certain states and certain nations who are trying to ensure quality of work and life for their citizens. This same rational is what has allowed the Supreme Court to uphold the Blue Laws that you speak of - they are no longer considered religious practices, they are considered labor protections. In fact, some of the most stringent blue laws are in the Bluest States... Many European countries also have the same laws on the book and one would hardly accuse countries like Germany, France or Austria among others of "forcing religion" down the throats of their citizens.... So, as you consider yourself someone who leans left, you should champion the prohibition of liquor sales on Sunday, as it is allowing those workers to have quality time off with their families. In fact, you should champion all retailers to take the day off - much like they do in Europe. In fact, while you are at it, only open said stores from 10 am -2 (or 4) pm on Saturday as well, so they can rush home and enjoy a full weekend. See you a Blue Law and raise you a half-day Saturday! Sigh! I miss living in Europe. It was fabulous.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 9, 2014 10:50:52 GMT
Just because--- Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. ----Thomas Jefferson Wise man!
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 9, 2014 14:13:51 GMT
Of course it is. In the same sentence that I'm sure you're referring to....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first part guarantees freedom from religion, the second part guarantees freedom of religion. I think you're confused as to what freedom from religion actually means.
|
|
janice
Shy Member
Posts: 48
Jun 26, 2014 1:01:17 GMT
|
Post by janice on Jul 9, 2014 14:30:41 GMT
KatyCupcake is noregrets? That explains so much. They are also Mrs Tyler so that explains everything.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jul 9, 2014 14:36:40 GMT
What Christian principles were used by the FF? I am just curious because I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 9, 2014 14:38:03 GMT
Lucy, I understand what you're saying. However there are more than a few people (not limited to liberals) who do think seeing a cross at the site of a national tragedy (9/11, etc) citing the establishment claus as reason to advocate tearing down existing memorials and trying to block the erecting of new ones that might reflect any religious belief. That is what I'm addressing. Some of them have this idea that allowing a cross to be placed in a public area is equivalent to establishing Christianity as the official state religion and forcing others to practice Christianity. And as you said, anyone who is intelligent enough will know that's not at all what the 1st Amendment and establishment Claus are about.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 9, 2014 14:42:52 GMT
Again, stating I'm someone else doesn't make it so. I changed my username here after Limapea2 went crazy. Just don't need that BS. But I'm still not Mrs T. Why does it matter so much? Stick to the conversation at hand and don't worry about trying to out Mrs T.
|
|
|
Post by SunnySmile on Jul 9, 2014 14:44:26 GMT
Their faith is irrelevant. They created a nation free from the constraints of a national religion - a place where all faiths (and lack thereof) are welcome and accepted - a nation where you can worship freely, or not worship at all. If their intent was to create a strictly Judeo-Christian nation, they were smart enough that they would have enunciated that point in the Constitution itself. I agree with this. I just happen to believe that they were inspired by God to come to this country where they could worship as they saw fit (or not worship) and the separation of church and state was key.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jul 9, 2014 14:47:35 GMT
Not everyone is Christian in the US. So should the site of a national tragedy have every type of religious symbol there so everyone is represented? How many people are pissed that a Mosque went up near ground zero? How many people complain about how the Islam religion is taking over? I have a few friends on my Facebook page that post something almost every day about it. Quite a few people want their religion but not someone else's unless it is like theirs (Christianity)
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 9, 2014 14:58:36 GMT
Blue Laws originally prohibited the sale of all retail goods from groceries to used cars, so I could see why labor unions would support that, but the majority of things covered by Blue Laws have been repealed in almost every State. Of course there's a lot of States where you can't buy alcohol on Sunday, or for certain hours on Sunday, but even in NJ, a State which may still enforce complete restrictions in some counties, does not restrict the sale of most items on a Sunday. If you go into a NJ supermarket on a Sunday you will find plastic sheeting over the shelves that hold the wine bottles, and over the refrigerated cases where beer is kept.
Some States still restrict the sale of automobiles on Sunday, all though I have no idea why that would be....unless it's to appease Lucy's Tribe, who don't think you should drive on Shabbat....no, they do their thing on a Saturday so that blows that theory.
Anyway, so few items are covered by Blue Laws these days that I can't imagine why the labor unions have anything to say on the subject, in the USA anyway. Except for a few counties scattered around the country you will find shopping malls open and thriving.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 9, 2014 15:06:57 GMT
Lucy, I understand what you're saying. However there are more than a few people (not limited to liberals) who do think seeing a cross at the site of a national tragedy (9/11, etc) citing the establishment claus as reason to advocate tearing down existing memorials and trying to block the erecting of new ones that might reflect any religious belief. That is what I'm addressing. Some of them have this idea that allowing a cross to be placed in a public area is equivalent to establishing Christianity as the official state religion and forcing others to practice Christianity. And as you said, anyone who is intelligent enough will know that's not at all what the 1st Amendment and establishment Claus are about. Allowing a religious monument to the exclusion of other religions does violate the Establishment Clause. The Mount Soledad "Easter" Cross, the Oklahoma State Legislature monument, teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, and even the Town of Greece counsel meetings are all examples of that interpretation of the Establishment Clause. So whatever your intelligence, that's how the courts are currently deciding.
|
|