Posted By Andy on 08 Nov 2008 08:07 PM

You are not punished or imprisoned if you don't believe.

Andy:

I just gave a specific example of personally being punished by the state (taxpayer funded public school) for "not believing".

Joe

"Total Separation
"[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." -Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819 – James Madison"

Joe, I am using this quote in particular, but I think most of your quotes are appropriate to the point i am going to make.

You have been continually using the words of those that accepted as normal the very things you are using their words to attack. It seems that they're intent was good enough for them, yet not good enough for you?

Unless you don't think they had prayer in school in Jefferson's or Madison's day.

And i don't see where Madison would be disappointed at the growth of the religion industry based on today's standards.

You also seem to equate race-based decisions as on a par with sexual orientation based decisions. I don't see where they are similar enough to make your example successful.

And you really ought to trim those nose hairs.

Posted By Tom M on 09 Nov 2008 08:03 PM
"Total Separation
"[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." -Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819 – James Madison"

Joe, I am using this quote in particular, but I think most of your quotes are appropriate to the point i am going to make.

You have been continually using the words of those that accepted as normal the very things you are using their words to attack. It seems that they're intent was good enough for them, yet not good enough for you?

Unless you don't think they had prayer in school in Jefferson's or Madison's day.

And i don't see where Madison would be disappointed at the growth of the religion industry based on today's standards.

You also seem to equate race-based decisions as on a par with sexual orientation based decisions. I don't see where they are similar enough to make your example successful.

And you really ought to trim those nose hairs.

Tom:

Lenny said that the United States was founded as a Christian English-speaking nation.

Apparently the senate of the United States disagreed with Lenny in 1797 when it ratified the Treaty of Tripoli.

From the information I've provided, it seem overwhelmingly obvious the framer's intent- a clear demarcation between the church and state. I'm not seeing how this is good enough for them and not good enough for me.

Hey, these guys owned slaves. Of course they screwed up school prayer.

James Madison would not be dissapointed in the growth of religion. However, he would be mortified and is rolling over in his grave at the Bushmaster's "Faith Based Initiatives" which allow government funded Non-Government Organizations to discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation.

Yes, I do equate race-based decisions with sexual orientation-based decisions. Bigotry is bigorty. I am absolutely positive history will vindicate my position. You can put all the spin and rationalization lipstick on that pig you want, it's still a pig.

You and my mother-in-law are right, my nose hairs do need trimming.

Joe

"...it seem overwhelmingly obvious the framer's intent- a clear demarcation between the church and state. I'm not seeing how this is good enough for them and not good enough for me."

It also seems that what they considered a clear demarcation is different than what you consider a clear demarcation, does it not?

Hi Joe,

I went to a gun show today and took Ann along. She couldnt believe it. She said maybe I will be the only lady there . I laughed and said dont worry, there will be lots of ladies there selling and buying guns.

Ive been to many gun shows. I bought a small semi automatic pistol for Ann, holds 7 shots in the clip, and 1 in the chamber. She liked it because its made in America, small, very pretty and can fit easily in her purse..
 
While I was at it, I picked up an AK-47 for myself (it wont fit in my purse and clashes with my shoes ) . Ive wanted one of those for a long time. Maybe I can kill Bin Laden with his gun of choice..my hope! They had ones made in Romania, but I liked the ones made in Yugoslavia better (higher quality, thicker receiver, more rugged, smoother action, chrome lined barrels for better accuracy, but they cost more). This one has a folding stock so you can fold it half (collapse it) and carry it under your jacket when it rains while you are deer hunting. Its pretty cool! 30 round clip and also 75 shot drum magazine. The sights are aligned up to 900 distances.

Anyway Ann was amazed you could

1.) own a gun in the US - She is used to China where there is no gun ownership 2.) Show your ID and/or license, sign a paper and walk out with several guns, the same day.
 
Ann had a really amazing and wonderful day today. She mailed photos of her new gun to everyone in China, and practiced dry firing it. Made me smile…a lady after my own heart! God Bless America. BTW big run on assault rifles, per Obama election.  I snagged the l;ast folding stock Ak-47. Go Figure!

Now to your posts Joe, They were way too long , like Als posts, so Ive responded in kind. How dare you quote Jefferson to me. As for religion, Jefferson claimed to be a deist, he believed in a god of some kind. Most scholars think that was something he said, to quell public opinion. Don’t get me wrong Jefferson did a lot of great things for our country, and had a great political philosophy. Ask Tom….Geez that guy knows everything!

Now I contend, Jefferson never thought much about God, He was too busy banging hot slave ladys in the carriage house. Which lead to the black line of Jeffersons. Not the Black Jeffersons you seen on TV (Weeezy, were moving on up , to the east side). The White Jeffersons have a society, have meetings about all things Jefferson, but they didn’t want to welcome the black Jeffersons.

Joe, do you have a point you can summarize succinctly? I read your posts, and maybe Im stupid, but I fail; to see one valid point. Please enlighten me my erudite friend.

Lenny

Andy, I hope this new forum has LOTS of memory... I think you might need it!!

Posted By Lenny E on 10 Nov 2008 03:05 AM
Hi Joe, 
  
Ann had a really amazing and wonderful day today. She mailed photos of her new gun to everyone in China, and practiced dry firing it. 

Joe, do you have a point you can summarize succinctly? I read your posts, and maybe Im stupid, but I fail; to see one valid point. Please enlighten me my erudite friend.

Lenny

Lenny:

I do have a point I can sumarize succinctly. Don't let Ann dry-fire her pistol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_cap

You can buy these at Cabela's.

Joe

Posted By Tom M on 09 Nov 2008 10:44 PM
"...it seem overwhelmingly obvious the framer's intent- a clear demarcation between the church and state. I'm not seeing how this is good enough for them and not good enough for me."

It also seems that what they considered a clear demarcation is different than what you consider a clear demarcation, does it not?

Tom:

"NO GOVERNMENT ‘INTERMEDDLING’ WITH RELIGION!

Jefferson And Madison Opposed Government-Sponsored Prayer Proclamations

Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed government-issued religious proclamations. Both men were key architects of religious liberty in America, and both believed strongly that government should not meddle in religious matters. As president, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer.

In a Jan. 23, 1808, letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller, he explained why. Here are some excerpts from that missive: “I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government…. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of affecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail."

www.au.org

No Tom, I'm not seeing any difference between my position and that of Thomas Jefferson's.

Joe

So by this, Chrismas and Easter should not be legal holidays.

Interesting. Where do you draw the line about seperation of church and state? Should churches be taxed?

Andy, I agree with Kelsey, get more memory space, this could get interesting.

My compliments to all of the participants in these discussions.  What a pleasure to hear (read) honest, well thought out discussions about issues, without all of the yelling and talking points.  The people on other web sites are not so polite.

Linda

Posted By Kowboy on 09 Nov 2008 04:24 AM

Posted By Andy on 08 Nov 2008 08:07 PM

You are not punished or imprisoned if you don't believe.

Andy:

I just gave a specific example of personally being punished by the state (taxpayer funded public school) for "not believing".

Joe

Ah, but if you and your parents would have been willing to fight it, you would have won.  Just because a school teacher makes you do something does not mean it is legal.

What are you willing to die for FIRST to protect?  It is not the same in all countries.  In fact we are unique in our beliefs.

1. Country
2. Family
   
3. Freedom
4. Religion
5. Money
   

How come Im sinning if i work on Sunday?  I dont get that commandment? 

I like to go out to eat on Sunday, I sure am glad some are working

Posted By Gene McDonald on 10 Nov 2008 05:01 PM
How come Im sinning if i work on Sunday?  I dont get that commandment? 

I like to go out to eat on Sunday, I sure am glad some are working

Gene:

You bring up an interesting point.

Today's "Cafeteria Christians" conveniently ignore all the inconvenient dictates of the Old Testament against growing different crops in the same field, charging interest on loans, killing your neighbor for working on Sabbath and stoning children to death.

They only keep two. The prohibition against homosexuality and the Old Testament's support of the death penalty.

Why, you ask? Easy. They all want to eat and/or wear fibers, they all want or give home loans, they want their neighbor the nurse to staff the Emergency Room on Sunday and they think Jimmy should get a time out, not stoned to death for his infractions.

However, they have not committed murder, so it's O.K. to kill people as long a twelve agree and since they are not homosexual, homosexuality is still bad.

In other words, the stuff that is in the Old Testament that is inconvenient is OUT and the stuff that doesn't effect Cafeteria Christians still applies.

Clear?

Joe

Joe,
So it is your position that Jefferson was not in favor of saying a prayer of Christian faith in school, and that he would have approved of Gay Marriage? I'm only trying to see where you guys part ways.

I also do not see where Jefferson disagrees with anyone here. I may have missed it, but I don't see anyone calling for a national day of prayer. Jefferson certainly agreed with the acknowledgment of the Christian religion in the fabric of the country. He understood faith as the foundation for a country of laws, not men.

This has been interesting to read. Amazing that it started with a lawyer joke. Shawn

The Founding Fathers were an interesting lot.

Joe you made a point about them owning slaves and that being one of the mistakes, but there was a huge and contentious debate about that.  Many of them found it very difficult to square slavery with writing a document espousing that all men were created equal.  In the end, keeping slavery was a concession made by practical men who needed a consensus.

Similarly, there was great debate about what role religion would play in the government. Their primary concern was a particular religion/church having power over the government which would pave the way for religious persecution

It was not to enforce political correctness, which is really all the debate about the money and the Pledge is. Until it's "In Yaweh We Trust" or "One Nation Under Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", the balance between expressing a belief in something greater than ourselves (a "Creator" that endows us with unalienable rights, for instance) and endorsing a particular religion is maintained.

As to gay marriage, I believe that to be an issue of semantics. Most people agree that gay partners should have the same legal rights as hetero couples (inheritance, visiting rights, insurance, tax breaks, etc.), but the debate is always over what we call it. The practical solution is simply to make everything a civil union in the eyes of the State, and leave marriage to your particular religion.

Hi Andy,

For me that list would read.

1.) Family

2.) Freedom

3.) Country

4.) Religion

5.) Money

 

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the pointers on dry firing. I only let her dry fire for a lil bit (its bad for the firing pin). I taught the blank wall technique. Look, point at a blank off white wall, envision you are the target and touch the trigger. We went into breathing and how that effects aim, (up and down) , I taught her how to load it, the 2 safetys, and to squeeze, not pull the trigger. Anyway tomorrows a big day..off to the range for shooting lessons.

Joe, what I meant by your  never living in other countries, is that it gives you an appreciation for America, rounds you out, and widens your perception.

I didnt mean to belittle you, or say your opinion has no meaning.

BTW, its nice to be able to discuss this stuff here and not berate or demean others. Thats really cool, and a testament to what Andy and crew has created.

I will agree to disagree with you on this stuff, but thats OK.

Lenny

Posted By The SS Tech Guy on 10 Nov 2008 11:34 AM 
Where do you draw the line about seperation of church and state? Should churches be taxed? 

Bill:

Churches in America overwhelmingly choose to be non-profit organizations that aren't taxed. However, as a price for freedom from taxation, they voluntarily sacrifice their right to make political endorsements.

If you get a handout at church telling you how to vote, the church risks revocation of its tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.

A local religious broadcaster sees this as muzzling of the church's freedom of speech. Nonsense. If the church wants to endorse a politician, let it pay taxes like the rest of us.

Joe

Posted By Linda on 10 Nov 2008 12:12 PM
My compliments to all of the participants in these discussions.  What a pleasure to hear (read) honest, well thought out discussions about issues, without all of the yelling and talking points.  The people on other web sites are not so polite.

Linda

Linda:

Thanks for noticing and I agree completly.

Joe