Court ends Bible distribution in school

[Saguaro]

ST. LOUIS - A rural school district's long-standing practice of allowing the distribution of Bibles to grade school students is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

An attorney for the southeastern Missouri school district said Wednesday he will appeal the judge's injunction against the practice.

For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis in the heart of the Bible Belt, allowed representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles in fifth-grade classrooms.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. In August, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction against the practice.

The district altered its policy, saying the Gideons and others were still welcome to distribute Bibles or other literature before or after school or during lunch break, but not in classrooms.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled both practices were illegal and granted a permanent injunction.

The purpose of both practices "is the promotion of Christianity by distributing Bibles to elementary school students," Perry wrote. "The policy has the principle or primary effect of advancing religion by conveying a message of endorsement to elementary school children."

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based law group that represented the school district, said he would appeal.

"I think the current policy creates an open forum that allows secular as well as religious persons or groups to access the forum to distribute information," Staver said. "The court has clearly misread the First Amendment and the cases regarding free speech."

The parents who sued are Christian but believe religious beliefs should be taught in the home, not school, said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

The South Iron district has about 500 students in the grade school and South Iron High School.

Superintendent Brad Crocker was out of the office Wednesday and did not respond to a call seeking comment.

Gideons International, based in Nashville, Tenn., distributes Bibles in more than 80 languages and 180 countries, according to its Web site. A spokesman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_re_us/bibles_for_kids_suit;_ylt=AgoZeKwgx.qgHtS2LPeaQ8VH 2ocA

[issac the dragon]

Why is anyone being allowed access to our children? Do they think that children are gathered together for their convience? If I had wanted my kids to have information given to them, I would have given it to them. Religious, secular, whatever, people don't send their kids to school so organizations will find it easier to get to them.

[Oceanbreeze]

I remember riding my bike on Michigan State Campus (19986-1990) and they would even hand them to you while riding. They were everywhere. :aliens

[April15]

But it is for YOUR good that they do this! Why can't you see this?

[Oceanbreeze]

But it is for YOUR good that they do this! Why can't you see this?

Because they made me fall off my bike, damn it! :lmao

[Trueblue]

Because they made me fall off my bike, damn it! :lmao

:lol

If they let the Gideons in, then they'll have to let any other religions come in, too. And the kids can come home with the Book of Mormon and the Vedas. :roar

[Oceanbreeze]

:thumbsup

Religion doesn't belong in public schools.

[Indigo]

I remember riding my bike on Michigan State Campus (19986-1990) and they would even hand them to you while riding. They were everywhere. :aliens

I don't have the Gideons... instead I get the Southern Baptists. They're allowed on the college grounds, but not in the buildings (thankfully). Most of them will leave you alone after a polite "No, thank you"... but there were a few more aggressive ones.

The funniest thing was when one of them decided to witness to a guy wearing a sandwich board that said "Free Hugs". After listening to them for a moment, he told them that they seemed really angry and tried to give them a hug... they refused and ended up getting chased down the street by the guy who kept trying hug them.

[sparks]

I don't have the Gideons... instead I get the Southern Baptists. They're allowed on the college grounds, but not in the buildings (thankfully). Most of them will leave you alone after a polite "No, thank you"... but there were a few more aggressive ones.

The funniest thing was when one of them decided to witness to a guy wearing a sandwich board that said "Free Hugs". After listening to them for a moment, he told them that they seemed really angry and tried to give them a hug... they refused and ended up getting chased down the street by the guy who kept trying hug them.

:rofl

[BartonX]

:thumbsup

Religion doesn't belong in public schools.

That is what they said in 1963 when this nation turned its back on God. Christianity, belongs in every arena of our culture. If our children were educated rather than indoctrinated there would not be the depravity of children being to dropped off bridges to their deaths by their fathers, people would be decent again rather than decadent. The removal of Gods word creates a society that does not have a sound mind. Want proof pick up a paper any paper. And no it wasn't that way before check out the number of teen pregnancies in 63 then after the Bible and prayer was removed or are you afraid to see that model? It will open your eyes and give you a well needed reality check.

Murders, drugs, you name it. Ultimately taking God out takes you out!

"Education without the Bible is useless" Noah Webster

[BartonX]

Why is anyone being allowed access to our children? Do they think that children are gathered together for their convience? If I had wanted my kids to have information given to them, I would have given it to them. Religious, secular, whatever, people don't send their kids to school so organizations will find it easier to get to them.

I am curious to know how you would give your kids information since you don't know anything? :rofl

[Oceanbreeze]

That is what they said in 1963 when this nation turned its back on God. Christianity, belongs in every arena of our culture. If our children were educated rather than indoctrinated there would not be the depravity of children being to dropped off bridges to their deaths by their fathers, people would be decent again rather than decadent. The removal of Gods word creates a society that does not have a sound mind. Want proof pick up a paper any paper. And no it wasn't that way before check out the number of teen pregnancies in 63 then after the Bible and prayer was removed or are you afraid to see that model? It will open your eyes and give you a well needed reality check.

Murders, drugs, you name it. Ultimately taking God out takes you out!

"Education without the Bible is useless" Noah Webster

My kids are going back to a private Christian school. Our choice as it should be everyone's. :kurtz

[sparks]

My kids are going back to a private Christian school. Our choice as it should be everyone's. :kurtz

Why's that?

[Cookie Parker]

My kids are going back to a private Christian school. Our choice as it should be everyone's. :kurtz

Long as you pay for it.....it's your choice...my taxes shouldn't have to pay for teaching a specific religion in school...and it doesn't

[Cookie Parker]

Why is anyone being allowed access to our children? Do they think that children are gathered together for their convience? If I had wanted my kids to have information given to them, I would have given it to them. Religious, secular, whatever, people don't send their kids to school so organizations will find it easier to get to them.

Like selling things for corporations to pay token amounts for things for the school..hell, give up corporate welfare and put more money into schools!!!

[Cookie Parker]

That is what they said in 1963 when this nation turned its back on God. Christianity, belongs in every arena of our culture. If our children were educated rather than indoctrinated there would not be the depravity of children being to dropped off bridges to their deaths by their fathers, people would be decent again rather than decadent. The removal of Gods word creates a society that does not have a sound mind. Want proof pick up a paper any paper. And no it wasn't that way before check out the number of teen pregnancies in 63 then after the Bible and prayer was removed or are you afraid to see that model? It will open your eyes and give you a well needed reality check.

Murders, drugs, you name it. Ultimately taking God out takes you out!

"Education without the Bible is useless" Noah Webster


Nah...in 1963 this nation was about love and compassion, and caring for the rights of all God's children...

This nation killed God in 1980 with the moral majority...taught hate, killing and supporting terror in our own country..taught how to destroy a nation which was a good nation....a nation of love and compassion and one which cared about the poor...

After almost 30 years of the God haters, we now have a nation that is killing innocent people in a country to take their only riches...not caring how many children are homeless, hungry and uninsured in this nation and promoting hatred of American to American.....all things considered, the 1963's pleased God a helluva lot more than he is pleased NOW!!!

God aint' into the hate thing...just read his book...

[BartonX]

My kids are going back to a private Christian school. Our choice as it should be everyone's. :kurtz


Good for you, you should also see if your money from taxes can be removed from supporting the cess pools called schools. Your children will be eductaed as opposed to indoctrinated.

[Trueblue]

Good for you, you should also see if your money from taxes can be removed from supporting the cess pools called schools. Your children will be eductaed as opposed to indoctrinated.

Like you've set foot in a school in the last twenty years. :D

[BartonX]

Long as you pay for it.....it's your choice...my taxes shouldn't have to pay for teaching a specific religion in school...and it doesn't

Yes they should Christianity should be mandatory, it is not a religion it is the one and only Faith since it is based on fact not gibberish.

Christians, should not have to pay for public schools that are incapable of educating. The author of the very first Dictionary of the English Language in America wisely said "Education without the Bible is useless" Noah Webster. So I find it unconscienable to support any useless enterprize.

[BartonX]

Like you've set foot in a school in the last twenty years. :D

:LL (score!)

[Cookie Parker]

Yes they should Christianity should be mandatory, it is not a religion it is the one and only Faith since it is based on fact not gibberish.

Christians, should not have to pay for public schools that are incapable of educating. The author of the very first Dictionary of the English Language in America wisely said "Education without the Bible is useless" Noah Webster. So I find it unconscienable to support any useless enterprize.

Sorry...since God doesn't show up in church, he's a religious fictional diety until he shows his faith...and you might be surprised to know..this is a constitutional government...separating religious beliefs from government endorsement...seems to sneak up on people...specially those who profess the constitution is the only piece of law in the land..but it's true...no religion reigns supreme..we can all practice ours...mine is nineskiesovermud.....it means I take a person's name and then burn it and guess what...they usually end up posting stupid stuff...guess whose name I burned recently?:zen

[April15]

My children and grandchildren have or are going to public schools. Despite the problems my children have become fine parents. They are giving the grandchildren the time needed to facilitate their education. All have different religious beliefs.
Which God should be coveted enough to be taught above the others?
I am an atheist.

[Saguaro]

Every religion believes "their" God is the true God

[Oceanbreeze]

Every religion believes "their" God is the true God

:paclap :paclap :paclap

[BartonX]

Sorry...since God doesn't show up in church, he's a religious fictional diety until he shows his faith...and you might be surprised to know..this is a constitutional government...separating religious beliefs from government endorsement...seems to sneak up on people...specially those who profess the constitution is the only piece of law in the land..but it's true...no religion reigns supreme..we can all practice ours...mine is nineskiesovermud.....it means I take a person's name and then burn it and guess what...they usually end up posting stupid stuff...guess whose name I burned recently?:zen

This is legally a Christian Nation and was officially declared to be that by the United States Supreme Court in the 1892 Landmark case, "The Church Of The Holy Trinity vs The United States". To the astonishment of the Justices the mountain of evidence supporting this fact was so mountainous it could not be denied.

The Opinion delivered was so awe inspiring that it was reviewed no less than seven times and had to be left in tact it could not be disputed. The last time it was by a Liberal Judge named Martial.

It was also established that "Freedom Of Religion" only extends to Christians and does not extend to any other mere belief systems period, then it proceeded to name them specifically and included Judaism, except by its special creeds.

It is not American Law or our Constitution that prohibits Government and Christianity working very closely. For our government to even work Christianity had damn well be a part of it.

The phrase "Seperation of Church and State", is a damned lie and not in our laws anywhere. That is in the Russian Constitution, they are the atheists.

Under the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, $200,000 dollars was allocated by government for the importation of Bibles from Switzerland, because the presses in England was not able to print them. Our government was smart enough then to realize that the word of God, was more important to the survival of this nation than any other single consideration. Including food.

Any and all belief systems on this soil that is not specifically Christian does not have a right to be here, They are only allowed by Christian kindness.

Liberty, is uniquely a product of Christianity alone since it is foreign to any and all inferior belief systems.

Now Cookie, as far as God , not going to any of todays modern church services.........can you blame him??? These moderns are the bastards the Bible tells us he will say :"Depart from me ye workers of iniquity I never knew you". So, if you are ever drowning don't go to a Baptist see a wino, the Baptist will throw you a rock. (How am I doing Huckabee???)

Going to church services, bowing your head and praying and trying to be nice doesn't mean a damn thing to God, he wants a relationship with us a real one. Take the Bible and strip it down to its main and only message and that message is........"Caring and Sharing". Why would
anyone in their right mind want that to be kept out of our schools or government. They'd have to be a whole bunch of sick puppies.
:rooster:LL

[BartonX]

:paclap :paclap :paclap

Yes,,,,,,,,,,,,but only the Christians can prove it. :)

[BartonX]

Every religion believes "their" God is the true God

That means nothing! A living God is not dependent on who thinks what! The real God is not a religion he is Faith, and faith is not make believe or fiction it is fact. That is why there is onlu one Faith and it is definately Christian.

The definititon: Faith is the substance hoped for and the evidence ot things not seen.

So Faith, Christian, is "substance" and it is "evidence",
that means it is always actual and factual. Always based on reality not someones pipedream.

Wanna know who God is and what he is all about for yourself??? Read the first chapter of the fourth Gospel, John. He is there waiting for you saying: "Hear ye, hear ye , hear ye read all about it!":)

[BartonX]

Sorry...since God doesn't show up in church, he's a religious fictional diety until he shows his faith...and you might be surprised to know..this is a constitutional government...separating religious beliefs from government endorsement...seems to sneak up on people...specially those who profess the constitution is the only piece of law in the land..but it's true...no religion reigns supreme..we can all practice ours...mine is nineskiesovermud.....it means I take a person's name and then burn it and guess what...they usually end up posting stupid stuff...guess whose name I burned recently?:zen

Uh??? Your own? Aprils? :LL

[Trueblue]

Why would anyone in their right mind want that to be kept out of our schools or government. They'd have to be a whole bunch of sick puppies.

I don't want it kept out of the schools, I take it there every day, in my actions [at least I try, I often fail, though].

If people can't be convinced by my actions, then they sure aren't going to be convinced by my words.

[BartonX]

I don't want it kept out of the schools, I take it there every day, in my actions [at least I try, I often fail, though].

If people can't be convinced by my actions, then they sure aren't going to be convinced by my words.

That used to not only be true but very profound, I still agree with what you just said but are there enough sane people left to benefit from your example?

I think the message of caring and sharing by both mouth and example are a very real formula for freedom, love and success.

As for your contention about actions speaking louder than words............I heard this quote: "Your actions speak so loud I can't hear what you are saying." I think that came from the Dale Carnegie course when it was first presented.

[April15]

Uh??? Your own? Aprils? :LLYour manner reminds me of a guy who used to have a bunch of god web sites. And your brother was a mensa member that didn't believe.

[Lone Laugher]

Why is it that so many "believers" are beligerent assholes?

[sparks]

Why is it that so many "believers" are beligerent assholes?

Good question! I think it all gets back to pride...thinking they have all the answers.

[MW]

Every religion believes "their" God is the true God

Exactly and who's to say that everyone has it right . . or that everyone has it WRONG? Which is the "right" beliefs? Baptist, Catholic, SDA, Mormans? No one has any proof that our modern day Bible is correct - since it has gone through so many different translations!

You may be not be surprised to learn that the Bibles that the Christians use today (also in the past centuries) are not the same as the original Bible known to the Jewish world and to the early Christians. First, we use translations, not the original tongues (Hebrew and Greek); second, there are minor textual variations; and third, we do not have the original autographs.

Why is it that so many "believers" are beligerent assholes?

I'd like to know that one too! I think that they feel since they go to church, have a so-called personal relationship with God, that they equate that to being the boss' best friend and able to get away with anything - without absorbing what the true meaning of Christianity is about.

[Ringo]

Why is it that so many "believers" are beligerent assholes?

They aren't, YOU just don't recognize the many NON BELIEVING assholes out there as YOU people think you are normal, so when TRUTH slaps you up side the head, you think they are belligerent!!

[Trueblue]

After all, what's belligerent about a slap upside the head? :rofl

[issac the dragon]

I don't think there is more than one person on this board ignorant enough to think that the world changed because religious instruction in public schools ended in 1963.

The world was every bit as ugly then as it is now. We didn't hear all the news. Only the most important national and international news and the local news. Some of it. There were a lot of things not talked about.

No one ever heard about grandfathers sexually abusing children. It wasn't talked about. If a child said something, the parents shut that kid up fast. I know that personally. Every woman knew that rape was virtually a man's right. If you couldn't put your finger in the hole of a moving coke bottle, then a woman couldn't be raped. Every woman and girl knew that.

Boy, the world was so much better back then. Must have been. We never heard otherwise.

[MW]

I agree . . . to a degree.

We have more ways to find out things that happen now - but I wonder if hearing that so-and-so got away with [crime], has inspired others to go from thinking to doing?

In the last week, there have been 2 separate parents who have killed their four children. I wonder if they would have done that if not for the broadcasting of Yates' case?

[Trueblue]

I don't know-I do know that Yates was psychotic and I think she believed that she was saving her children.

[issac the dragon]

There is way too much news. And sensationalism. There is no reason to report all the crap that is on the news, except the need to fill air time. And it does, to some extent, make us feel that the sky is falling. And it may make others commit copy cat crimes.

Having said that, I am not going to agree to any kind of censorship anyway. That would be the greater evil. The only control the media needs, is our turning it off. If we quit listening to it, they will quit filling the air time with it. The crap, that is.

[MW]

I don't know-I do know that Yates was psychotic and I think she believed that she was saving her children.

I just read another story where a woman killed her 3 year old autistic daughter because she couldn't deal with it and thought by killing the child, she'd be perfect in heaven and that would be better.

:shock

[BartonX]

I just read another story where a woman killed her 3 year old autistic daughter because she couldn't deal with it and thought by killing the child, she'd be perfect in heaven and that would be better.

:shock

It should be pointed out that the real deal does not want our being good to earn any rights. It sees us all as a bunch of assholes needing a way out despite our best personal efforts, So it was evil that inspired these events

The same forces wanting Hillary or Obama to run.

[Trueblue]

I just read another story where a woman killed her 3 year old autistic daughter because she couldn't deal with it and thought by killing the child, she'd be perfect in heaven and that would be better.

:shock

I know, that is a horrible story. Either she is mentally ill, or she's a manipulative liar. I'll wait for the rest of the story.

The woman who starved her four daughters-a school administrator had reported that the she seemed to be mentally ill and was holding her oldest daughter hostage. :(

[MW]

I know, that is a horrible story. Either she is mentally ill, or she's a manipulative liar. I'll wait for the rest of the story.

The woman who starved her four daughters-a school administrator had reported that the she seemed to be mentally ill and was holding her oldest daughter hostage. :(

DSS dropped the ball on that one big time. Funny how that agency goes after false claims like an attack dog and lets the real cases fall through the cracks!

And there's the guy who confessed to throwing his four kids off a bridge . . ages from a few months to 3 years old. Then changed his story and said he gave the kids to a woman he didn't know, who said she knew his wife. Come on, what parent hands their kids to someone who claims to know the other parent?

[MW]

I'm against forcing religion onto anyone, but the more I read about cases like this, the more I have to rethink if it really is a bad idea to distribute Bibles . . . maybe if more people read it . . . .

The Little Girl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI8kcBqY80g)

[issac the dragon]

MW, I don't agree with that. There have been countless crimes against children commited by religious people. A nut is a nut, rather religious or not. And the Bible tells people to kill their children if they are incorrigible.

[Saguaro]

It should be pointed out that the real deal does not want our being good to earn any rights. It sees us all as a bunch of assholes needing a way out despite our best personal efforts, So it was evil that inspired these events

The same forces wanting Hillary or Obama to run.


:roll :roll

[MW]

MW, I don't agree with that. There have been countless crimes against children commited by religious people. A nut is a nut, rather religious or not. And the Bible tells people to kill their children if they are incorrigible.

I know :kickcan

I'm just down this weekend - so many kids dying, for no reason, just disposable trash to them . . . have a fried who would take those kids without blinking an eye b/c she can't biologically have one.

[Sat]

Kids won't understand the Bible unless somebody is willing to teach them what it means.

[MW]

Kids won't understand the Bible unless somebody is willing to teach them what it means.

Then you hand out a kid's version. I grew up with a kid's version and the only time I went to a church is when a neighbor took me, until I got old enough to take myself to church and vacation Bible school. When my kids were born, I took them when I could.

Wasn't until a few years ago that my parent "found religion" and became a zealous hypocrite who will tell you that everyone in the world is going to hell except her church. :roll

[Sat]

Then you hand out a kid's version. I grew up with a kid's version and the only time I went to a church is when a neighbor took me, until I got old enough to take myself to church and vacation Bible school. When my kids were born, I took them when I could.

Wasn't until a few years ago that my parent "found religion" and became a zealous hypocrite who will tell you that everyone in the world is going to hell except her church. :roll

Actually, what works is to volunteer to teach Sunday School.

IMO, anyway. We can't expect a book to do the work. It takes someone to teach it.

[issac the dragon]

I know :kickcan

I'm just down this weekend - so many kids dying, for no reason, just disposable trash to them . . . have a fried who would take those kids without blinking an eye b/c she can't biologically have one.

That is true. The really sad thing is, the mother wouldn't have given her kids up. She is crazy. Dangerous and crazy.

[BartonX]

That is true. The really sad thing is, the mother wouldn't have given her kids up. She is crazy. Dangerous and crazy.

Why don't you just say Liberal we know what you are talking about. :)

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is legally a Christian Nation and was officially declared to be that by the United States Supreme Court in the 1892 Landmark case, "The Church Of The Holy Trinity vs The United States". To the astonishment of the Justices the mountain of evidence supporting this fact was so mountainous it could not be denied.I love when ignorant laypersons try to read a case. Here the concept of dicta (obner dictum) may be way too complex to explain to someone with as limited understanding of the law as bartonx and so I will instead give some really strong legislative history which was indeed the supreme law of the land.
The Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that the US was not founded as a christian nation despite the claims of the religious right. Here is another article that adds to the material already posted by soon to be new pappa. http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htmUnlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, [B]it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.Treaties are the supreme law of the land and this treaty (which was adopted far closer to the adoption of the Constiution and the bill of rights show that bartonx is wrong.

The provisions that bartonx cited from a SCOTUS case were dicta and not consider binding. Here is a simplistic explanation of that case for bartonx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Church_v._United_StatesThis case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. The case is also famous for Justice Brewer's statements that America is a Christian nation. While this case was not specifically about religion, the court considered America's Christian identity to be a strong support for its conclusion. Almost half of the text of the opinion is spent demonstrating America's Christian identity, in order to show that congress could not have intended to prohibit foreign ministers. Referring back to this case in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)[2], Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor, wrote:"The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'" Id., at 471.In effect the discussion on religion is not binding on the courts because it was not central to the ruling

[BartonX]

The treaty of Tripoli was to simply state that we are not a Theocracy, which is true, as well as to assure these vermin our intent was not to harm, overthrow or capture them.

However, since these stupid bastards wanted to play hardball, our Marines went in and brutalized these barbary pirates so thoroughly they pissed backwards during our first Gulf war and attacked us with white flags and hands held high when they heard the Marines were coming again!

[BartonX]

This case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. The case is also famous for Justice Brewer's statements that America is a Christian nation. While this case was not specifically about religion, the court considered America's Christian identity to be a strong support for its conclusion. Almost half of the text of the opinion is spent demonstrating America's Christian identity, in order to show that congress could not have intended to prohibit foreign ministers. Referring back to this case in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)[2], Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor, wrote:

If it weren't central to the case why did they do such an exhaustive search of our definate Christian heritage. It was what the entire case hinged upon. The conclusion being: "We are a Christian nation".

The First Amendment does not seperate it enforces the fact that Christianity and the free excercise thereof shall not be hindered. (Anywhere)

It does not matter if one is a novice or a butthole the meaning is clear and there is no other interpretation.

[Trueblue]

One more time: either teach young people about the Bible in church, or send a big donation to an organization that does-or stop complaining about kids not knowing their Bible.

[BartonX]

And again, teach children the Bible at home, at church, at school and on the job. You cannot O.D. but if you fail your finals your ass will be deported as undesireable! :)

[Trueblue]

Thanks for letting us know that you take no responsibility for backing up what you say. :D

[BartonX]

:LL

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a post from another poster that was put up on another thread a while back that is very very good.Oh well, then you won them. Those were some serious thinkers whose whole belief systems weren't confined to the little quotes you cited. I seem to remember Thomas Jefferson, whom you cited as a supporter, wrote explicitly of a "wall of separation between church and state." (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)

The Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11), which as a ratified treaty is the law of the land, explicitly said::"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
There's ample (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html) support (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html) for either (http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm) side (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html) as to what the Founders believed. I'll even go so far as to concede that most Americans then as now were Christians of some faith and that a majority of the Founding Fathers (meaning delegates to the various conventions and early political figures) were Christians as well. They had a prime opportunity to take what England had done with regards to establishment of a state religion and further tweak it to eliminate the excesses and corruption present in the mother country.

But they didn't do that. And avowedly so. At every opportunity to establish a state religion (even one as milquetoast as the Anglican sect), they passed. I think they saw that religion has a powerful presence in people's lives but that it had no place in government. So you can spout off all the quotations you want about how this or that Founding Father believed this way or that, but to me it's completely irrelevant.

The Constitution explicitly prohibits it and enshrines the free exercise of religion. Christian morality certainly informs a lot of jurisprudence and legislation from the beginning, but that's only because it informed the worldview of the framers and adjudicators.

The most important point, though, is that the individual rights that were their motivation and guiding priniciples are antithetical to theocracy. The right to life means that you can't be killed willy-nilly, yet that is certainly what every theocratic society from the dawn of history has done. (The right to life also means that you have a right to death, i.e. suicide, and nearly every religion I'm familiar with would certainly prevent that if it had the power to do so.) The right to liberty means that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. No theocracy worth its salt would countenance that. Even governments informed by religion trespass on the liberties of their citizens regularly. The right to property means you get to keep the fruits of your labors whatever they might be (as long as they don't result from the infringement of the rights of others, of course). But theocracies throughout time abrogate that right whenever it suits them to fund their programs.

So America is not a Christian nation, though it might be said that it's a nation of Christians. That puts the focus exactly where it should be: the incidental nature of Christianity's relationship to the state. I am an atheist and I know what would happen to me in a theocracy. Just remember that when any of you advocate a religious state: your particular sect might not fall under its good graces and you could be persecuted. But under a system that respects and enshrines individual rights, you need never fear for that odious menace.

Bill

[Yellowdogtexan]

If it weren't central to the case why did they do such an exhaustive search of our definate Christian heritage. It was what the entire case hinged upon. The conclusion being: "We are a Christian nation".As I noted earlier, the concept of dicta is far too advanced for a layperson like bartonx to understand. Needless to say, his intrepretation is wrong and is a classic example of what happens when laypeople try to undertand case law

[BartonX]

Here is a post from another poster that was put up on another thread a while back that is very very good.


all of these comments are
BULLSHIT the interpretations show a complete ignorance of the facts.

[BartonX]

As I noted earlier, the concept of dicta is far too advanced for a layperson like bartonx to understand. Needless to say, his intrepretation is wrong and is a classic example of what happens when laypeople try to undertand case law

Obviously my comprehension is vastly superior to your conclusion. Tell me why the Jurist that wrote the opinion for this Landmark case, devoted the rest of his life to a public speaking tour to educate people that "Freedom Of Religion", did not extend to Muslims, Budhists, Confuscists, Hindus or any other simple minded scheme but was confined to Christianity and all of its denominations specifically? Your position makes you sound like a man with a paper ass.

Like that lame letter to a group of Baptists being used to create "Seperation of Church and State", something not to be found anywhere in United States Law, because our law promotes and supports Christianity, albeit, not as a Theocracy but as our foundation and purpose.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is sad but funny when silly laypersons try to intrepete the law. The bottom line is that the quotes in the case cited by bartonx are dicta (a legal concept that is far too complex for a simple layperson like bartonx to understand) and the only true authority here is the Treaty of Tripoli which explicity states that the United States is not a christian country. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and show the true intent of the founders of this country.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Like that lame letter to a group of Baptists being used to create "Seperation of Church and State", something not to be found anywhere in United States Law, because our law promotes and supports Christianity, albeit, not as a Theocracy but as our foundation and purpose.Evidently bartonx does not tire of being ignorant and wrong. The portion of the case cited by barton was dicta (i.e. not part of the issue before the court) but in this following case the issue of the separation of the church and state was actually before the court and the court held that there is indeed a wall of separation between the church and state. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. This case dealt with the issue of the separation of church and state and held that there is indeed a wall of separation contrary to the silly and ignorant claims of bartonx

[BartonX]

Jefferson's metaphor has been bantered about so frequently one would think that "Seperation of Church and State" were actually law. It could not be clearer that it is anything but." Justice Anthony Scalia

The First Amendments Laconic text imposes explicit restrictions on Congress only. A wall in contrast, is a bilateral barrier, a structure of unambiguous demarcation that inhibits the movement of traffic from one side or the other.

Does Jefferson's metaphor merely make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitutional arrangement or does it exceed ........and indeed, reconceptualize...the Constitutional mandate?

I might point out a novice would never have fucked up the obvious, like alledged pros. have done. A novice would have been capable or reading the clear text and comprehend its exact meaning. :rooster

[BartonX]

Correction Learned Council, the crux of the case was to determine if a Minister classification made a person ineligible for a work classification related to an imigration status.

This case dealt with the issue of the separation of church and state and held that there is indeed a wall of separation contrary to the silly and ignorant claims of bartonx

The loonacy of the metaphor "A veil of seperation between church and state", was not misrepresented until 1947 (here's a hint Everson)

The extracuricular phrase was used solely to assure the Danbury Baptists that no denomination of Christianity would or could be appointed as the official one by government. These people had already escaped the persecutions of Rome and England, so their concern was very real.

The reason for the letter (since you are not well read) was because this group of Baptists presented a very real threat to the Constitution being signed or ever even existing. It did not in any way espouse "Original Intent" of the First Amendment.

Therefore your position is a pretext diametrically opposed to the context of the Constitution. :rooster

[Yellowdogtexan]

I love it when ignorant laypeople try to play at being a lawyer. The passage that I cited in my last post was indeed from EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING and if bartonx had clicked on the link he would have seen that. The concept of separation of church and state is now part of the Constituion as noted by many decisions of the SCOTUS that have incorporated such concept of a wall of separation of church and state. See. ENGEL v. VITALE http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#422The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. BTW, judge scalia is a traitor to his oath to defend the constitution and his opinion are not binding on the court

Bartonx may not like the concept of a wall of separation of church and state but his opinion is meaningless. I urge him to go file his silly opinions in some amicur briefs so that the clearks at the SCOTUS can get some laughs at his silliness

[BartonX]

I love it when ignorant laypeople try to play at being a lawyer. The passage that I cited in my last post was indeed from EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING and if bartonx had clicked on the link he would have seen that. The concept of separation of church and state is now part of the Constituion as noted by many decisions of the SCOTUS that have incorporated such concept of a wall of separation of church and state. See. ENGEL v. VITALE http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#422BTW, judge scalia is a traitor to his oath to defend the constitution and his opinion are not binding on the court

Bartonx may not like the concept of a wall of separation of church and state but his opinion is meaningless. I urge him to go file his silly opinions in some amicur briefs so that the clearks at the SCOTUS can get some laughs at his silliness


Please show me where the Constitution mentions the Jefferson Metaphor in its context? You can't!

By the way my forte is outclassing lawyers they are such easy prey. Ya'll are so full of yourselves you never see me coming I am an awesome opponent and can litigate with the best of them. So tearing you a new one here will be childs play for me. :)

[Oceanbreeze]

It is sad but funny when silly laypersons try to intrepete the law. The bottom line is that the quotes in the case cited by bartonx are dicta (a legal concept that is far too complex for a simple layperson like bartonx to understand) and the only true authority here is the Treaty of Tripoli which explicity states that the United States is not a christian country. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and show the true intent of the founders of this country.

:paclap :paclap :paclap

[BartonX]

:paclap :paclap :paclap

Boo Hiss Boo :theman

[BartonX]

It is sad but funny when silly laypersons try to intrepete the law. The bottom line is that the quotes in the case cited by bartonx are dicta (a legal concept that is far too complex for a simple layperson like bartonx to understand) and the only true authority here is the Treaty of Tripoli which explicity states that the United States is not a christian country. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and show the true intent of the founders of this country.

That was not the intent nor was that the message given. It was an attempt to relate to the savage mind we are not a Theocracy, and have not come to overthrow you for that purpose, we only want your thugs to quit fucking with our ships or we will rip off your heads, shove them up your asses and proceed to piss down your nasty necks. [translation]

And that is precisely what our Marines proceeded to do for these bad ass barbery pirates.

[Oceanbreeze]

Boo Hiss Boo :theman

Earn your JD then you can Boo Hiss Boo :theman

[BartonX]

As I noted earlier, the concept of dicta is far too advanced for a layperson like bartonx to understand. Needless to say, his intrepretation is wrong and is a classic example of what happens when laypeople try to undertand case law


You say "dicta", I say "discovery". Whats next "concus classicus ???" Told ya you don't wanna mess with me. :)
I'll eat you alive.

[BartonX]

Earn your JD then you can Boo Hiss Boo :theman

Been there done that. Now shoo!:theman

[AYFR]

It is sad but funny when silly laypersons try to intrepete the law. The bottom line is that the quotes in the case cited by bartonx are dicta (a legal concept that is far too complex for a simple layperson like bartonx to understand) and the only true authority here is the Treaty of Tripoli which explicity states that the United States is not a christian country. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and show the true intent of the founders of this country.

The founders intended this to be a country run by its citizens, Government for the people BY the people and the PEOPLE say that the founders intended a Christian nation
WASHINGTON — Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031&loc=interstitialskip

Most Americans believe the nation's founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and people are less likely to say freedom to worship covers religious groups they consider extreme, a poll out today finds.

The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. In the survey, which is conducted annually by the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan educational group, three out of four people who identify themselves as evangelical or Republican believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. About half of Democrats and independents do.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-11-amendment_N.htm

[BartonX]

Been there done that. Now shoo!:theman

Wadda ya want me to do Sparky....ignore him?
Or :moon him :)

[Trueblue]

The founders intended this to be a country run by its citizens, Government for the people BY the people and the PEOPLE say that the founders intended a Christian nation

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031&loc=interstitialskip


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-11-amendment_N.htm

That reasoning just won't fly. The people might also say that women can't vote or that it's okay to own other humans and their children-but it is inconsistent with our founding documents.

Separation is good for the Church and for America.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Been there done that. Now shoo!You are not a lawyer. It is obvious that you are not bright enough to get into law school and you are too silly to do well in law school.

BTW, do you even know what the term dicta means?

[AYFR]

That reasoning just won't fly. The people might also say that women can't vote or that it's okay to own other humans and their children-but it is inconsistent with our founding documents.

Separation is good for the Church and for America.

So you are saying that the people's will is not paramont?

[Trueblue]

I'm saying that anyone who believes that this is a Christian nation in a legislative sense, or in the sense of a state religion, is misinformed, and needs to read our founding documents and retake high school civics.

[POGO-SATAN]

You can thank me for the bible being taken out of schools. It wasnt fair. I was always getting a bad rap. So I went to the ACLU and filed suit.:theman

[Trueblue]

You should have just handed out copies of your book, too.

[AYFR]

I'm saying that anyone who believes that this is a Christian nation in a legislative sense, or in the sense of a state religion, is misinformed, and needs to read our founding documents and retake high school civics.

You know what; people believe how they believe. Them believing that the FF's intended a Christian Nation doesn't mean they are wrong, that ia what BY and FOR the people mean. The PEOPLE have control ovet this nation and that means to also make it the nation that they want.

Law, lawyers, politicans and judges are not the final say in America the people are, regardless what we have been taught to believe.

[Trueblue]

You know what; people believe how they believe. Them believing that the FF's intended a Christian Nation doesn't mean they are wrong, that ia what BY and FOR the people mean. The PEOPLE have control ovet this nation and that means to also make it the nation that they want.

Law, lawyers, politicans and judges are not the final say in America the people are, regardless what we have been taught to believe.

No, people being misled as to what the FFs were up to does not change reality. It means we need better education. The founders were up to their eyeballs in the principles of the enlightenment. Not in Christianity.

If people want to change it, then they can, if they can get an amendment passed. The judges are just going by the law. But it won't be the nation we've had for the last two hundred years, it will be something else.

[AYFR]

PEople are not being misled, the are intreperting thing differently then other and you seem to think that they need to be forced to see things another way.
You have no way of truly knowing what the FFs intended as the are now dead and cannot explain it to us. The best we can do is use the information provided to us and interpret it the best we can.
Thing is people intrepret things differently.

Beside I wasn't debating whether or not what the people think is right but explaining to YDT that treaties are NOT the supreme Law of this land the PEOPLE are the supreme law.

[issac the dragon]

The people are not the supreme law. We have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights keeps the majority from imposing its rule on the minority That is what it is there for. To keep Christians from forcing everyone to be one, for one thing. You can not impose your religion on me. The Bill of Rights forbids it.

[Trueblue]

PEople are not being misled, the are intreperting thing differently then other and you seem to think that they need to be forced to see things another way.

You have no way of truly knowing what the FFs intended as the are now dead and cannot explain it to us. The best we can do is use the information provided to us and interpret it the best we can.
Thing is people intrepret things differently.

No, they are being misled. They are having misquotes and lies told to them by the right. It's got nothing to do with forcing anybody, it's a simply matter of looking at the history. We may not understand agree on the interpretation of all that they said, but this is a no-brainer, Rev. They were followers of the enlightenment principles. At no time did they mention Jesus or Christianity in the founding documents. That alone establishes that they weren't creating a Christian nation.

Beside I wasn't debating whether or not what the people think is right but explaining to YDT that treaties are NOT the supreme Law of this land the PEOPLE are the supreme law.

People aren't the law.

[Trueblue]

http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showpost.php?p=178652&postcount=1

[Trueblue]

I'm sure you didn't mean that we have no way of knowing what the founders meant, but that we couldn't know for sure. They were a diverse group, in many ways, but the USC is derived from these principles:

Enlightenment thinkers believed that systematic thinking might be applied to all areas of human activity, carried into the governmental sphere in their explorations of the individual, society and the state. Its leaders believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages. The movement helped create the intellectual framework for the American and French Revolutions, Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791, Russia's 1825 Decembrist Revolt, the Latin American independence movement, the Greek national independence movement and the later Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and led to the rise of classical liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.

Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were also influenced by Enlightenment-era ideas, particularly in the religious sphere (deism) and, in parallel with liberalism (which had a major influence on its Bill of Rights, in parallel with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen), socialism and anarchism in the political sphere.

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

[BartonX]

I'm saying that anyone who believes that this is a Christian nation in a legislative sense, or in the sense of a state religion, is misinformed, and needs to read our founding documents and retake high school civics.

You are confusing a Theocracy with a legitimate Christian Nation, whose law does not subscribe to the Paganistic inspired inclusion of the illegitimate metaphor prescribing the pipe dream of seperation of church and state. The inherent seperation forbids any Law to be made by congress to impede the open practice of Christianity in government, schools or any other place people breathe. And the government is powerless to appoint
any one of the denominations as the Official one. As well as to implant Darwinian religion in the school system, or the religion of multiculturalism, or any other product of the Godless French revolution.

[BartonX]

I'm sure you didn't mean that we have no way of knowing what the founders meant, but that we couldn't know for sure. They were a diverse group, in many ways, but the USC is derived from these principles:





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

The enlightenment is actually the benightmentation, it is the product of dumbasses and other non-christians because they did not possess sound minds.

Diesm was briefly tampered with by two of our Founders and they in turn deemed it as being BULLSHIT, upon their return from France.

Our USC was derived from Christian principles and the Bible exclusively since Liberty is a foreign concept to any mere belief system. Christianity and its tenets have made us stand head and shoulders above all of the dipshits on the planet and they resent us for the sound minds Christians alone posess.:LL

[Yellowdogtexan]

Bartonx is truly delusional and wrong about the US being a christian country. The Constitution is the controlling document and does not support his moronic claims. http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.phpThe U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.The treaty is the supreme law of the land next to the constitution and based on both of these documents it clear that bartonx does not know what he is talking about. See also http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christianna tionThe U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.

The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion. Many were believers themselves. Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. ....

Respect for religious pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.

While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all.

Jefferson and Madison's viewpoint also carried the day when the Constitution, and later, the Bill of Rights, were written. Had an officially Christian nation been the goal of the founders, that concept would appear in the Constitution. It does not. Instead, our nation's governing document ensures religious freedom for everyone.

Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state." The claim that the United States is a chrisitan natioin is so stupid that it is funny. bartonx's claims are so stupid that they really are funny. Again, bartonx is a great reason why there are laws saying that laypeople can not practice law. When you have an ignorant layperson like bartonx expressing an opinion on legal issues, you get such incredibly stupid claims as as set forth on this thread.

[BartonX]

No mention of Christianity???? Pssssssssssssssssssssst.....hey numbnuts, it specifies that the President is to veto bills on a Sunday. (That is uniquely Christian, son) :LL

[BartonX]

Bartonx is truly delusional and wrong about the US being a christian country. The Constitution is the controlling document and does not support his moronic claims. http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.phpThe treaty is the supreme law of the land next to the constitution and based on both of these documents it clear that bartonx does not know what he is talking about. See also http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christianna tion The claim that the United States is a chrisitan natioin is so stupid that it is funny. bartonx's claims are so stupid that they really are funny. Again, bartonx is a great reason why there are laws saying that laypeople can not practice law. When you have an ignorant layperson like bartonx expressing an opinion on legal issues, you get such incredibly stupid claims as as set forth on this thread.

It is impossible to take you seriously since all of your shit is so blantly absurd and downright laughable.

Even if every single line you just stated wasn't a damned lie. Why did your Supreme Court have to declare boldly: "This is a Christian Nation"?

I don't even have to say you are full of shit the Supreme Court did it for me :rofl :rofl2

[AYFR]

No, they are being misled. They are having misquotes and lies told to them by the right. It's got nothing to do with forcing anybody, it's a simply matter of looking at the history. We may not understand agree on the interpretation of all that they said, but this is a no-brainer, Rev. They were followers of the enlightenment principles. At no time did they mention Jesus or Christianity in the founding documents. That alone establishes that they weren't creating a Christian nation.

No they are not being misled, they are interpreting things for themselves, without haveing to be told what someone else thinks they mean.

Also at no time did the FF's mention Seperation of Chirch and sTate in the Founding Documents BUT people use Jeffersons letters and other documents to prove that that was what was intended.

To that point here are some FF's quotes that prove you wrong.
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

Samuel Adams:
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams
July 4, 1821

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct."



First chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty ... of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (1816)


James Madison:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."



People aren't the law.
You misunderstand, what I mean is that people are the ones that control this country not lawyers and such.

[Trueblue]

No they are not being misled, they are interpreting things for themselves, without haveing to be told what someone else thinks they mean.

Interpretation doesn't mean "making up out of thin air".

Also at no time did the FF's mention Seperation of Chirch and sTate in the Founding Documents BUT people use Jeffersons letters and other documents to prove that that was what was intended.

At no time did the FFs mention Jesus or God in the USC. That's all the proof anyone needs, really. If this was a Christian nation, they would have said so.

To that point here are some FF's quotes that prove you wrong.


Oh, Rev, those quotes are easily countered by other quotes out there. Read the USC. Jesus, God, and Christianity are not in there.

You misunderstand, what I mean is that people are the ones that control this country not lawyers and such.

Then you should have said so.

[AYFR]

Interpretation doesn't mean "making up out of thin air".
The people that believe that are not making things up out of thin air.
There are documents and quotes that support them.
Being a Christian nation and being a Theoarcy are two different things.


At no time did the FFs mention Jesus or God in the USC. That's all the proof anyone needs, really. If this was a Christian nation, they would have said so.
The FF's did not need to mention Jesus in the Constitution


If they meant for this to be a Christian nation, why isn't Jesus mentioned in the constitution?

The short answer is that it wasn't necessary to. The majority of the founding fathers and American's in general were Christians. As we have seen from the above link to the Mayflower Compact, the main reason this country was founded was so that those Christians could spread the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. They viewed the constitution, Bill of Rights and all laws that were passed as a having come from Biblical principles, and that these documents were all subordinate to the Bible. They were well aware of the fact that God had given them and all of mankind very specific litmus tests in the Bible that they needed to apply to all government officials before putting them into positions of power. There wasn't a need to specifically restate these God given mandates because they were already addressed in the more authoritative Bible, and were common knowledge.
http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html


Oh, Rev, those quotes are easily countered by other quotes out there. Read the USC. Jesus, God, and Christianity are not in there.

That is what I mean by intrepertation

Seperation is not mentioned either, nor is the right to an abortion, and more things yet we say those are Constitutional,

[Yellowdogtexan]

Even if every single line you just stated wasn't a damned lie. Why did your Supreme Court have to declare boldly: "This is a Christian Nation"?As an ignorant layperson, the concept of dicta is too advanced for someone like you to understand. Here is an explanation of the HolyTrinity case that is hopefully simple enough for even a silly and ignorant layperson to understand. http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christianna tionIt should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

A more accurate judicial view of the relationship between religion and government is described by Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
Your own judge has clearly stated that the United States is not legally a christian nation. Your ignorance and stupidity are great justifications for the laws that prohibit laypersons from practicing law. When an idiot like bartonx looks at a legal issue, he gets it wrong because he lacks the training (such as knowning the legal term dicta) to understand what he is reading and would injure the public if allowed to give advice. The opinions expressed by bartonx are so ignorant and wrong that they are truly funny

[Yellowdogtexan]

No mention of Christianity???? Pssssssssssssssssssssst.....hey numbnuts, it specifies that the President is to veto bills on a Sunday. One thing has become clear. baronx is always wrong and is really very ignorant. He mistates the position on Sunday in the constitution and is wrong about this provision showing that the US is a christian nation. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_con_sundays.htmUnfortunately for accommodationists and others opposed to a strict separation of church and state, the case here is not as clear as it might seem at first glance. Indeed, the fact that so few reputable scholars even given this clause a second glance when discussing the separation of church and state should be a strong clue that this cannot be used in the way that amateurs would like.

For one thing, there is absolutely no evidence in the early records of any intention on the part of the authors to establish a particular Sabbath day by the government. Instead, all of the commentaries and early records of debate indicate quite clearly that the concern was over the exact number of days which a president would have to consider a bill and decide whether to sign it, veto it or just leave it alone. At first, the Constitutional Convention was going to give presidents just seven days, but shortly after that decision they lengthened it to ten days - perhaps in an effort to better balance the power of the President against that of the Congress.

If this clause had been inserted for specifically religious reasons, it would have been the only clause in the entire Constitution which existed for such reasons. Isn't it reasonable, then, to conclude that if this were the case, some mention of this unique case would have been included in the records? The fact that no such record exists does not prove the clause was not inserted for the sake of supporting particular religious beliefs, but it is very suggestive and makes the case for those opposed to the separation of church and state much more difficult.

Isn't it also reasonable to think that the authors would have specifically referred to this day as the Sabbath rather than simply as Sunday? If Sunday is exempted because the authors of the Constitution thought it should be a day of rest, why not refer to it as a day of rest? Moreover, why is Sunday exempted only in this one situation - why not in other legislative and governmental matters?

Even in this situation, the President is neither prevented nor even discouraged from vetoing or signing legislation on Sundays. Such facts also eliminate as a plausible explanation the idea that the authors wanted to ensure that a president who was strict about keeping the Sabbath would not be compelled to break that rule by considering bills on Sundays.

The only thing exempted for Sunday is counting it as one of the ten days during which the President has to consider the bill. As a result, this clause actually fails to establish Sunday as a Sabbath because it fails to establish Sunday as a day of rest during which people are expected to leave aside their normal work and focus instead on God and religious worship.

If this is true, then why was the clause inserted? The simplest reason is that the authors wanted to make sure that the President would have a reasonable amount of time when considering bills passed by Congress.

With Sundays excepted, a president can have up to nearly two full working weeks before he has to make a decision. The reason why this would have been particularly important at the time the Constitution was written is because there were still so many places where Sabbath Laws were strictly enforced. One of the restricted activities was travel - thus, if a president were outside the Capitol when Congress passed a bill, he could require at least an extra day just to get back. Because Sundays are exempted from the time allotted, Congress wasn't able to pull and fast one and get a law though without allowing the president enough time to consider it. As is normal bartonx mistates his claim in that the Sunday provision does not stop a president from issuing a veto on a sunday. This provision does not support bartonx's ignorant claim and is there solely to make sure that a president has sufficient number of days to veto a law given the difficulty of travel back in the days when the Constitution was adopted.

[BartonX]

As an ignorant layperson, the concept of dicta is too advanced for someone like you to understand. Here is an explanation of the HolyTrinity case that is hopefully simple enough for even a silly and ignorant layperson to understand. http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christianna tionYour own judge has clearly stated that the United States is not legally a christian nation. Your ignorance and stupidity are great justifications for the laws that prohibit laypersons from practicing law. When an idiot like bartonx looks at a legal issue, he gets it wrong because he lacks the training (such as knowning the legal term dicta) to understand what he is reading and would injure the public if allowed to give advice. The opinions expressed by bartonx are so ignorant and wrong that they are truly funny

Your concept of "dicta" is not germane to this subject. I tried to give you a hint by putting quotation marks around the term "discovery", and it still didn't register with you that you are full of shit and totally ignorant of the facts of this case.

With an I.Q. of 140 you may wish to reconsider calling me an idiot since I am fileting you on this subject. Face it you are outclassed and I know and you know when it comes to legal minds, you have lost yours. :rofl (If you ever had one to begin with. :LL Oh it is so much fun to knock the props out from under a light weight like you.:rooster

[Yellowdogtexan]

Your concept of "dicta" is not germane to this subject.BartonX is too ignorant to understand the concept of dicta and so ignores it. Again as noted in my prior post, the concept of dicta is indeed relevant It should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

A more accurate judicial view of the relationship between religion and government is described by Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." If bartonx had been able to read such material and understand it he would know that his claims are bullshit (like all of his posts). Again, dicta means that the statement in the case are not key to the central ruling. In addition, these quotes cited by bartonx have not been cited by the SCOTUS in subsequent decisions which shows that such statements were dicta. In addition there are subsequent SCOTUS decisions including the one cited above and other cases cited by me on this thread that show that bartonx is WRONG.

Again, laypeople like bartonx are not allowed to practice law for a reason. He is unable to understand the concepts here.

BTW, anyone who believes that bartonx has an iq of 140, please PM me. I have a bridge that is up for sale.

[BartonX]

BartonX is too ignorant to understand the concept of dicta and so ignores it. Again as noted in my prior post, the concept of dicta is indeed relevant If bartonx had been able to read such material and understand it he would know that his claims are bullshit (like all of his posts). Again, dicta means that the statement in the case are not key to the central ruling. In addition, these quotes cited by bartonx have not been cited by the SCOTUS in subsequent decisions which shows that such statements were dicta. In addition there are subsequent SCOTUS decisions including the one cited above and other cases cited by me on this thread that show that bartonx is WRONG.

Again, laypeople like bartonx are not allowed to practice law for a reason. He is unable to understand the concepts here.

BTW, anyone who believes that bartonx has an iq of 140, please PM me. I have a bridge that is up for sale.


It isn't hard to figure out what your JD stood for, "JUST A DUNCE" :rofl It isn't that I don't understand it, it is that I don't accept your conclusion. They did a lot of digging to disprove the point they had to admit to ! "Discovery" is far more appropriate. Besides "dicta" isn't for me I prefer "Puss Se" :LL

Dummy!!!

[Yellowdogtexan]

I hope that everyone notices that when confronted with authority such as an explanation as to why the Holy Trinity case is not relevant and an explanation showing that bartonx mistated the provision of the constitution on vetoes and Sundays, he ignores such authorities. The reason for this is that bartonx is not very bright and has nothing to back up his poisitions. Like all idiots, he runs away from a real fight and ignores authorities and facts that he does not like. Bartonx is amusing but is a lightweight in that he is unable to intelligently discuss an issue.

He is amusing and is living proof as to why ignorant laypersons like him should not be allowed to practice law. I would love to talk to the lawyers on the other side of the case that bartonx claims to have represented himself. No doubt they have some great examples of his stupidity and I also do not doubt that bartonx got screwed by representing himself. He is too stupid and arrogant not to have fallen into some traps in the litigation process. Of course if anyone wants to believe bartonx's claims, I have some clients with stock in a company called Enron that they would love to sell to you

[sparks]

Of course if anyone wants to believe bartonx's claims, I have some clients with stock in a company called Enron that they would love to sell to you

:rofl

[Trueblue]

The people that believe that are not making things up out of thin air.
There are documents and quotes that support them.
Being a Christian nation and being a Theoarcy are two different things.

It's pretty much thin air, if you read the USC.



The FF's did not need to mention Jesus in the Constitution

If it's a Christian nation, they needed to mention God, Jesus, or Christianity at some point.


That is what I mean by intrepertation

Seperation is not mentioned either, nor is the right to an abortion, and more things yet we say those are Constitutional,

Yes, we do say that certain things are constitutional, but that's a separate issue.

[Trueblue]

If you watch the video at the link above, fast forward to 20 minutes and 30 seconds into it. There you'll hear Mr. Barton explain that 27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees! That would hardly qualify them as deists. We're trying to track down a list of exactly who they were. Once we have the list we'll post them on this same page.

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

But they know there were 27 of them. O-K.

I would imagine a lot of them went to seminary because a lot of universities were founded by various religions.

[Trueblue]

The short answer is that it wasn't necessary to. The majority of the founding fathers and American's in general were Christians. As we have seen from the above link to the Mayflower Compact, the main reason this country was founded was so that those Christians could spread the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. They viewed the constitution, Bill of Rights and all laws that were passed as a having come from Biblical principles, and that these documents were all subordinate to the Bible. They were well aware of the fact that God had given them and all of mankind very specific litmus tests in the Bible that they needed to apply to all government officials before putting them into positions of power. There wasn't a need to specifically restate these God given mandates because they were already addressed in the more authoritative Bible, and were common knowledge.

Ok, now I'd like the long answer, because that one is inadequate.

What in the world does the Mayflower Compact have to do with this issue????

[AYFR]

Just because it was not included doesn't mean it wasn't intended. Pretty much all of America was religious back then and not secular so it would make since not to have to include it.
With 80% or so of the country Christian that makes this a Christian nation.

[Trueblue]

Just because it was not included doesn't mean it wasn't intended. Pretty much all of America was religious back then and not secular so it would make since not to have to include it.

I'm sorry, that just won't fly. Religious aims are going to invoke God in some way. BTW, church attendance and affiliation was not very high at that time.

With 80% or so of the country Christian that makes this a Christian nation.

Absolutely. But the question was did the founders intend for it to be, in a formal sense, a Christian nation-and if you read the USC, and if you read about the enlightment, you can clearly see that the answer is no, they did not.

[Lone Laugher]

Wrong.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Just because it was not included doesn't mean it wasn't intended. Legally that is wrong. As noted in the quote set forth above, the religious types tried to get chrisitianity into the constitution and they failed. Under rules of statutory construction, that legislative history shows the FF did indeed intend this country to be a secular country and for there to be a wall of separation between the church and state. Again, go read the materials that I posted on this thread.

[BartonX]

I hope that everyone notices that when confronted with authority such as an explanation as to why the Holy Trinity case is not relevant and an explanation showing that bartonx mistated the provision of the constitution on vetoes and Sundays, he ignores such authorities. The reason for this is that bartonx is not very bright and has nothing to back up his poisitions. Like all idiots, he runs away from a real fight and ignores authorities and facts that he does not like. Bartonx is amusing but is a lightweight in that he is unable to intelligently discuss an issue.

He is amusing and is living proof as to why ignorant laypersons like him should not be allowed to practice law. I would love to talk to the lawyers on the other side of the case that bartonx claims to have represented himself. No doubt they have some great examples of his stupidity and I also do not doubt that bartonx got screwed by representing himself. He is too stupid and arrogant not to have fallen into some traps in the litigation process. Of course if anyone wants to believe bartonx's claims, I have some clients with stock in a company called Enron that they would love to sell to you

Oh, so now that I have proved you are a complete moron you want to backtrack and say that case is irrelevant? You are saying that because you suddenly realized I was kicking your ass legally! :rooster

[BartonX]

Legally that is wrong. As noted in the quote set forth above, the religious types tried to get chrisitianity into the constitution and they failed. Under rules of statutory construction, that legislative history shows the FF did indeed intend this country to be a secular country and for there to be a wall of separation between the church and state. Again, go read the materials that I posted on this thread.

Wrong again Bozo, the religious types are the ones that wrote that document and it is totally Christian, in point and fact, that it is the most anti-secular document on the planet and that is why ambulence chasers like you want to cover it up.

Are you so dense as to believe our Founding Fathers would tolerate let alone accept anything secular? My ass.........they were Christians.

[BartonX]

I'm sorry, that just won't fly. Religious aims are going to invoke God in some way. BTW, church attendance and affiliation was not very high at that time.



Absolutely. But the question was did the founders intend for it to be, in a formal sense, a Christian nation-and if you read the USC, and if you read about the enlightment, you can clearly see that the answer is no, they did not.

Please tell us how this "so called" enlightenment had any affect on these Christians? Perhaps the results of the hideous French Revolution which was for evil will give you a clue.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Oh, so now that I have proved you are a complete moron you want to backtrack and say that case is irrelevant? You are saying that because you suddenly realized I was kicking your ass legally!Your ignorance and stupidity is amusing. You really are a poster child for the reason why ignorant laypersons like yourself are not allowed to practice law.

Go read the materials posted. The language that you like in the Holy Trinity case is dicta and therefore is meaningless. The judge who wrote the opinion disagrees with your intrepretation of the case and the SCOTUS has not cited that language in numerous subsequent opinoins that all disagree with your stupid claims. I know that the concept of dicta is far too advanced for a silly and ignorant layperson like you to understand and so here are some simple definitions for you that even someone of your limited intelligence may be able to understandhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htmDICTA - The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.

Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.

As one judge said, 'If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled. What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered. And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.' And another said it is 'great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.'I note with amusement that you do not want to talk about the lie you tried to make about vetos being illegal on Sunday. That claim like all of your claims was stupid and WRONG.

Your posts are so incredilby stupid that they are funny. Thanks for the laughs.

[Trueblue]

Please tell us how this "so called" enlightenment had any affect on these Christians? Perhaps the results of the hideous French Revolution which was for evil will give you a clue.

Wikipedia has a great article about it.

[BartonX]

Here is something better:

14. The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. -- John Quincy Adams

This quote has had wide circulation for decades and can be traced back to an 1860 work by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, which reprinted a number of sermons preached during the Revolution. In the overview of that work, Thornton explained:

The church polity [form of government] of New England begat like principles in the state. The pew and the pulpit had been educated to self-government. They were accustomed “TO CONSIDER.” The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. 33



Now here is some real enlightenment. :) Nothing secular can be found or verified.

[AYFR]

I'm sorry, that just won't fly. Religious aims are going to invoke God in some way. BTW, church attendance and affiliation was not very high at that time.



Absolutely. But the question was did the founders intend for it to be, in a formal sense, a Christian nation-and if you read the USC, and if you read about the enlightment, you can clearly see that the answer is no, they did not.
IT was mostly Chritstian back then as well thus it is and always has been a Christian nation, that is why the FF's did not see the need to include it in the USC.

YOU clearly see that it is no. Some other clearly see it as yes, again we are back to intrepretation.
Wrong.
Right

[AYFR]

Legally that is wrong. As noted in the quote set forth above, the religious types tried to get chrisitianity into the constitution and they failed. Under rules of statutory construction, that legislative history shows the FF did indeed intend this country to be a secular country and for there to be a wall of separation between the church and state. Again, go read the materials that I posted on this thread.
Lawyers and judges are not the be all end all in America.

I never said that Christianity was in the USC.

Quotes, letters and other documents show that the Founding Fathers DID intend ths to be a religious nation based on the Bible.

Also there is NO seperation of Church and State in the USC either.

John Jay, an author of The Federalist Papers, the first Chief Justice of the United States and the second president of the American Bible Society, used his constitutionally protected freedom of expression to declare, "Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Legal commentator Thomas Cooley explained in 1898: "By establishment of religion is meant the setting up or recognition of a state church, or at least the conferring on one church of special favors and advantages which are denied to others ***. It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, *** where it might be done without drawing any invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, organizations, or sects."

[Trueblue]

IT was mostly Chritstian back then as well thus it is and always has been a Christian nation, that is why the FF's did not see the need to include it in the USC.

YOU clearly see that it is no. Some other clearly see it as yes, again we are back to intrepretation.

Right

That is ludicrous, Rev. If they wanted it to be Christian, they would have said so. There were people of other religions in the US at that time, including deists. Many of the founders were deists.

If they meant it to be based on the Bible, they would have said so. You are reading what you want to read, and that is not interpretation, that is distortion. Read what is there.

I find it interesting that Jefferson's letter to the Baptists is not important because it's not an official document, but quotes from speeches prove your point.

You might want to research those quotes-the Theocratists have been known to simply make them up.

[AYFR]

That is ludicrous, Rev. If they wanted it to be Christian, they would have said so. There were people of other religions in the US at that time, including deists. Many of the founders were deists.

If they meant it to be based on the Bible, they would have said so. You are reading what you want to read, and that is not interpretation, that is distortion. Read what is there.

I find it interesting that Jefferson's letter to the Baptists is not important because it's not an official document, but quotes from speeches prove your point.

You might want to research those quotes-the Theocratists have been known to simply make them up.

I have searched those quotes and they are real. I am just makeing the point that people CAN intrepret that this was intended to be a Christian nation just as easily as it could be intrepreted that it cannot.

YOU are the one saying that there is no way people could intrepret it any differently then you do unless they are lying, misled or wrong.

You are the one that basically saying that you are right and 65% of America is wrong about the Founders Intent.

I am saying that it could be intrepreted either way.

I was making a case for the intrepretation af a Christian Nation.

I DID say that we do now have a Christian nation due to the fact that the majority of people are Christian.

[Trueblue]

I have searched those quotes and they are real. I am just makeing the point that people CAN intrepret that this was intended to be a Christian nation just as easily as it could be intrepreted that it cannot.

YOU are the one saying that there is no way people could intrepret it any differently then you do unless they are lying, misled or wrong.

You are the one that basically saying that you are right and 65% of America is wrong about the Founders Intent.

I am saying that it could be intrepreted either way.

I was making a case for the intrepretation af a Christian Nation.

I DID say that we do now have a Christian nation due to the fact that the majority of people are Christian.

Yes, I am saying that nothing in the founding documents can be used to substantiate your claim. Yes, I am saying that the 65% are wrong. It's happened before, it happens all the time.

We have a Christian nation in the sense that we have a majority of citizens who identify themselves as Christian, yes. But not in any sense in our founding documents, which are conspicuously devoid of references to Jesus or Christianity. Even the DOI says "Creator", and not God.

[AYFR]

Likewise there is nothing in the founding document saying that we are a secular nation either. I am saying that the 65% have a different view then you do.

You are right it does happen that people are wrong.
Like in seperation of C&S, gun rights and etc.

I also never said that the founding document said we have a Christian nation. We are looking for intent and in doing that (like we do in looking for intent for Sof C&S) we go beyond founding documents.

[Trueblue]

Likewise there is nothing in the founding document saying that we are a secular nation either. I am saying that the 65% have a different view then you do.

You are right it does happen that people are wrong.
Like in seperation of C&S, gun rights and etc.

I also never said that the founding document said we have a Christian nation. We are looking for intent and in doing that (like we do in looking for intent for Sof C&S) we go beyond founding documents.

The Treaty of Tripoli says it explicitly. The 65% can believe that the world is flat, too, but they are mistaken. Our founding documents do not say that this is a Christian nation. Therefore, we aren't.

[BartonX]

The Treaty of Tripoli says it explicitly. The 65% can believe that the world is flat, too, but they are mistaken. Our founding documents do not say that this is a Christian nation. Therefore, we aren't.

Wrong, the Treaty of Tripoli, was an attempt to be rational with homicidal Muslims and tell them we are not a Theocracy. We aren't that was never the intent of our being a Christian nation. The treaty didn't work by the way............since assholes are asshole ......our Marines were obligated to go in and just kick the shit out of them and leave no doubt that we were coming and hell was coming with us.

This Nation was never secular at any point but some dickheads sure want it to be. Lets see some proof of this secular bullshit. And out of all our Founding Fathers, over 200 there was maybe one that was close to being a deist but even he denounced that bullshit. He spent too much time in France.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Lawyers and judges are not the be all end all in America.

I never said that Christianity was in the USC.

Quotes, letters and other documents show that the Founding Fathers DID intend ths to be a religious nation based on the Bible.This thread is about a court decision that stopped the distribution of bibles and therefore the legal aspects are indeed important and relvant. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what defines the relationship.