 |
|
|
|
|
October 25th, 2012
06:00 AM ET
When ‘God’s will,’ rape and pregnancy collideBy Wayne Drash, CNN (CNN) - The pregnant 12-year-old girl was strung out on heroin and looked like a walking skeleton when she arrived at the hospital. The conversation that followed, said Phoenix police chaplain John South, has stuck with him ever since. “Do you know who the father is?” South recalled asking her. “She said, ‘Yes, it’s my biological father. He’s the one who hooked me on heroin so he could continue to rape me whenever he wanted to.’ ” The Protestant chaplain has consoled about 50 pregnant rape victims - typically girls raped by their fathers - in his years working with the Phoenix Police Department. South describes himself as “pro-life,” but when it comes to dealing with a girl or woman impregnated by a rapist, he keeps his personal views to himself. “I don’t give them a lecture or preach at them,” South said. “I’ve seen crimes beyond comprehension.” Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock stirred controversy during a debate in Indiana Tuesday when he said pregnancies from rape are “something that God intended to happen.” The instant reaction in political circles was predictable: Democrats decried him, and many conservative Republicans defended his position as steadfastly “pro-life.” But theologians were quick with a more nuanced approach, saying the issue of pregnancies from rape strikes at the core of a timeless question: How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving? That said, many expressed outright dismay by Mourdock’s remarks. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter South wanted to know what Bible Mourdock reads because “what he’s saying is absolutely wrong. It’s not biblical.” The police chaplain said pregnancies from rape aren’t meant to be politicized and said the victims suffer from physical and mental wounds and are often suicidal. About 60% of the time, South surmised from his experience, the women or girls choose to give the baby up for adoption, as long as they never see the child at birth. “I hurt for these kids,” he said. “Rape is evil.” Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People,” said Mourdock’s remarks were off-base: “He’s invoking the will of God where it is not appropriate." People “should have compassion for the person whose life is messed up by this and not make her an instrument for our idiosyncratic, theological commitment,” Kushner said. “If you believe she has no right to terminate that pregnancy, you're free to believe that,” Kushner said. “But for you to write your preferences into law and compel another person to mess her life up because of what you believe, I think you're going too far.” “I continue to be bemused by the ultraconservative lawmakers who say they want smaller government and less government intrusion into people’s lives, except when it comes to who you can marry and how many children you should have.” Plenty of liberal Christians bemoaned how Mourdock was being perceived by some as the face of American Christianity. "Once again, expressions of Christian faith that honor the rights of women to choose their own health care options and what happens to their bodies are not seen or heard," wrote the Rev. Barbara Kershner Daniel, who pastors the Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ of Frederick, Maryland, in a message that she circulated via email. "The lack of another voice, another perspective, another vision from the Christian community leaves an impression that all Christians share this single perspective about pregnancy through rape," she wrote. Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he found Mourdock’s comments troubling from a Catholic perspective because “God does not want rape to happen.” “Someone getting pregnant through rape simply means biology continues to function,” Reese said. “That doesn’t mean God wills it. “If we look at the Scriptures, we see a God who weeps with those going through pain, who is compassionate for those who suffer and condemns those who do injustice,” Reese said During the Tuesday debate, Mourdock was explaining his opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest when he made his remark. “I came to realize life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” said Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer. Amid the uproar Wednesday, Mourdock sought to clarify his comments, saying he was sorry if he offended anyone but said his comments were twisted and distorted for political gain. “The God that I worship would never, ever want to see evil done,” he said. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Paul Root Wolpe, the director for the Center of Ethics at Emory University, said Mourdock’s comments were the equivalent “of saying you shouldn't pull people out of the rubble because God intended the earthquake to happen or we shouldn't try to cure disease because it's God who gave us the disease,” Wolpe said. "That perspective was theologically rejected by virtually every major religion a long, long time ago,” Wolpe added. Mourdock has been an active member of Christian Fellowship Church in Evansville, Indiana, for nearly two decades, according to Mike Deeg, the executive pastor of the 2,000-plus member nondenominational evangelical church. Mourdock has gone on missions trips with a group connected to the church to Bolivia and is well-regarded among congregants Deeg said. Deeg says the church tries to remain largely out of politics. “We don’t think God is Republican or a Democrat,” he said by phone from Evansville, noting they encourage members to vote, the church just doesn’t say for whom. The pastor said of what he has read about Mourdock’s remarks, they largely lined up with the church’s teachings on the sanctity of life and their belief that life begins at conception. “I think rape is a horrible thing, and I think God would condemn rape as horrible,” Deeg said. “I think we’re made in the image of God regardless,” he added, “I don’t think the circumstances dictate whether God knows us and loves us, regardless of how our conception comes about.” South, the chaplain in Phoenix, said the 12-year-old girl he met years ago opted for an abortion and her father was ultimately convicted of rape. He said he grappled often with “why she was subjected to such horrendous pain and torture, mentally, physically and emotionally.” “Did it shake my faith? No,” South said. “Did I ask God why? Of course.” CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report soundoff (4,449 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next »
Next entry »Man who leaked pope's papers heads to jail
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, October 25
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
God loves r@p3 fact
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
(Judges 5:30 NAB)
(Judges 5:30 NAB)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
do to cnn censorship and my laziness look it up your self
That is laughably ignorant. It's a good thing you've admitted to being lazy, because it's obvious you didn't read those verses in context. Start with the chapter before and read the chapter after also. Nowhere do these verses say that God loves r#pe. In fact...accordong to the law of God to the Israelites,r#pe is a capital crime.
@fake Tom, Tom:
"that person is not a Christian" = ". .you didn't read those verses in context . ."
This is the true nature of many a Christian – being able to argue any side of any point, for whatever the current political need. (And if you happen to step all over the simple words of the Jesus man doing so – who cares – it's winning the war that counts.)
Actually Sam made a statement that God loves r#pe. And for proof listed all the bible verses that he got from someone else without even checking to see if they prove that God loves r#pe. I showed that it isn't true and mentioned the fact that r#pe was a capital offence. No one proved me wrong.
Proof of something certainly is hard to come by fake Tom, Tom (who I suspect is Chad, since whenever Chad is asked to prove something, he seems to only be able to ask for disproof. also based on the times of his posts here and on the previous page)
But I would encourage other to read those passages, and even the verses before and after. There are certainly alarming.
Yes, and what I read in the newspaper is alarming too, but I don't say the reporter loves r#pe.
So fake Tom Tom, how is it that your omnipotent "god" can't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it? Or is your Christian god one of those feeble, less-than-omnipotent deities?
On a closely related note, why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Obvioisly then, you believe in objective truth. Truth that is true whether or not anyone believes it. If you do, then you realize God may exist whether or not you believe in him. If you don't believe in objective truth, then there is no truth to believe in (including atheism).
Cowardly Fake Tom Tom: "Obvioisly then, you believe in objective truth. Truth that is true whether or not anyone believes it. If you do, then you realize God may exist whether or not you believe in him."
You left something out of that. Also, if you believe in objective truth, God may not exist whether or not you believe in him.
Fake Tom Tom, do try to find some courage and try to answer the questions:
How is it that your omnipotent "god" can't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it? Or is your Christian god one of those feeble, less-than-omnipotent deities?
On a closely related note, why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do.
God can do whatever he wishes...He can see all ends...He is all-wise. Since your intelligence and wisdom is as nothing in comparison, what makes you say He did it the wrong way?
Since you have presented no evidence that "HE" exists at all, I need provide nothing.
The burden of proof is on you.
Since it cannot be explained scientifically where the things that exist came from, God is a logical answer.
The greatest proof of God is Jesus Christ.
Proteck the sanctiminy of marriage. Assign a beast pharisee to every union, live in of course. Pay up.
Anyone Know How To Spell?
Lettuce Love Let's
Spewling is fluid. Just watch out for Jealous.
Crayoh-nites color outside the lines with crayons of wishy washy oh my goshy.
Lettuce Lovers, let us
G.O.D.
What are you actually doing to protect women from a heinous crime such as rape???
Better question: What are YOU doing?
Yeah I'm not sure who that post is directed to, but what do you want me to do lib, protect every woman from every ra-pe? Heh... even an all powerful deity can't seem to do that.
Abortion is not the answer to protecting women from rape.
Rape needs to stop NOW.
Protect women NOW!!!
@idemand
Who said anything about abortion being the cure for ra-pe?
Yeah. Really effective. Thanks ever so for the stunning insight.
Well if god just makes sure the victim gets pregnant than really no r@pe happened since that would be biologically impossible.
Problem solved.
People continue to say that the U.S. was founded on Christianity. This is a complete falsehood.
Sure the ratifiers were Christians; but the key ratifiers who contributed to actually writing the Constitution had a lot of insight. After seeing religious persecution between different sects in their own states, they realized that the only way the union would be solidified and become peaceful was for the Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion, and in some ways (by way of the Establishment Clause), guarantee freedom from religion. (Keeping prayer out of public schools is an example of how the latter has been applied.) Additionally, the key crafters of the Constitution, even if most of them remained Christian, were heavily influenced by Deistic thinking which was very popular at the time.
So even though people continue to erroneously promote Christianity as the religion of the U.S., the fact remains that the people who designed our U.S. Constitution and its Amendments were:
a) fed up with fighting amongst various religious sects in their own states; and
b) able to get the Constitution and its Amendments ratified
(so they were obviously not the only ones who came to realize this separation of church and state was an important issue)
So that's what we are left with, and until any of it is modified, that's our law.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from our key founders:
James Madison (our 4th President, was the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution):
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)
and then ten years later:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795)
Thomas Jefferson (our 3rd President, was the key author of the Declaration of Independence)
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
(Letter (as POTUS) to the Virginia Baptists (1808))
and then of course we have clarifying moments in history such as:
President John Adams and the U.S. Senate on behalf of the U.S.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
(from Article 11 of the U.S. treaty ratified with Tripoli in 1797)
Senator John F Kennedy said on Sept. 12, 1960, just prior to his winning the Presidential election:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
Oh and thank you to the real Tom, Tom, who contributed to point out that Chad was in fact dishonest in his initial reply to my earlier post – claiming I wrote something that I had not.
The Church is for the new heaven, the state is for this world;
The Church is of the Lord Jesus Christ, the state is for the people of America;
The Church is the body of Christ, the state is an operation machine of a country;
These two share no same goal nor same vision nor same future if they are what they are.
Peace be with all mankind.
You're most welcome, mama k. It's always a pleasure to read your posts and always a plus when I can point out the Chard's sliminess.
Thanks, mama k, for that informative, factual post and several other great posts that you've made. Wonderful to see a voice of reason here. Same to Tom Tom, too.
I've decided to use Tom's handle because she is the smartest poster on here...you can tell how smart she is by the way she demeans people who disagrees with her but doesn't actually contribute anything to the conversation herself.
Ah. So because I handed you your azz for posting some inanity, you're going to lick your wounds by using my "handle?"
Be my guest. I doubt anyone here would ever confuse us unless he/she were as stupid as you are anyway.
Masquerading as other people is childish.
... of course so is calling people names.
Again Tom, name calling without actually saying anything. You truly are as brilliant as you think you are.
What's wrong, dear? Don't like being called what you are? I suggest you clean up your act.
As Ms. Malkin says- Woman vote using your smarts not your lady parts 😉
Sure, I bet the Republicans would like that, to make all these idiotic statements simply NOT have an impact on the election. Sorry, but women need to consider what will happen to their lady parts if they do NOT vote in favor of said parts.
It's Republican White Men that obsess with women's lady parts. Frankly only a stupid woman would look at history, see where women came from and how we got to where we are, and think those men will advance women's status in the world.
A smart women will vote for the candidate who will best lead her country/state/district/city in a direction that the voter desires. No smart woman would vote for a candidate that does not think she has the right to decide what is best for her own body or mind. A candidate who does that is simply revealing that he/she does not consider women to be equal citizens.
Personally, I would never vote for a candidate who believes that his religious belief is more important than the well-being of any citizen, male or female.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yhbOEDI3vqc/S-JAihXIjYI/AAAAAAAAAaU/PwQmIzrnzIs/s1600/Abortion+-+acorn+-+oak+tree+1.jpg
All this spew and venom from the fundies and yet R v W is intact. Has been for decades, through administrations conservative and liberal, and yet still, it stands. Women have rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.
You morons have achieved nothing.
Roe vs Wade will be overturned eventually. And once it is, and abortion is illegal, the Femnazis will not be able to say anything about it because they believe there are no intrinsic human rights, only rights that government gives them. They say the embryo has no human rights because the government says so. They say a woman has a right to destroy her unborn offspring because the state gives it to her...not because of any intrinsic rights the woman posesses. If they admit to intrinsic rights of the woman then they can't deny all human beings have intrinsic rights.
@name hijacker
Ahhhh intrinsic rights you say? Well in that case the argument becomes easier. A woman has the 'intrinsic' right to make that choice regardless of what the law or anyone says. What you and others want is the ability to force women to give birth yet toss the child aside when it no longer is able to be a rallying cry to your cause.
If my daughter had reached that descision in her life I would much rather she be able to have it done under safe conditions instead of going to some back alley doctor or trying to do it herself and possibly causing irrevocable damage. Would I rather have her give birth and give the baby up for adoption? Of course, but I can't force her to give birth.
Well that's an interesting tactic – you can't compete with someone, so you wait till your adversary goes to bed, and then hijack her name to make your point. The fake Tom (who replied) sounds desperate. Very sad. It reminds me of the kind of desperation that went into wiretapping the Watergate. Hmm. I keep wondering about these Embassy killings – it makes me think of that, too.
Wow, at least someone has the intelligence and courage to admit a belief in intrinsic rights. Where did these intrinsic rights come from if it's not given by law or society? You are right. Humans have intrinsic rights, otherwise humans have no intrinsic value. We derive our understanding of human rights from our knowledge of intrinsic value. Science categorizes embryos according to their species. Human embryos, have intrinsic human rights.
Embryos have intrinsic human rights? That's a joke. If that is the case then why haven't the thousands (maybe millions – I don't know the number) in fertility clinics been issued social security numbers and why can't their 'parents' write them off as tax deductions and apply for welfare benefits for them? If you believe that they have rights then you must also believe in these rights for them (but I'm guessing you do not).
The problem with stealing Tom tom's handle is that she is very intelligent whereas you are barely literate.
@the scared person unwilling to post under an original name
in·trin·sic [in trínzik, in trínsik]
or in·trin·si·cal [in trínzik'l, in trínsik'l]
adj
1. basic and essential: belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is
an intrinsic part of the plan
2. of itself: by or in itself, rather than because of its associations or consequences
has no intrinsic value
3. anatomy found in body part: occurring wholly within or belonging wholly to a part of the body such as an organ
See why you can't use intrinsic value as an argument? The fetus/zygote/whatever is not of intrinsic value to the woman, she can live without it. For every intrinsic value, there is an opposite value meaning that your belief of the intrinsic value of life is balanced by someones intrinsic right to take a life.
'Intrinsic value' comes from the same place that the notion of good and evil and 'morality' come from, us. They are words and definitions used to try and bring meaning to our existance. An action is for all intents and purposes, neutral. Nature is neutral, amoral.
And R v. W will never be overturned. If George W couldn't do it then no one can. It is paid lip service every election cycle and then nothing is done (and Mitt is far more moderate). Even if every supreme court justice is conservative, they have to adhere to the const-tution and 40 years of legal precedent, not their personal opinions. So they couldn't overturn it even if they are passionately pro life. Too bad. So sad.
I really have to wonder who the troll is. Why are you such a craven little worm that you use someone else's screen name to post your opinion? Maybe it's because you don't have any "intrinsic value" of your own, azzwipe.
Could this little impostor be Bill Deacon? Or even Russ? I wouldn't think Russ would be so dishonest, but Bill would.
I never said the fetus has intrinsic value to the woman. I said it has intrinsic value in and of itself. Intrinsic means it has rights whether or not socoety recognizes those rights. Why do women claim rights over their own bodies even if the government says they don't have those rights...they claim their rights are intrinsic. By virtue of their humanity. I am saying a fetus has intrinsic human rights by virtue of the fact that it is human in a certain stage of development...an intrinsic right it shares with you and I..a right to live. Life is a fundamental human right that is unjust for someone to deny you.
Again the fake Chad? My goodness – how cowardly.
(the fake posting as Tom, Tom – certainly seems like it is Chad)
Wrong. Not Chad...my name is Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son.
@chadbillruss
Life is not an intrinsic value. If you truly believed that why not bring men up on murder charges when they waste their seed and by doing so destroy all those chances for a potential human to be born? Is a woman who let's her eggs remain unfertilized guilty of murder?
You can't say that life is an intrinsic value and then take away my intrinsic right to deny someone their life. Do you understand what I'm saying? Killing is an intrinsic right. Did you take that into consideration? Of course not because you didn't think that far ahead.
Adolescent Atheists are like maggots,,,,,applied where there is a wound and they will rid the wound of its' uncleanliness but if left alone these maggots will devour all the meat and leave but the bone. Same can be said of 'parroting christians' who are yet too young and have much to explore,,,,and yes even learn. Maggotville Reporter; Eddie SlewEm All
Lettuce Love,
G.O.D.
"How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving?" Simple, there is no God. Why do we need every action in existence to have a meaning beyond itself. Evil things occur. Its wrong that it occurs but it does. That's all there is to it.
Wrong...If there is no god then there is no good and evil. Our inborn understanding of good and evil proves the existance of god. Otherwise we must admit there are no good or evil acts. Why how can there be good if there is no god?
Great, someone has hijacked Tom's username again.
An idiot has taken TTtPS's handle this morning. Well, so what? It won't disguise idiocy. What you see as an inborn sense of good and evil is, to a vast degree, learned. At most that "sense" is a set of behaviors, attitudes and reactions that have co-evolved with us within our societies that make our societies workable. No proof of anything but what you see before you. No god. Good is what works.
What a crock of crap. I don't need an dick like you to defend my honor.
Society teaches us that stealing is wrong. Is stealing wrong? According to you it is not objectively wrong, just subjectively wrong.Just because society teaches us something doesn't mean that what its teaching isn't objective truth. Perhaps it "works" for us because it's objectively true. Why do pro-choice demand their freedom to do as they please? Is it objectively wrong to impose your will on someone else? If it works for me then I am doing good whether I hurt someone else or not. If it works for "us" as a society then it is good, even if it destroys a whole race of people. But if there is objective truth, objective good, then we all derive our rights and freedom from that.
"How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving?"
++++++++++
Can a blind lead a blind? No. Your straight rejection of the existence of a True G-d is a clear statement of that you do not know Him. Then, in such an ignorance, how can your understanding of Him be true? were you telling others that an elementary student can teach a Ph. D student quantum physics? I doubt it highly.
1 G-d is love and He does no evil. This is the True G-d the Father in Heaven.
2. The god of this world, Satan, does all the evil, yet he could not overcome the power of the darkness in his heart, which is the root of his non-righteous doings. We all are under his ruling until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
There are no contradictions between above two (1, 2) but many people twisted them together to confuse each other. Why? it is the work of the devil so you know him not. If you know the devil, you must know the True G-d whose throne the devil is seeking earnestly.
Awake, the heaven is on hand.
The True G-d loves all human beings because He breathed His life into them from the very beginning. Does the True G-d love or approve the evil or evil deeds? Far from that. Does this True G-d love the sinners? Absolute. He loves us because when we sinned against Him, He saw the root of the sin that was not from Him. So He forgives, rescues, heals, and saves.
Here is the Power of His Greatest Love displayed in His Son Jesus Christ when He was hanging on the Cross, " Father, forgive them because they know not what they are doing.". If this is not the greatest Love? what else is Love?
why? First, because Jesus Son of G-d knew that by obeying what the Father planned, the whole world would be delivered out from the hand of the Devil back to the Righteous G-d as he crucified the innocent Son of G-d. Second, Jesus loved and died for his people while they were sinners. If his death was just a mere heroic death, it would just be a page of history. But He rose again and ascended to the Heaven from where He came down. He has the power to destroy the evil, but He loves the sinners and wants them all return to His heaven.
Oh, my friends, you will throw yourself on the ground day after night to worship Him when you know Him in Truth and in Spirit. For this Love of G-d is so intense, unfathomable, and powerful. Peace be to you.
"How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving?"
++++++++++
Can a blind lead a blind? No. Your straight rejection of the existence of a True G-d is a clear statement of that you do not know Him. Then, in such an ignorance, how can your understanding of Him be true? were you telling others that an elementary student can teach a Ph. D student quantum physics? I doubt it highly.
1 G-d is love and He does no evil. This is the True G-d the Father in Heaven.
2. The god of this world, Satan, does all the evil, yet he could not overcome the power of the darkness in his heart, which is the root of his non-righteous doings. We all are under his ruling until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
There are no contradictions between above two (1, 2) but many people twisted them together to confuse each other. Why? it is the work of the devil so you know him not. If you know the devil, you must know the True G-d whose throne the devil is seeking earnestly.
Awake, the heaven is on hand.
The True G-d loves all human beings because He breathed His life into them from the very beginning. Does the True G-d love or approve the evil or evil deeds? Far from that. Does this True G-d love the sinners? Absolute. He loves us because when we sinned against Him, He saw the root of the sin that was not from Him. So He forgives, rescues, heals, and saves.
Here is the Power of His Greatest Love displayed in His Son Jesus Christ when He was hanging on the Cross, " Father, forgive them because they know not what they are doing.". If this is not the greatest Love? what else is Love?
why? First, because Jesus Son of G-d knew that by obeying what the Father planned, the whole world would be delivered out from the hand of the Devil back to the Righteous G-d as he crucified the innocent Son of G-d. Second, Jesus loved and died for his people while they were sinners. If his death was just a mere heroic death, it would just be a page of history. But He rose again and ascended to the Heaven from where He came down. He has the power to destroy the evil, but He loves the sinners and wants them all return to His heaven.
Oh, my friends, you will throw yourself on the ground day after night to worship Him when you know Him in Truth and in Spirit. For this Love of G-d is so intense, unfathomable, and powerful. Peace be to you.
Let's bring this to the top of the comment stack again, because PRISM 1234 has been dodging these questions:
PRISM, do try to find some courage and answer a question directly for a change, instead of dodging and presenting insults and pathetic videos. Here we go again:
Why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do.
Bob,
Can you or anyone create 'bionucleogenic algorythms' for the sustaining of Life's myriads of cellular organisms all living upon a life-sustaining sphere of 'genetically balanced immeasurables', where total survival is not just a randomized equation anymore?
Thought not,,,,,
lettuce love,
G.O.D.
Can you compose a sentence, dip wad? I mean can you compose one that actually demonstrates that you have a brain?
You haven't done so yet. When do you plan to meet the challenge, dumbazz?
Tom,
Your drainplug has come loose,,,,, Ought to tighten it up lest you lose you oil and wind up with a siezed heart.
@innerspace
I can't come up with the equations, no, but let's look up some simple stuff. Without working 'through' someone has a deity changed a lightbulb? Driven a car? Hit a baseball? Rescued a half drowned animal? Flipped a burger? Drank a beer? Told someone to have a nice day? Made a limb for an amputee?
And what human has ever created an unimaginably expansive universe and ordered it all so that creatures eons later would look at it in awe.
"Why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do."
+++++++++++++++++++
Apparently, you have been sunk into this world as many others do. The True G-d does not live in this world not have any interest of what is in this world. Your argument were completely irrelevant to the existence of the Almighty One.
If there is a Almighty G-d, why does He need a tweet? a computer? an internet? such low level human intellectual products mean nothing to Him. Does any technology speaks to your mind without any device? does any modern medicine cure a born blind? have you seen a dead person self-resurrected and talk, walk, and eat? have you know any IT technologies foretell the future? Awake, all technologies pass away and are aging. have you seen a technology that sustains never been improved? Human being's products. If human beings are perfect, why those products are not perfect? Be humble, as if you love the things in this world, you are deceived and can not know the True G-d. If you praise after the things from this world, you will go down with its falling. Even you believe not the Bible, it cannot change what it was foretold. You also will face the consequence of what you decided, decide, and will decide. But only one way that can lead you to the True home, from where you were sent: Heaven. Therefore, repent, and you may find a lasting life.
@everything
Ummm depending on the cause of the blindness I do believe there are some medical procedures that can restore at least some degree of sight. If I recall from awhile back, Mr. Stevie Wonder was supposed to have been thinking about having it done.
Your argument about 'perfect creations' is an argument against your deity, unless you are willing to say it is not perfect? For a flaw to show up in a creation, the creator has to be familiar with failure.
Your argument from fear, the old sounding like a petulant child saying we are going to find out what's what come judgement day is also flawed. A man that comes to me with the threat of violence does not deserve my respect. A deity should be well aware that threats never work.
Hi, I'm Tom Tom. I'm on here every day for hours at a time because i have no life. i'm a lonely bitter old hag who loves to spew venom on believers even though i have the mind and mentality of an adolescent.
I hate Tom Tom's very guts because she busted my azz in every possible way, shape, or form every time I attempted to challenge her.
I'm a lame-azz, tiny-penised, limp-dicked wad of goo who couldn't win an argument if I were facing a firing squad.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This poor little troll is so threatened that it has to pose as its biggest menace to make its case.
I suspect it has no balls.
Since PRISM is dumping pathetic videos on us, here's a vastly better and more accurate one about religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
rofl
Right. Like we've never seen that clip before. It's time to get some new material.
The genuine Tom, Tom was sound asleep when herbie typed his inane comment
hi, Im Tom Tom. I have no life so I come here to bully people of faith.
If you WERE Tom Tom, you'd know how to punctuate a sentence, moron.
Glad I have wounded you so severely, honey. It's gratifying to see that I've gored you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJoi-K5hbmE&feature=relmfu
Gee, another video. And yet, PrissyPot is unable to answer simple questions about its previous postings of videos...of compositions by gay composers.
Awww so instead of sticking to your originalstupid video, you post another? You're gettting more pathetic by the day PRISM.
@Prism1234
The video was a waste of my time.
The only thing that positive I can say about it was whoever was singing has a fairly decent voice.
Peace...
Imagine a world without religion ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igeXFM_su7Y
For you, God-less ones.... Here is something for you to ponder and meditate on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jr_iTVy1F4
Some random chick singing non-senseical bullshit about all the unbelievers being fucked up. Soooooooo fucking convincing.
/sarcasm
Wait no...the right words are sociopathic, immoral, and bullshit.
Nice performance based on pure crap. Was that your point?
PRISM, this is a vastly better video than the pathetic rubbish that you just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
WHAT???? You're no longer posting Samuel Barber's setting of the "Agnus Dei", PrissPot? Why? Is it because Barber was gay?
So, no matter how beautiful the art, if the creator of it doesn't measure up to your standards of fundamentalism, the art is no longer beautiful? I'll bet you won't answer because you can't do so without revealing your disgusting true self.
Hypocritical azz.
HG, there, there... give us some of your cultured presentation... You've really got advanced...LOL! Have some more filth to spew? You see, that's what Jesus Christ, blessed Lord and Saviour meant, when He said, they don't come to Him because of WHAT IS IN THEIR HEARTS. And what's in your heart came out through your filthy mouth!
PRISM, do try to find some courage and answer a question directly for a change, instead of dodging and presenting insults and pathetic videos. Here we go again:
Why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do.
The usual response by religionists ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew0TKYL3X8E
@PRISM
And the true nature of the religious who like that song is revealed in its lyrics. Believe or god will fuck you up because he can. Might makes right, belief is better than actions, the non-believers dying is a fun thing. Isn't it so good? Death and destruction for not accepting things blindly is so Holy and good and awesome. Sorry but the sociopathy you seem to enjoy isn't justifiable by any rational mind.
So, PRISS POT, since you've got the backing of Jeebus and God, why are you afraid to answer my questions about your adoration of a work of art? Or isn't your "god" as almighty as you pretend?
(Here it is again, from pg 58)
Bob, you poor, poor man! For you to think the almighty God , the Creator will stoop to level of corrupt, boastful, bratty western man who thinks the world revolves around him!!??
You've got it really bad, Bob.. But you've got plenty of company, I see!
Gotta go... no more time to waste... Have a good one!
PRISM, again you respond with insults and dodges. No, I won't let you get away with that. Here we go again:
Why should we believe what your sky fairy purportedly put in a musty old book for some ancient goatherders? Why can't your "god" get with the times and push some tweets out, or even get with the last decade and produce his own website?
On those grounds alone, a deity should expect reasonable doubt, to say the least. Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, that can't even do basic stuff on the web that even kids can do.
No thank you, Prism. I'm not a big fan of "christian" music, because musically it's often inane, and lyrically it's full of the same sort of nonsense that you spew. One would think that an all-mighty being would prefer decent music sung in his name. Though I am quite fond of Mozart's Requiem - possibly because it's in Latin and I can enjoy the beauty without the propaganda.
truth be told brays:
"wus p
The original language was Hebrew not English, but you have to have some measure of intelligence to understand that."
Says the dumbkopf who doesn't know the meaning of the word "pun" and can't tell the difference between "gall" and "Gaul." Even when it was pointed out that it was wrong, the dweeb tried to claim that the poster who questioned it was in need of and "education."
Turd Topper is a boil on humanity's butt.
Another abysmal abortion of a comment from the mind of Captian Faqqot Fvckface. Fvck you Tom Tom.
Pay no mind to Tom, Tom. She is most likely having her period right now. That pvssy is redder than Lenin.
Aww, what's the matter, herbie? No s3x today? This week? Ever? Poor you.
"to," "two," and "too" have distinctly different meaning, Chad. Try to figure out how to use each one correctly.
Since you've now found it convenient to respond to me, Veggie, why not answer my question?
I'll bet you can't without revealing your hypocrisy, can you? Come on, Chard. Rise to the challenge. Jeebus would want you to.
Tom Tom you need to find a blind man so he can ra pe you.
You need to find a girl who'll be desperate enough to put up with idiocy.
Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. today continue to attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by calling for prayer in public school and other efforts to inject more and more of their religion into public service. They often claim that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. FALSE! And there is a good reason why the U.S. was not founded on Christianity:
Before and during the founding of the U.S., different Christian sects were feuding and persecuting each other in several states (or soon-to-be states). Because this feuding between these sects annoyed the key founders so greatly, they made it a top priority to establish guidelines for the separation of church and state (and to make it Amendment #1 to our Constitution). This is also reflected in what they had to say on the matter:
James Madison (our 4th President, was the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution):
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)
and then ten years later:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795)
Thomas Jefferson (our 3rd President, was the key author of the Declaration of Independence)
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
(Letter (as POTUS) to the Virginia Baptists (1808))
and then of course we have clarifying moments in history such as:
President John Adams and the U.S. Senate on behalf of the U.S.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
(from Article 11 of the U.S. treaty ratified with Tripoli in 1797)
Senator John F Kennedy said on Sept. 12, 1960, just prior to his winning the Presidential election:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
@mama k
Thanks, as always.
Peace...
As you indicated, the purpose of the first amendment was to keep government out of religion, ensuring that no particular denomination would be favored over another, that no state religion would be established, and that all religions would have the opportunity to worship freely and with out interference.
The founding fathers never wanted any kind of atheistic government, they repeatedly and throughout official doc uments acknowledged God and asked for His blessing.
This is why people say you're dishonest, Chard. mama k said nothing about an "atheistic government." You're an azz.
Not to mention that the most important documents for the creation of the USA do not refer to God, at least not in the context Chad would have people believe.
Chad doesn't have a clue what the difference is between a secular government (what the founding fathers intended), and an atheistic government.
You're right Chad. They didn't want an atheist country, or a Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist country either. They wanted out of the business of promoting religion so that we would all be free to believe (or not believe) as we choose, without government intrusion.
The fact that some of them believed in God, and mentioned God has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. In fact, it is the law that allows them to express their beliefs freely.
Jen, you could have stopped after 5 words...
Jen, that's because Chard has all the intelligence of herbie and even less comic interest.
@EnjaySea
**Excellent** post !
Peace...
You are right...America is not a Christian nation given the acts committed against the indians. As far as "seperation of church and state," it seems the president forgot that when he and the dems wrote their healthcare law in which churches and religious organization are forced to act against their beliefs. I especially like thie quote from Jefferson "State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights." Okay...was Jefferson concerned about the civil rights of the 250+ slaves he held? He surely wasn't concerned about the female slaves civil rights.
@KRHODES
"it seems the president forgot that when he and the dems wrote their healthcare law in which churches and religious organization are forced to act against their beliefs."
WRONG! Churches are exempt, and non-prophit, partially government funded organizations are not. Government money does not discriminate and does not give preference to religious dogma. Period, done, end of story.
"WRONG! Churches are exempt, and non-prophit, partially government funded organizations are not. Government money does not discriminate and does not give preference to religious dogma. Period, done, end of story."
Actually you are wrong...religious insurance companies will still have to provide the mandates. Insurance companies that religious organizations use will have to provide the coverage and the bill will be passed onto the religious group. I think it was Timothy Dolan who said the president must think Catholics are stupid for not recognizing what Obama's so-called compromise actually is. Nice try...thanks for playing.
Jen
"Chad doesn't have a clue what the difference is between a secular government (what the founding fathers intended), and an atheistic government."
I know the difference...secular government really don't exist and atheist governments usually murder lots of people to hold their power.
@KRHODES
If the insurance company is religious, but are not funded through the church completely, then they fall under a public company and under federal regulations for non-discrimination, so too fucking bad for them. As for companies that churches use, if they want to be exempt from the extra cost, let them start an insurance company completely funded through the church, then it will be tax exempt, will only cover what they want, and have the added bonus of only being available to who they decide. If your company provides a service or product to the public, you cannot discriminate. This is the way the law is in this country. Would you be this adamant against it if it weren't your religion bitcing? What if it were only Jewish Temples bitching? Or here's an idea, how about the Catholic church not get into businesses that accept government funds and still expect the business to be treated like a church?
What atheist governments are you talking about? I know of imperialist, communist, and maybe marxist governments. Some were consistent with atheism, but atheism in no way caused mass murder. That's just plain stupid.
Um, actually I lived in Canada before moving to the US and it is a very successful secular government (the US could learn a lot).
Khrodes, you may want to learn proper spelling and grammar before trying to pretend you know more than I do.
I find the hypocrisy astounding on the liberal atheist side. All i hear is "Don't push your religion on me" or "don't involve your religion in the government," but see no problem with the atheist liberals in the government getting involved in the church.
"Some were consistent with atheism, but atheism in no way caused mass murder. That's just plain stupid."
Sure atheism did, that is Darwinism baby...you know the strong dominating the weak....survival of the fittest. That is how we have gotten to where we are is it not...by hook and crook? Besides...if God does not exist then there is no right or wrong. What did Dostoyevsky say...if God does not exist then all things are permissible?
@KRHODES
And you have now shown:
1) You prefer to not address that which you cannot easily use a sound bite to address.
2) You are willing to completely misuse the term "survival of the fittest". That or you have no idea what it refers to when applied to evolutionary theory.
Jen
"Um, actually I lived in Canada before moving to the US and it is a very successful secular government (the US could learn a lot)."
Well what about that...then tell me why you are in the U.S. if Canada is such a wonderful secular Utopia?
Jen "Khrodes, you may want to learn proper spelling and grammar before trying to pretend you know more than I do."
Bless your heart...is that your best rebuttal?
hawaiiguest
"@KRHODES
And you have now shown:
1) You prefer to not address that which you cannot easily use a sound bite to address.
2) You are willing to completely misuse the term "survival of the fittest". That or you have no idea what it refers to when applied to evolutionary theory."
No, there is no reason to address your statements about the healthcare mandate, because that would be a complete waste of time. You being liberal do not want to hear the truth or care about the truth...only what you want to believe. Of course you should recognize that truth does not really matter since it is propogation of our genes that is important...not truth. Further more truth does not actually exist if we have came about by accident does it...in fact it does not really even exist.
Because my husband is American. I have no issues with the northern part of the US (where the majority of the smart people live and where secularism is well understood).
Also, my rebuttal was that there are successful secular governments – example – Canada (most of Europe as well). If you understood fourth grade English, you would have understood that was my rebuttal. But because of your lack of intelligence and education (as evidenced by your extremely poor spelling and grammar), you couldn't come up with a counter argument. It's okay. You are WAY out of your league trying to debate me.
@KRHODES
What a hilarious display of a straw man argument. For one, I'm an independent not a liberal, although in social areas I could be considered a liberal, or perhaps you could call me a constitutionalist. In terms of the mandate, you not addressing anything I put out not only shows your complete unwillingness to actually engage in discussion, but it also shows that you really don't care what others think if it conflicts with your notions.
As for truth, truth is independent of anything. The earth is round. This is a truth, that can be independently verified quite easily. Humans breath. This is another truth, completely independent of whether or not creationism is correct or not. What is truth RHODES? Truth is merely facts independent of human experience and acceptance.
I also notice that you did not address me pointing out your misuse or ignorance of what survival of the fittest actually means in evolutionary theory.
the const itutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Mas sachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico all contain reference(s) to God.
For the Glory of God – IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; .... Mayflower Compact
“We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, ‘The Lord make it likely that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are agoing.”
— John Winthrop (1588-1649) Puritan & First Governor of Ma ssachusetts, aboard the Arbella,
“BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People.” Charter of Privileges Granted by William Penn, esq. To the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Territories, October 28, 1701 (1)
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. …The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature [God] for his rule. … These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the inst itutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament. … his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians .... Samuel Adams – The Rights of the Colonists – 1772
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign as sistance is undoubtedly attainable.—We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to a ssume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves. …
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America – John Hanco ck- 1775
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are inst ituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it ….
The Declaration of Independence- July 4, 1776
“we are able, and to trust the load to that Being [God] who controls both Causes and Events, so as to bring about his own Determination..”
John Hanc ock's letter to British Authorities on the Declaration of Independence – 1776
So… let me know when you have had enough, and you give up on this silly attempt to re-write history to suit your atheistic agenda..
there are literally hundreds more I’m happy to show you..
@Chad
Right, for one, those are state constitutions, and if challenged, would be found to be unconstitutional, and you know it. Second, reences to a specific god mean nothing in terms of laws, and also shows the divisive ature of those states governments at the time, and the unwillingness of the governents up until the current to do the right thing.
What you posted is completely irrelevant, stupid, and shows your own lack of critical thinking.
Chad,
Can you explain how I have an 'atheistic agenda' when I am not an atheist. At least you do not dispute that you have no idea what the difference between the atheistic and secular government are. You might want to consider obtaining your high school diploma one day.
KHRODES: I know the difference...secular government really don't exist and atheist governments usually murder lots of people to hold their power.
____
AND, there you have it: proof that KHRODES is a complete and utter moron.
@Chad
Also, The Declaration is a historical document, not a legal one. It also does not refer to a secific god, so using it as evidence of biblical principles is wrong.
KRHODES. Darwin believed in god.
@Chad,
as we have discussed before, most of the colonies had established churches. Since religiosity was mandated by law, you will find no end of examples of it in the colonial period. Brush up on the Act Of Uniformity – 1558.
The truly remarkable thing is that the concept of God-given government was not perpetuated in the founding of the United States. As you well know, there is no "God" in the Const;tution. This was not an oversight. It was deliberate.
The Const;tution begins ... "We the People ..."
It does not begin, "By the Grace of God Almighty ..."
An important distinction, don't you think?
The Const;tution, while imperfect, is nonetheless a wonderful thing, particularly since it was developed by committee!
@Chad,
since you mention the Declaration of Independence, (which is of course, *not* the law) Jefferson's original draft (before the committtee of five got to it) read as follows:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent & inalienable among which are the preservation of life & liberty & the pursuit of happiness;
Notice anything missing?
@GOPer: thanks for that, enforced Christianity is the reason they referenced God,! brilliant!
thanks 🙂
still havent had enough.. ok, I got hundreds:
“solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our public councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness, and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church the plentiful ef fusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labors of his people and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance; that we may with grati tude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him signally great, as the father of his people and the protector of the rights of mankind.”
Thanksgiving Proclaimation by the Continental Congress – 1777
“To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other, by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been pleased to favor the whole country.” Benjamin Franklin – Information to Those Who Would Remove to America – 1782
“I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”
George Washington's Circular to the States – 1783
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been a ssured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’
Benjamin Franklin's request for prayer at the Consti tutional Convention – 1787
“With all the defects in our Const itution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell. England, like the earth, may be allowed to take the intermediate station.”
— Thomas Je fferson, 3rd President of the U. S.
“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Const itution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature on it.”
— George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
“Every word of the Consti tution decides a question between power and liberty.” “The future and success of America is not in this Consti tution, but in the laws of God upon which this Consti tution is founded.”
— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Consti tution, 4th President of the United States –
“Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, brought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors.”
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”
“There is not a truth to be gathered from history, more certain, or more momentous, than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without the destruction of both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.”
— Joseph Story (1779-1845) Supreme Court Justice & Commentator on the U.S. Consti tution
@Chad
And absolutely none of what you quoted is law. Your quotes do not ddress the original topic, nor does it address the topic that KRHODES brought up. You're gettng more pathetic by the minute Chad.
Sorry, Chard, but not a thing you've posted indicates that the founders intended to form a CHRISTIAN NATION. When do you plan to provide proof they did so? Or are you just going to continue to post interminable quotes that don't say what you wish they said?
I'd agree, Hawaii, except for the fact that I doubt the Chard could BE more pathetic than it already is.
@Tom
I'm ever the optimist. The more pathetic Chad is, then the more hilarious and the easier for others to see the complete idiocy of his position.
@Chad,
Interesting quotes, but you are tediously trying to prove what cannot be proved. The Const;tution of the United States defines a SECULAR country.
Your last Jefferson quote, by the way, is entirely metaphorical. It does not indicate a belief either way, but no one is calling Jefferson an atheist, nor for that matter, any of the founders, which is why their decision to create a secular country is so remarkable.
They were a group of varying religiosity from multiple sects extending to deism and Unitarianism, and they were politicians. The evidence that they were not uniformly bible bashing evangelical Protestants (as David Barton likes to whitewash them) is the lack of any reference to God in the Const;tution.
Jen
"Because my husband is American. I have no issues with the northern part of the US (where the majority of the smart people live and where secularism is well understood)."
Yeah, the "smart people" live in the northeast. Now that is funny considering the true blue liberals states are awash in debt and exploding taxes and never mind the crime. You must be extremely intelligent to want to live in such an area as of the country.
"Also, my rebuttal was that there are successful secular governments – example – Canada (most of Europe as well). If you understood fourth grade English, you would have understood that was my rebuttal. But because of your lack of intelligence and education (as evidenced by your extremely poor spelling and grammar), you couldn't come up with a counter argument. It's okay. You are WAY out of your league trying to debate me."
Bless your heart...ad hominem attacks, your so smart.
you STILL havent seen enough?
ok, plenty more, just say when.
“AS the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and blessing of Almighty God; and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety, without which social happiness cannot exist, nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incu mbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty and of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity are a loud call to repentance and reformation.”
John Adams – Proclamation Fasting and Prayer – 1798
“Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us as a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just, And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’ And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!” O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand, Between their lov'd homes and he war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the ow'r that hath made and preserv'd us as a nation!Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is ust,And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall aveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Francis Scott Key – The Star Spangled Banner – 1814
“Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?” …
John Quincy Adams – Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the town of at Newburyport, MA July 4th – 1837
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide…. The ark of your covenant is the Declaration of independence. Your Mount Ebal, is the confederacy of separate state sovereignties, and your Mount Gerizim is the Const itution of the United States. In that scene of tremendous and awful solemnity, narrated in the Holy Scriptures there is not a curse pronounced against the people, upon Mount Ebal, not a blessing promised them upon Mount Gerizim, which your posterity may not suffer or enjoy, from your and their adherence to, or departure from, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, practically interwoven in the Const itution of the United States.
John Quincy Adams – The Jubilee of the Const itution, Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington, New York, April 30th – 1839
"Unborn ages and visions of glory crowd upon my soul, the realization of which, however, is in the hands and good pleasure of Almighty God, but, under His divine blessing, it will be dependent on the character and the virtues of ourselves and our posterity. ….And let me say, gentlemen, that if we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God, and shall respect His commandments, if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country …. It will have no decline and fall. It will go on prospering and to prosper.
Daniel Webster – The Dignity and Importance of History – 1853
“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with as sured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
A Proclamation. Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation
Abraham Lincoln National Fast Day – 1863
@Chad
That's right, don't address any posts, and just continue with the irrelevant quotes. Become more pathetic by the second instead of the minute. All you're doing is discrediting your own position to anyone except those who are as ignorant as you are.
oh.. and I keep looking .. but for some reason I cant find the word "secular" in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Const itution. Weird..
As you know the REAL intent of the framers, and have seen through that entire smokescreen of their professed Christianity, I'm sure you know where it is?
thanks 🙂
@Chad
You can't find the words "Christian Nation" either. Fucking tard.
If anyone could get a photo of Chard, they could post it as a prime example of a sh!t-eatin' grin.
Why should we be confined by the intentions of the original framers? Is it not our Constitution now?
ah.. and the REAL agenda rears it's head
I won't speak for everyone, but I think Chad's erection is irrelevant.
@TTTOO
I heard a rumor that that's what she said.
The Chard got a stiffy? Does Jeebus allow that?
Chad: "ah.. and the REAL agenda rears it's head"
Psst, Chad: "it's" is short for "it is."
Maybe you meant "its" instead?
Lol...its almost humorous how hypocritical some of the atheists commenting are. They say religion is evil; it is the cause of of wars, and atrocities, genocides etc...and then make horribly violent comments to the effect of, "Fundies should be shot". Hypocrites.
I was away, so I see there were some replies. And lastly I see yet another fake Tom reply (just before mine). I guess some people have to cheat their way through life.
And I see that Chad posted some quotes from various people, but here's the thing:
Sure the ratifiers were Christians; but the key ratifiers who contributed to actually writing the Constitution had the insight, after seeing religious persecution in their own states, to realize that the only way the union would be solidified and become peaceful was for the Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion, and in some ways (by way of the Establishment Clause), guarantee freedom from> religion (keeping prayer out of public schools is an example of how this has been applied). Additionally, the key crafters of the Constitution, even if most of them remained Christian, were heavily influenced by Deistic thinking which was very popular at the time.
So you can whine all you want with religious quotes from all kinds of people throughout American history, but the fact remains that the people who designed our Constitution were:
a) fed up with fighting amongst various religious sects in their own states; and
b) able to get the Constitution and its Amendments ratified
(so they were obviously not the only ones who came to realize this separation of church and state was an important issue)
So that's what we are left with, and until any of it is modified, that's our law.
(partial repost, to correct some things that should not have been italicized)
And I see that Chad posted some quotes from various people, but here's the thing:
Sure the ratifiers were Christians; but the key ratifiers who contributed to actually writing the Constitution had the insight, after seeing religious persecution in their own states, to realize that the only way the union would be solidified and become peaceful was for the Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion, and in some ways (by way of the Establishment Clause), guarantee freedom from religion (keeping prayer out of public schools is an example of how this has been applied). Additionally, the key crafters of the Constitution, even if most of them remained Christian, were heavily influenced by Deistic thinking which was very popular at the time.
So you can whine all you want with religious quotes from all kinds of people throughout American history, but the fact remains that the people who designed our Constitution were:
a) fed up with fighting amongst various religious sects in their own states; and
b) able to get the Constitution and its Amendments ratified
(so they were obviously not the only ones who came to realize this separation of church and state was an important issue)
So that's what we are left with, and until any of it is modified, that's our law.
@mama k "and in some ways (by way of the Establishment Clause), guarantee freedom from religion (keeping prayer out of public schools is an example of how this has been applied)."
=>that is precisely where the nonsense begins, that was NEVER the intent of the framers, that distortion of the first amendment is a recent invention of atheists bent on "transforming the government to be properly atheistic". After all as has been said "Why should we be confined by the intentions of the original framers? Is it not our Const itution now?
That is the real issue here, the distortion and re-writing of history to subvert the original intent of the framers. Did they want to keep prayer out of schools? How could that possibly be their intent? They themselves legislated days of prayer, days of fasting, days of thanksgiving. Our founding fathers allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings.
dont be ridiculous, what you are saying is demonstrable nonsense.
@chad
So you want to change the consti-tution to suit your own desires?
Yes Chad, Government of a diverse society that includes belief and non-belief in a world of things beyond your God of Abraham should be atheistic, supporting nothing of itself with anything more that "we hold these truths to be self-evident". It should depend on no "properly basic beliefs" beyond things we can all agree on, and that does not include your God. If the framers felt they had to invoke a Creator, or swing a cat over their heads under a full moon, to get a working Constitution ratified, that is not relevant now. As I said, it is our Constitution now. We can use it, but there's no reason to carry with it the background of superstition it emerged in.
Chad wrote: "that is precisely where the nonsense begins . . ." (regarding application of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution the 1962 and 1963 supreme court decisions banning state mandated prayer and Bible readings in public schools).
Well obviously we disagree on this high court decision that has stood now for fifty years. I view it as a refined enforcement of the framers' original intent. I don't think in their day they were ready to make that big of a leap (as the high court did fifty years ago), but the key founders' words speak for themselves in the 1st Amendment and the other quotes I have provided. They well understood the danger of too much involvement of religion and already knew the turmoil it was causing in their home states. Today, the country is not as Christian as it was then, and thankfully to them, the Constitution and 1st Amendment, still still server to prevent establishment of any one religion in the government and to protect the rights for all.
Madison was an Episcopalian and a Deist. Do you honestly think that if he witnessed ~27% non-Christians represented in the average classroom (and were accustomed to that being the current norm), that he would push state-mandated Bible readings on kids in classrooms and just ask the ~27% to go twiddle their thumbs while the other read aloud from their book? After the persecution he witnessed in his home state between his own kind and Baptists that infuriated him greatly (to the point where he references all of Christianity)?? Really Chad? Please.
@Damocles "So you want to change the consti-tution to suit your own desires?
@Chad "you arent following the discussion.. I want to keep the const itution as the original framers intended.
You and your ilk want to change it to suit your atheistic agenda.. see above.
=============
@mama k "Well obviously we disagree on this high court decision that has stood now for fifty years. I view it as a refined enforcement of the framers' original intent. I don't think in their day they were ready to make that big of a leap (as the high court did fifty years ago), but the key founders' words speak for themselves in the 1st Amendment and the other quotes I have provided."
@Chad "your statement is self refuting.
"refined inforcement"? "not willing to make that big of a leap"?
lol
Did they want to keep prayer out of schools? How could that possibly be their intent? They themselves legislated days of prayer, days of fasting, days of thanksgiving. Our founding fathers allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings.
there is ZERO discussion, the founders participated in, encouraged and even legislated prayer, that is a historical fact.
This attempt to re-interpret the first amendment, and by so doing eliminate any reference to God is a movement of the last 100 years or so. It was NOT the framers intent, as clearly demonstrated by their own actions.
utter nonsense
The founders knew about abortion, Chard. It was publicly advertised. It was legal. In none of their writings did they mention that it should be made illegal. They never advocated any rights for fetuses.
How is it that the same argument cannot be made for continuing to allow women to choose?
Anybody else notice that Chard appears to be growing a bit testy in his responses?
I guess he didn't get any last night, regardless of his priapism.
*crickets chirping*
Pretty much what I expected from the Chard. You never disappoint.
Funny how the Chard is all about adhering to the framers' intent unless it doesn't square with his religious zealotry.
@TTTPS, as I have said many times before, if you want a response from me you are going to have to learn how to stop incessantly calling names, using foul language,and stop with the constant disgusting sexual references.
I don't "have to do" anything, Chard. Your dishonesty, use of "LOL" and emoticons, and your sarcastic, snarky replies to any and all posts regardless of content don't warrant anything polite or delicate in response. And your inability to refute what I just posted as far as your inconsistency speaks volumes.
Chad wrote: "your statement is self refuting.
"refined inforcement"? "not willing to make that big of a leap"?
No it's not. And if you quote me – use copy and paste, Chad so that you don't indicate that I misspelled enforcement.
It's not self-refuting because I am drawing a distinction between Madison's time and now, regarding the application of the Establishment Clause in light of changed American demographics. In Madison's time, there was no need for them to address the inconsistency in what they ratified and their own common practice because there was a much higher percentage of Christians – so it didn't really matter that the Amendment was loosely applied (enforced) then. But they certain were sick of different Christian sects fighting with each other and they did understand the importance that no one religion or religious sect gain an upper hand in the government. So no, Chad, it's not a re-interpretation, imho. It was a revisiting of the Amendment by the high court and a more consistent application.
American demographics has changed considerably since Madison's time. And, as I said, what they provided us serves us well today. If this were not true the Constitution and its Amendments would not have remained intact for so long. Changing American demographics has necessitated closer inspection of this key Amendment and its Establishment Clause for the sake of proper and current application. So again, your opinion is your opinion and you obviously disagree with something that has remained in place for fifty years already. I think the Supreme Court got it right in 1962 and 1963 which is still the law.
Although Madison never abandoned his God, he was heavily influenced by Deism, similar to TJ. I am confident that if he were here today, and saw an average classroom populated by ~27% non-Christian (and, as I said, having experienced the kind of persecution between sects that he did during his time) he would abide by and confirm the Supreme Court's decisions in 1962 and 1963. Also, you neglected to mention Bible reading as part of what the high court ruled against (that I mentioned). That's quite a bit more injection of Christianity in public schools than just mentioning God.
Maybe you need to re-read this 1795 Madison quote (~three years after the 1st Amendment was adopted), Chad:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
For the sake of other reader, James Madison was our 4th POTUS and was the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution.
In my last post, my last sentence should start: "For the sake of other readers . . ."
I would suggest that public education is not the best place to examine the founders' intent. Public primary education had barely even begun after the Revolutionary War and may not have been universal until some time in the 1800s. Additionally, all of these schools were funded, run, and governed at the local, county, or, at most, state level and many larger sectarian groups created their own schools. My point is that the federal government, arguably, didn't get into the education game until the 1900s and it was after then that mandatory prayer became an issue as the federal government could not endorse one religion over another.
In other words, in the Founders' day the federal government had little to nothing to do with education. It was a private or local issue, to be handle privately or locally, which is not the case today.
@chad
Sometimes your innocent ignorance makes me want to pinch your cheek and ruffle your hair and then stick my foot so far up your backside that you will have to open your mouth so I can trim my toenails.
I understand that you want to keep to the good ol' days of a prayer on every pair of lips and slaves working the back 40, times were so much simpler back then, weren't they? I mean, your vaunted biblical morality allowed you to do anything as long as you could rectify it with the bible.
As people have told you time and time and time again, the founding fathers wanted a religiously free country. The fact that some were believers in a deity is irrelevant, they had the smarts to realize that maybe not everyone agreed with their beliefs. That is the point that perplexes you.
@MEII: thank you for making that point-I was thinking the same thing. What "graduations" is Chard talking about? They would have had to have been university or college graduations because public high schools as we know them today didn't exist. And even then, such universities wouldn't have been state schools-they'd have been private and many of them would have been funded in part by the churches.
@Damocles: laughing about your toenails in Chard's esophagus..
whatever kind of country the founders wanted to create, it obviously was not a country in which religion could not enter into public discourse. it obviously was not a country in which they could not pray during government meetings. it obviously wasn't meant to create schools where you could not even teach about God, mention him, etc.
Dear little troll, I have to tell you that it's extremely gratifying to know that I've upset you so completely that you are desperate enough to use my screen name to post your idiocy.
If I'm that much of a threat to you and your ridiculous beliefs and your inability to employ critical thinking skills, I win.
I disagree with the cowardly fake Tom, Tom (I suspect Chad), and I believe I've made my points clear (others, please see above starting with my original post).
OK, looks like real Tom Tom just replied to this. My last reply was regarding the one beginning with "whatever kind of country".
mama k, no worries. I know your views on these issues. You're doing a bang-up job of dismantling every one of The Chard's posts, and his frustration is proof of your efficacy in doing so.
If he's doing the fake moniker thing, he's even more a of a lame-azz wart than I thought.
@mama k "In Madison's time, there was no need for them to address the inconsistency in what they ratified and their own common practice because there was a much higher percentage of Christians – so it didn't really matter that the Amendment was loosely applied (enforced) then"
=>oh man.. 🙂
so, let me get this straight.
Our founding fathers allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings, they included appeals to God in their official doc uments, BUT, they knew it was unconsti tutional, which reflected their desires for the country.
so, they knowingly behaved in unconst itutional behaviour, but knew they could get away with it because the country was predominately Christian at the time???
wow
that's.. just..
I dont know what that is.. amazing feat of (ill)logical thought? I guess that comes close.
so, it's either your theory,
or
the theory that the founding fathers never thought any such thing, and would be astonished at how the first amendment is being interpreted today.
Fortunately, your nonsense is easily refuted simply be reading the opinions of the founding fathers, looking at their legislation. We dont have to wonder, we know. It is simply impossible to think that our founding fathers were against prayer in government, schoools, etc, when they allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings themselves.
simple really.
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
you do of course realize that he is talking about the danger of declaring a state religion, right?
read it again...
The problem with your (ill)logic, is that you attempt to equate ANY mention of God by any gov't official as an attempt to create a state religion. It is not.
It can not POSSIBLY have been considered that by our founding fathers, who were adamantly against a state religion, while at the same exact time overtly asking for God's guidance in their official positions.
you want state atheism, can you POSSIBLY think that was the intent of the founding fathers?
quite trying to re-write history, there is simply to much out there to demonstrate the futility of that effort.
'Quite trying to rewrite history."
Quite trying to rewrite the English language, The Chard.
🙂
I never claimed to be in possession of good grammar or spelling skills...
Good thing. That would make you a liar as well as an incompetent debater.
Since you've now found it convenient to respond to me, Veggie, why not answer my question?
I'll bet you can't without revealing your hypocrisy, can you? Come on, Chard. Rise to the challenge. Jeebus would want you to.
How interesting it is that you refuse to respond to posts you find offensive unless it suits your agenda, The Chard.
Chad is at a disadvantage, having to work within the confines of his religion and his understanding of his Bible and his God.
Tom Tom shut your dumb cvnt mouth. Why don't you find a blind derelict to ra pe your nasty butthole?
Why?
His name is Chad...you people can't even read!
I'll bet the only vegetables your mommy ever cooked were corn, lima beans, and peas. Am I right?
You've never ever heard of Swiss chard, have you, darling? I'll bet you've never even gone grocery shopping unless mommy gave you list with a map of the grocery store's aisles. Am I correct?
Silly little zit-faced possum-turd.
What does that have to do with anything? Can you read? His name is Chad.
Chad paraphrased something I wrote – his version of what I wrote is this: " . . so, let me get this straight. . . .Our founding fathers allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings, they included appeals to God in their official doc uments, BUT, they knew it was unconsti tutional, which reflected their desires for the country.
so, they knowingly behaved in unconst itutional behaviour, but knew they could get away with it because the country was predominately Christian at the time???"
Almost, Chad. And I will admit that my last post was not as clear as it should have been. But first, you have to remember two important things that you did not include here that is from my original post that must be considered to understand these complex individuals and how it influenced the key documents that we live by today.
1. The key framers like Madison and Jefferson were furious with the fighting and persecution that was going on in their home state between different Christian sects. Madison was furious, mostly with his own kind, the Episcopalians who were persecuting Baptists in Virginia. They were not the only ones having this problem.
2. Deism heavily influenced these key framers.
Now, in light of #1 and #2, I believe I can clarify both what I wrote and your version of it:
You mentioned prayer performed by the founding fathers at graduations, etc. Occasional participation in religious activities and traditional/ceremonial reference to religion in speeches and prayers most likely had little to do with the key goals of the key framers of the Constitution.
More importantly, it has been widely accepted that both Jefferson and Madison were fervent supporters of the separation of church and state and worked tirelessly in support of it. This is evident in the many writings on the subject by Jefferson and Madison (some of which I have referenced far above this reply).
Because the key framers were primarily Christian and because they operated in government with mutual civility, and because they were just forming the Constitution, it is unlikely, that initially there would have been any thought to changing how they did business, how they behaved in government with respect to religious references that might indicate a preference of one over the other or applying one's religion in federal law. Their attention and immediate concern was with was their constituencies, where many people were being persecuted over religious issues. To give you an example of something outside of Virginia, Quakers were being hung in Massachusetts over religious issues.
From Madison's initial efforts for religious freedom, through his role as chief architect of the Constitution, and on until the end of his life, he only became more and more a fervent support of maximum separation of church and state. During his presidency, he vetoed two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state. You can find documents available at the Library of Congress web site indicating that James Madison came to oppose the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom. So as time went on, we do in fact see that he is thinking about further adherence to the then-ratified Amendment.
None of this means he wasn't a religious man, or that he didn't believe in God, but he had very strong views on religious influence on the U.S. government and what religious freedoms people should be afforded.
So, no, Chad – I don't believe the framers didn't [Chad:]"knowingly behaved in unconst itutional behaviour". They just wrote the darn thing. They were just barely starting to learn about how it might be applied. And since, we've learned a few more key things. (Like prayer in schools where we now have a larger percentage of non-Christians in attendance.)
Chad also wrote: "Fortunately, your nonsense is easily refuted simply be reading the opinions of the founding fathers, looking at their legislation."
No Chad – if you look at opinions by the key framers specifically pertaining to the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, you will see a consistent adherence to the concept of separation of church and state.
Also, I had quote Madison with: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"
and Chad replied with:
"you do of course realize that he is talking about the danger of declaring a state religion, right?
read it again...
The problem with your (ill)logic, is that you attempt to equate ANY mention of God by any gov't official as an attempt to create a state religion. It is not.
It can not POSSIBLY have been considered that by our founding fathers, who were adamantly against a state religion, while at the same exact time overtly asking for God's guidance in their official positions.
you want state atheism, can you POSSIBLY think that was the intent of the founding fathers?
quite trying to re-write history, there is simply to much out there to demonstrate the futility of that effort."
(mama k:)
Chad – yes I do realize that quote is regarding establishment of a state religion – so I don't need to re-read it. I had included that after my comment about reading from the Bible in public schools. The 1963 Supreme Court ruling cited the Establishment Clause. Related?
And actually, through all this discussion, I don't think you'll find a place where I called for state atheism. I think it just works better for all if we follow the laws that are already on the books.
And finally, I am not the one trying to re-write history, Chad. Regarding the Constitution and 1st Amendment, I have provided the evidence that supports the key founders' desire for firm separation of church and state. (Others, please see my post just previous to this one and at various places in this long discussion.)
Your retreat is almost complete.
Having acknowledged that it is simply impossible to think that our founding fathers were against prayer in government, schools, etc, when they allowed, encouraged, and led prayers in public meetings such as graduations and congressional meetings themselves, you now just need to define "separation of church and state", and see if in fact this is what the founding fathers intended with the first amendment.
When the First Amendment was finally approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion, each with an independent scope of action. The first clause (called the Establishment Clause) prohibited the federal government from establishing a single national denomination; the second clause (called the Free Exercise Clause) prohibited the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. Significantly, both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of citizens. Very simply, the Founding Fathers did not want a single federal denomination to rule America (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …”), but they did expect basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society (“… nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).
So, define "separation of church and state", then we'll look at that and see if it is consistent with the founding fathers views as captured in the first amendment.
Chard, what public school graduations took place when the founders wrote the Consti tution?
While you're pondering that, Chard, why don't you answer the question: if such precedents are the basis for current practice, then why is abortion any different? The founders didn't speak out against it. Franklin even wrote about it. It was common practice at the time. If the founders didn't see fit to guarantee rights to fetuses, then why do you think you're justified in demanding they have them? Where's the precedent in the Const itution for that?
1963 gave us the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests – so all that david barton copypasta was just half-baked drivel.
If there were a god who could simply create a universe like ours and who is said to be without limitations in time or space, then it would've known EVERYTHING that was going to stem from its creation, and is therefore responsible.
Known? yes
But we are responsible for our own actions. Merely knowing something is going to happen doesnt make Him responsible for it.
Chad. If it's god's will, doesn't that make god responsible.
@Chad, To assume that we are responsible for our own actions is to also state that there is no all-powerful god controlling the universe. That is, there are things that are outside of his control, i.e., our own actions. This philosophy sounds a lot like Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotion.
Care to clarify?
Chad “Known? Yes…But we are responsible for our own actions. Merely knowing something is going to happen doesnt make Him responsible for it.”
You say he created everything and you say he knew what was going to happen when he created it. So how can you say he is not responsible for i
It's easy to see that Chard agrees with the fundies: a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of ra pe should be forced to give birth. It's "god's will" that she became pregnant. And since she is pregnant due to ra pe, then that ra pe is god's will as well.
Good to know. Pretty much everything Chard posts makes me recoil even further from the brand of Christianity he represents.
AP – Foreknowledge does not create responsibiltiy. You may know that your child is about to make an error in judgement, does that then make you responsible for that error? If we are free agents, we are responsible for our own choices. If God made it impossible for bad things to happen, it would take away free choice and we would be no more than automatons.
of course some believe that free will is an illusion, that we are governed by chemical reactions, instinct and genetic dispostion. That we have no "free will", as such, and are therefore not responsible for what we do.
Haime. The implicit part is where the religious say prayer changes things and that god is both omnipresent and omnipotent. So he/she/it chose not to prevent the rape which then becomes god's will. So for a believer I don't know how you'd come to any conclusion other than god is responsible.
@Mittology "If it's god's will, doesn't that make god responsible."
@Chad "ah.. that's not what I said 🙂
I said God knew what was going to happen, what humanity would do through exercise of our free will. I never said that it was Gods will that we be disobedient and reject Him.
---–
@GodFreeNow "To assume that we are responsible for our own actions is to also state that there is no all-powerful god controlling the universe"
@chad "?? how do you figure that?"
@GodFreeNow "That is, there are things that are outside of his control, i.e., our own actions."
@Chad "so, let me get your theory straight.. 🙂
you think that God can only be all powerful if everyone does what He wills?
God cant be all powerful if he allows us (in His sovereignty, and for a time), to make our own choices?
sounds like you are a bit of a control freak 🙂
OOOH, lookit all de pretty smiley faces!! They look like Christmas!!!
Guess Chard must be feeling a mite challenged, to put it mildly. He always resorts to multiple emoticons when he can't think of a good response.
Chad. The implicit part is where the religious say prayer changes things and that god is both omnipresent and omnipotent. So he/she/it chose not to prevent the rape which then becomes god's will. So for a believer I don't know how you'd come to any conclusion other than god is responsible.
@Mittology ?The implicit part is where the religious say prayer changes things and that god is both omnipresent and omnipotent. So he/she/it chose not to prevent the r ape which then becomes god's will. So for a believer I don't know how you'd come to any conclusion other than god is responsible."
=>you are confused on several things...
– God is not a vending machine, God hears every prayer offered in faith, that doesnt mean the He is obligated to perform on demand exactly what was asked.
– God can step in sovereignly, why He does in some cases and not others I dont have an answer for. Free will is a gift, which obviously we abuse to our own hurt.
– God allowing something to happen, is not the same thing as God wanting it to happen. It is not God's desire that we do what we do.
@Chad,
"@Chad "so, let me get your theory straight.. 🙂
you think that God can only be all powerful if everyone does what He wills?
God cant be all powerful if he allows us (in His sovereignty, and for a time), to make our own choices?"
Yes. Otherwise you're just making lazy excuses for god's absence. Either he has preordained it and it is actually his will, or it is outside of his will and control.
so, God is no longer sovereign if He allows humans the freedom to act on their own will?
lol
I dont think you have any idea what "sovereign" means, if you think it means "only allowing His will to be done"
I don't think YOU have any idea what "omnipotent" or "omniscient' mean, Chard.
Maybe you should get a dictionary and find out. dude.
I wonder what Chard's god thinks when it sees Chard's posts. I would hope it would be embarrassed by such an arrogant, dismissive, condescending, asinine being attempting to interpret the word of a god that bears not the slightest resemblance to a jerk like Chard. Because if the Christian god was anything like Chard, there would be no believers on earth! Why would anyone want a thing to do with the sort of zealotry Chard exemplifies?
Like I said Chad, it's lazy and convenient excuse-making for an absent god. Also, I recommend you brush up on your Sartre who pursued a similar philosophy as you to its logical conclusion.
If god is not responsible for the bad, then he is not responsible for the good. If we have free will, then god cannot interfere, otherwise we don't really have free will. I guess god just wound us up and let us go. Or else, as all evidence indicates, he simply doesn't exist.
tallulah13 wrote: "I guess god just wound us up and let us go. Or else, as all evidence indicates, he simply doesn't exist."
The first part of that is interesting to me. Well, before I start, let me be clear that I would agree with your latter statement in regards to the God of Abraham. Basing a unproven connections to a higher being via ancient writings on top of the rehashed folklore of the OT is not even a consideration for me – it's just more folklore. But, again, regarding your first statement, there are just so many possibilities. And sadly, because atheists have to defend sensibility so often from those who follow the God of Abraham, they too sound very limiting in these arguments: is/is_not; exists/does_not_exist. But when I see what you wrote here (first part of what I copied above), it makes me wonder about the possibility of something that was that is no longer – especially in conjunction with spanning before and after the last big bang, where we have no idea of the characteristics of things before. Currently we call things biological and spiritual (even though some of us don't believe the latter), but who are we to make claims about the nature of things before the last big bang? or in some possible alternate dimension? Creationists are always arguing about how creation could not have occurred without the God of Abraham – but what if something that we might today term as divine (for lack of a better term) had an influence on creation, but is no longer here?
@tallulah13 "If we have free will, then god cannot interfere, otherwise we don't really have free will"
=>that is a self refuting statement:
– as sume for the moment that atheists are correct, and God does not exist
– that would mean you have by your definition "free will"
– in that situation, can someone or some organization interfere with your free will? Certainly, they can kill you, they can lock you up, easy to interfere.
– so, the ability to interfere with free will, does not mean free will doesnt exist.
=====
@GodFreenow, allowing free will means God is absent?
how do you figure that?
ONLY FOR NEW MEMBERS
And a prayer just for Mourdock and a-nalogous red-neck Christians:
The Apostles' Creed 2012: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
===============================================================================
1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.
One of 'our' bodies is a Godly building while a culmination for unity of our bodies is a Godly City.
Godly are all our mostly humane mannerisms. We are but Godly-headed imbeciles living almost cluelessly upon celestial shorelines like pragmatic loons weaving the very fabrics of Living onto Men of valore gaining just exactly what?
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic, inner or outer man would do or say?