Posted by witherdin2ition (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, let's make it illegal for all other religions other than Christianity to be practiced in America!

Posted by pencilguy (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well witherdin2ition maybe she didn't mean it like that

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In2ition: What the heck motivated that inchoherent outburst? America was formed on the premise of religious freedom and the woman was merely praising it, not mocking it.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

witherdin2ition is merely parroting the media and liberal line that America was not formed as a Christian nation, which of course is absolutely contrary to a well documented history. Additionally, 2ition is also a puppet to the ACLU, et. al, whose true agenda is take all Christian symbols and reminders out of the public square.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker: Amen on the ACLU comment. America's most dangerous enemy is not Islam---it is the ACLU.

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, those civil liberties are really dangerous.

Or, you know...integral to democracy. Whichever.

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, jayhawker, it's not just "the media and liberals." The following is from Article 11 of a 1797 treaty between Tripoli and the United States, with wording prepared by the U.S.:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty was approved by the Secretary of State, both chambers of Congress and President Adams and was also published in the newspapers. No outcry was ever raised against Article 11.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wanderer, in the face of mounds of evidence that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, you offer an obscure provision in an obscure treaty as proof that all of the other evidence should be ignored? That's the best that you can do? Here is, in part, what Wikopedia (itself a liberal source) has to say on the subject:

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. The Treaty also had spent 7 months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by officials at each stop along the way. Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it, and there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion; no one is entitled to his facts. Notwithstanding loud and frequent attempts to rewrite history, the fact is that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps, sexingthecherry, you could explain to us how a group (the ACLU) is protecting our civil liberties by making certain that we don't put up any Christmas symbols, or that the Christmas Programs in the schools are not Christmas programs anymore? Our civil liberties are thereby protected how? Of course, it is totally fine with the ACLU if Muslims or other religions place their symbols before us - in fact, according to the ACLU, we would be violating their civil liberties if we did not so allow. Maybe you could take a moment and post a defense of the ACLU for the edification of the rest of us.

Posted by iamtheinfantry (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Jayhawker, you are absolutely right. ANTI-Civil Liberties Union is more like it.

Here is a person simply expressing how they are thankful to live in a country where they may freely practice their Christian faith. And then some fool(s) has to post an erroneous comment about it. They clearly have a problem with Christianity. Probably because it is contrary to their MTV lifestyle and their anything-goes attitude.

Thank you Adline, for encouraging us to vote for those who possess a moral compass. We are a country in need of truth and righteousness.

John 14:6

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Christian myself, I also am very proud to live in a Nation that allows me to practice my faith as I wish. I also recognize, however, that to keep my freedom I have to be willing to offer others who don't share my faith the same freedom to choose their own path.

It is frightening to me to consider what would happen if the government was truly in the "Christian religion" business. Considering that even Christians cannot agree on the "right" way to worship (as evidenced by the hundreds of denominations and variations) it seems like a recipe for disaster. So, while I don't always like or agree with the ACLU, I do appreciate that they exist as watchdogs to make certain that the rights of the few are not trampled by the might of the majority. Look to the Middle East to see what happens when government dictates your faith, I am sure we don't want that for our great Nation!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny: I understand your point. I think, though, that you missed mine. The Constitution prohibits the "establishment" of religion - in other words, the government cannot, itself, sponsor a particular religion, as England had done with the Church of England. That does not change the fact that we were founded as a Christian nation in the sense that our culture was that of Christianity, our criminal and civil code adopted the precepts of Christianity, our national holidays included Christian holidays (examples, Good Friday and Christmas) and so on. In other words, it was clear that our government would not be hostile to Christianity. That is our heritage, even though some today wish to rewrite our history. Today, we hear speeches from a candidate for President who says that we are no longer a Christian nation (at least acknowledging that we were in the beginning). I fear for our future.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's right, Penny. Instead, the ACLU makes sure that 84% of Americans who are Christian get discriminated against and punished by removing Christiam principals and values from public schools and all but banishing Christmas so the other 16% of the population---most of whom don't mind our celebrating Christmas---are not offended. That is the ACLU and the power of liberal thinking.

Get used to it. We are on the verge of electing a president who is so radically liberal he makes the ACLU look like followers of Jerry Falwell.

Posted by mps (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Adline Hartman.
In addition, if American History were taught accurately, then maybe more Americans would be outraged by the ACLU's damning agenda. As for protecting individual rights, individual rights never should take precedence when they are damaging to individuals or to large groups. And maybe Penny would understand that our Founding Fathers' intentions were that this would be a nation of Christians whose Christian faith could be practiced without government control. In the 1600's when our founding fathers came here, they all came from countries whose churches were governed by political leaders rather than God Himself.

Posted by daenku32 (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where do jayhawker and the like come from?

When you describe your ideal "christian nation", it comes off as a thecracy in which religious "freedoms" only apply to the majority. When you attempt to clarify your positions to show you are not endorsing a theocracy, you are essentially stating secular concepts.

Practically all power in this country is already in the hands of Christians. To say that this is not enough, that you have to have special permission to sprout your religion in places like schools, is what makes your calls for 'restoration' entirely theocratic.

I fear the nation you want to turn this into. I'd rather not become a second class citizen simply because I don't believe in your magic fairy god.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

daenku32: You fear the nation that I want to turn this nation into? Have you closed your eyes to 200 years of our history? I am an advocate for retaining our heritage, not changing it. Obviously, you don't believe in God, which you are free to believe as you wish, as has everyone since our national founding. The point that you miss is that, as a Christian nation, Christianity was allowed to prosper and exist free of government hostility. I assure you that if you go to a nation founded on other religions that the symbols of that religion will be prominent in the culture. That does not mean that you must believe in that nation's underlying religion, it just means that you are going to be surrounded by its culture. Your rights are protected. What are you afraid of?

Posted by mps (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where do "jayhawker and the like come from?" We "come from" knowing and believing in the God that daenku32 doesn't.
A "Christian nation" is many things. It is one in which law-abiding citizens are free to pursue happiness and are safe because justice prevails. It is one in which law-breakers can be assured of suffering the consequences of their actions. It is one which is not polluted by evil that comes in under the guise of "individual rights". Above all, it is one in which God is the one Who is thanked and acknowledged as Sovereign over all.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The responses to this thread are alarming because was it not God who gave us all "individual rights? To frame individual rights as evil completely flies in the face of our constitution as well. Freedom applies to all of us. Selecting which group receives freedoms or to discribe the manner in which they can act upon these freedoms is no different than the actions being attributed to the ACLU. Freedom of religion means both the right to worship and the right not to. The seperation of church and state is simply that. The state cannot act in any manner that puts any one religion over that of another. I believe in both the constitution and in God and both have given me the right to do so, but not at the expense of others.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I fear that I am beating a dead horse. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but let me try. No one is advocating for a limitation on anyone's rights. Putting up a nativity scene on the public square in no way limits anyone's right to practice or disavow religion in any of its forms. I am saying nothing more than as a Christian nation, Christian symbols and practices should be allowed free of hostile government action. The ACLU advocates for a limitation on those rights. Consequently, I am advocating for rights, not limiting them. Observance of Christian holidays, practice and symbols are as much a part of our heritage as observance of Independence itself, and the symbols thereof. All of the protests and revisionist history will not change these simple facts.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Each religious group is free to display their symbols at their place of worship and are free from hostile government action as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. I myself am a Deist. Basic teachings and Beliefs of Deism: Deists believe that God is the creator of the universe, the architect of natural order, and the grantor of human rights, but that he does not interfere with humanity, or favor one individual, group, or nation over another. Deist belief eschews all elements of 'revealed' religion- that is, any religious laws or revelations offered by prophets or priests. Deists do not accept the idea of avatars or incarnated deities, angels, or messengers.
Famous Deists include many of the American founding fathers, with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Ethan Allen among the most well known. Deism was a motivating factor in the American revolution, fueling many of the ideas of personal freedom and seperation of powers inherent in our system of government.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lycomu: Your religious views and practices are as protected as mine. I respect them totally. However, would you explain how displaying the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse (as they are on the United States Supreme Court building) or a nativity scene on the lawn of White Auditorium infringing on your, or anyone's, rights?

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where does it end is the question. If you put a nativity scene at the Auditorium, then do you allow symbols from all other groups as well? If you dont allow the other groups to participate, then you are infringing on their rights. This is the essence of seperation of church and state. Their is no restiction of symbol display at the individual house of worship. Would the nativity scene bother me? No, absolutely not. Would it bother me if other religous groups were not allowed display space at the auditorium? Absolutey. In my view, its not the christian displays that are of concern, its not including all the other displays along side of them that is of concern. Again, we get beyond this argument by not allowing religous displays on government property and allowing displays on religous group property. I do not see why this presents such a dilemma.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand your point. We see this through different eyes. Given that we are founded as a Christian nation, I do not believe that it would offend anyone's rights to have Christian symbols, etc., on public ground even if other religions were not so permitted. To me, that is a totally different question than limiting anyone from the practice of his own religion. It is only a recognition that our culture is Christian, not some other religion. Golly, Christmas Day is a Federal, State and local government holiday all across the country. Christmas is clearly a Christian holiday. I don't know how a reasonable person cannot see that that fact alone is a clear recognition of our heritage and that originally the government preferred Christianity over other religions inasmuch as we don't have a government sanctioned holiday for any other religion. When the Supreme Court building was constructed, the Ten Commandments were prominently displayed. I suppose that some of these points are subtle, but easily reconciled by applying and understanding our history and our culture. This is not at all inconsistent with religious freedoms.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My point is that all of us are no more or no less important than any other. I understand all too well our country's history. Our history and culture is made up of all manner of groups, beliefs, ceremonies, and activities. All of them are important and significant to the lives we all lead today. Christmas, by the way, did not become a federal holiday until 1870, almost one hundred years after the forming of this more perfect union. I will leave you with....
Romans 12:10
Love one another with brotherly affection

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does flying only the American flag indicate a lack of respect for any other country? Conversely, would we take offense if another country doesn't fly our flag? We may have to agree to disagree. I understand your position. Thanks for your contribution. (By the way, the fact that Christmas was not formally recognized as a Federal holiday until 100 years into our existence as a nation further makes my point.)

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lycomu

Deists, as you say, reject all elements of revealed religion. That would include rejecting the core elements of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, three of the world's major religions.

In addition to the Deists who were among our founding fathers, a large number were Christian (John Adams, John Witherspoon). Thirty-four signers of the Declaration of Independence were Anglican, thirteen were Congregationalist/Puritan, etc.

While there may have been significant differences between the Deists and Christians at our founding, particularly concerning Divine providence in the affairs of men, it was also clear that both saw religion as indispensable to good citizenship. In this regard Deists and Christians reached an accomodation. For example, Witherspoon spoke eloquently about about the link between belief in God and civil liberties:

"So in times of difficulty and trial, it is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to support the establishment of both."

Beyond the nativity scenes, the trend in the public square for the past two generations has been to purge religious expression as invalid, violating the tenents of separation of Church and State.

The Deists of our founders' time found room for accomodation of Christian belief in the public square and Christians found the same room for Deists and others to participate freely in that same public square. This does not seem to be the case any more. It's becoming clearer as time passes that any religious expression in the public square is unwelcome.

Most Christians I know don't advocate a state religion. Most I know recognize and support the principle of separation of Church and State. Most I know only want a place in the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, the prevailing civic religion in this country has become Deism and its reliance on human reason alone as a guiding principle. Hence, when Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other religious believers frame political ideas in terms of religious history, tradition, or revalation, they are being told that their ideas aren't valid or welcome because they're rooted in religion.

It seems to me that Deism itself has become the "State Religion" and that any who violates its tenents in the public square is purged, albeit politely.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You make some interesting points. I think Religon has often served as a yoke rather rather than a springboard. I do not see the removal of religious objects from public arenas as an attempt to purge or invalidate the public from religion. I view Diesm as an attempt to remove the structure of religious groups and concentrate on the beauty and purity that is God. I am only stating my own personal opinion as this is the place for public discourse. I find civil discussions of topics far more rewarding and inlightening. Thank you all for your participation.

Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I pretty much took the article as "It's a great day in this wonderful country".

Thank you,Adline Hartman, for taking the time to put those feelings into words.

Posted by kcfan (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL - blulitespecial.

great discussion! both intellectual, and en lighting. Maybe not as entertaining as some other mud-slinging, name calling, Jerry Springer resembling posts, but never the less BRAVO!

Its this type of intelligent discussion which will attract educated, prosperous individuals to our community.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lycomu

I was thinking more in terms of moral argumentation rather than prohbitions on religious displays. I have a point of view on them, but it's not as important to me than protecting the freedom of all groups to make arguments or express points of view in the public arena based on moral thought/precepts grounded in religious belief. For example, if a believer can only petition our Supreme Court or government solely on the basis of human reason the petitioner is at a distinct disadvantage. It's not that human reason in and of itself is a bad thing; it's that it is limited and prone, in the view of those who want to make moral/religious arguments, to error and the whim of the court of the prevailing political powers. Those of us with religious views want to make our cases on the basis of a whole man concept. We may not win in every case, but we believe we have a right grounded in the Constitution to have our argument heard "reasonably." That should mean that our arguments should be heard on their merits. The prevailing doctrine these days, however, is that religious thought and expression is, as you put it, a "yoke rather than a springboard."

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Adline - welcome to America, and I for one am proud to call you a fellow American.

Remember the prison inmate that won his case that his practice of atheism constituted a religion? That makes things pretty hairy - shall we limit an atheists right to practice his religion as well?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...

So,
Another interesting case - the Muslim call to prayers in Michigan, which has caused a stir at times. Some people liken it to church bells ringing, but most do not - a more apt comparison would be to have the church bells replaced by an amplified loudspeaker blaring out the Lord's Prayer 5 times a day. Church bells ring for weddings, funerals, etc..... Anyway, the ACLU has largely stayed out of this one. (Imagine that). So, remember the thread about the Christmas Program/Displays last winter? The law stipulating how, even on schools, it must be viewed? I'm willing to bet there are plenty of government buildings withing hearing distance of the call to prayers..... I wouldn't have a problem if they clanged a bell or something similar 5 times a day to mark it - just like church bells - but I'll bet anyone here if churches started blasting out scripture over amplified loudspeakers, over wide areas, 5 times a day, the ACLU would be all over it in an instant.........

I'm not trying to sling mud or be a Jerry Springer type, I'm just pointing out what I see as some inconsistency in how different religions are handled in this country, and including by the ACLU.....

Posted by MerkyWater (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In November, vote for Obama! He can clear up this mess with religion in short order. He has the blend of religious backgrounds that will let him fix the things that divide us. Trust in him and vote Obama

Posted by PocketKings (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 4:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Flying Spaghetti Monster.
.

Sunday liqueur sales come on give me a break , this has religion written ALL over it.

Posted by Miroir (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"a wall of separation between church and state."

The quote of President Thomas Jefferson that was forgotten from 1802 until 1878 when the Supreme Court meddled with it in the Reynolds v. United States case.

Again it was forgotten until 1947 and 1948, when the Supreme Court once again meddled with it in the case, McCollum v. Board of Education.

Ironically, the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" was lifted out of the context it was written in from the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists who had sought his intervention in a matter where the state was about to elevate one protestant religion over another.

Tthe three paragrapgh letter written by Thomas Jefferson can be seen at the library of Congress.

[quote]

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

[/quote]

The very letter that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" is lifted out from includes President Jefferson reciprocating their kind prayers and seeking the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man.

Posted by Miroir (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Had Thomas Jefferson meant that God was to have no place in the government then acting as president at that moment he would not have called upon the common father and creator of man for protection and blessings on behalf of the Danbury Baptists.

President Thomas Jefferson explained what he meant in his statement of "a wall of separation between church and state" in that very letter the phrase was lifted from.

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.

The very same groups, organizations and lobbyists that seek to remove God from govt using the Jefferson phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" out of its context will have nothing to do with the entirity of the letter in context or Jefferson's many other writings, speeches, and activities where God is a focus of his subject matter ; including Jefferson's compilation of the teachings of Jesus (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth extracted textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English) into one Gospel account commonly referred to now as the Jefferson Bible which was handed out to Congress at the beginning of each session for many years.

You also don't see the groups, organizations, and lobbyists screaming "a wall of separation between church and state" as they try to remove God from government also trying to remove government from churches that Lyndon Johnson established as president when he brought churches under government legislation with what is now called the 501-C/501(c)(3) status.

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." ~~Thomas Jefferson [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like to use metaphors. We start from the premise that we were founded as a Christian nation (which is different than saying that we were founded with a Christian government), with a governmental policy to allow our Christian culture to grow undisturbed, for which there is overwhelming evidence. That is no different from our government allowing regional and local customs to grow, which no one disputes. For example, if a Texan moves to Kansas, even the ACLU would not assist him in prosecuting a claim that he has a right to have the Texas Lone Star flag flown at the Courthouse instead of, or in addition to, the Kansas flag. Conversely, we Kansans cannot claim that our rights are violated when the Kansas flag is not flown in Texas. However, the Texan has the same constitutional rights, in all its forms, as we Kansans. The same is true of Christian symbols in the public square, to the exclusion of all others. Those with other, or no, religious views should have no complaint, especially since their constitutional rights to their own, or no, religion are fully protected.

Posted by Hifi (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The founders' personal beliefs varied wildly from Deist to Rationalist to Quaker to Anglican...

But it really doesn't matter what they believed personally, when it came to the matter of creating a Republican government of free people, what is most remarkable is that, in their wisdom, they were able to put their personal beliefs aside and found a purely secular government under which all men could follow the dictates of their own conscience!

Posted by Hifi (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The arguments here, particularly as to why the Pledge of Allegiance should be allowed to function as a bully pulpit for religion to school children, display fundamental ignorance about the history and governmental principles of our country: a nation intended as the pre-eminent pluralistic (i.e., secular) nation in the world, the most liberal of any previously known, a democratic constitutional republic dedicated to civil liberties with the specific mandate to protect minority belief.

Back in 1954, it was a concerted effort on the part of various overtly sectarian organizations, primarily the Christian organization, Knights of Columbus, to exploit Cold War paranoia and use McCarthyism to get "under God" inserted in the Pledge in order to further push the country in a theocratic direction. A threatened Congress jumped right on board. Ironically, if anyone had indeed been serious about emphasizing what has, from the time of our Founding, made America unique among nations, then Congress would have changed the Pledge to say, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - regardless of belief".

It is no surprise that adding "under God" to the Pledge makes a joke of the word, "indivisible", by explicitly dividing the country along lines of religious belief. And, let's be clear, removing those two words does not impose atheist belief on anyone. The language would need to be changed to "one nation, that does not believe in a God" to do that. There is a HUGE difference there. Restoring the Pledge by removing "under God" simply brings it back to being neutral - the whole point of the first Amendment and what the Founders, in full conscious spite of their personal religious feelings - intended so as to enable all viewpoints in America to flourish.

What amazes me is how many so-called patriots can be so strongly in favor of something that is at least questionably constitutional. We can only assume that for many Americans their religions seem to be more important than their patriotism. There should be no question in any American's mind which must come first.

That any American can believe that the majority is entitled to ride rough shod over the rights of the minority shows the failure of our educational system to teach constitutional government and to teach the history of civil rights in this country. The Founders Fathers considerable experience with religion and government previous to 1787 led them to mistrust and to separate the two. At least, to the extent that you cannot expose children in public school to a declaration of faith.

That any American can claim to be a friend of religion and not loudly rally behind every effort to defend the liberal, pluralistic principles upon which our republic was founded is unimaginable.
--
http://members.cox.net/patriotismforall/...

Posted by Hifi (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The facts:

HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT

America was carefully and deliberately created to be a country where diverse beliefs could flourish - including non-belief. Because of that America has become the most religiously diverse country in the world - with over 3,000 registered religions (which doesn't even count the varieties of secular philosophies). The difference, you see, between the US and other countries where there were and still are plenty of state religions...or simply majority religions is that our country was founded in opposition to the idea that the majority is entitled to impose their beliefs on others. We were founded as a Constitutional Republic, with a Bill of Rights, in order to insure that our society did not soon succumb to "mob rule" and every minority view steamrollered by the popular opinion of the day.

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, inserted the religious clause of the First Amendment as a response to the attempt of what he saw in his State of Virginia: By the time of the Revolution, the Anglican Church, formerly the established church of Virginia, had to share space with Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists and other smaller sects. It was in the interest of each group to have religious liberty for their own empowerment, especially that there be no religious tests for public office.

Secularists have rarely been plaintiffs in religious domination suits. Nearly every judicial decision against public practice of prayer and religion has been the result of one religion complaining against another majority religion infringing or trying to proscribe their beliefs. If you had your way, Jews, in an instance, would most certainly find their beliefs marginalized, if not squashed altogether. Bigotry is a two-edged sword. Who wouldn't be next on the list if the majority got to legally ride rough-shod over all who disagreed?
The laws against sectarian religious practices continue to evolve for the protection of all.

LAW: COURT CASE BROUGHT BY ONE RELIGION AGAINST ANOTHER

It may interest you to know that:

– The recent case in Virginia was brought by a pious Mennonite man who did not want government contaminating religion.

– Bible reading in school was outlawed as the result of a law suit by the Catholics against the majority Protestants because they believed that the Bible must not be taught without correct interpretation.

– The right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance was the result of a suit by 7th Day Adventists because their religion did not permit oaths to graven images such as flags. (Unlike yours, apparently.)

– Prayer at Athletic Events was outlawed as a result of Mormons and Catholics winning their lawsuit

Posted by Hifi (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LAW: THE ACLU SUPPORTS RELIGIOUS SPEECH
(Too many to list. See complete list at http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding...

Part I - Defending the Rights of Those Identifying Themselves as Christian

The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102...

The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/Netherla...

The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter....

The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
http://www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer?p...

The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressRele...

The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
http://www.acluwi.org/wisconsin/rights_o...

Part II - Defending the Rights of All Religious Believers
See: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MerkyWater is back, only this time he is calling himself Hifi.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

God is dead as disco. All hail the The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his son Russell's Teapot. I was born into a more or less atheist family and I could care less where or when or what religious symbols are posted. You could drape everything in America with crucifixes (sp?), stars of david, and burqa's and it would not bother me one bit (as long as your not trying to force the beliefs down my throat). Symbolism is just that; symbolic. I celebrate Christmas because I like the idea of a season of giving rather than taking, family togetherness, and thankfulness for the year that has past. I manage to live a morally upright decent life without the guilt and fear or worship of my imanginary friend. I applaud the letter writer for becoming an American citizen the right way, and I think that is the point of the entire letter. She is probably closer to the founding father's idea of a nation than any of us forum posters. She left a place where she was persecuted or excluded, based on her religion, for a place where she could be free to practice as she saw fit (sound familiar?). I think that the fact that this country has never had an atheist presidential candidate (Lincoln, may have been a closet atheist or a fringe deist??) and only a handful of atheist congressman shows how insecure this country is about its faith (or lack thereof). Besides everyone knows that fat people, atheists, and smokers are the only ones you can hate and make fun of anymore in this country without fear of being called intolerant. I am all three, where is the ACLU when I need them.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker - I was thinking the same thing.

Outsider - your post made me sad as God is not dead or imaginary and one day you and the rest of the world will realize that as well - I just hope it is not too late for you at that time. Will pray for you. I am not making fun of you or being intolerant, I am simply sad for you.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The ACLU is a little strange to me. But I think everyone is missing the point. They are not banning anyones personal freedoms, you can put religious symbols all over your private property and no one can stop you. They are trying to ensure that such things are not put up at publicly, govermentally, or tay payer funded properties and events. This is done because even their usually ignorant perspective recognizes that not everyone is a christian. Political correctness is a joke, and while it makes no difference to me where one puts any sort of symbol, I know not everyone is comfortable with these symbols on tax payer property. The brilliant founding fathers left a living document called the constitution. My personal interpretation is that the part of the Bill of Rights dealing with religion was put there not only to keep government out of religious practice, but also to keep religious practice out of government. "no law respecting an establishment of religion". That works both ways, so saying that this nation was founded on christian principles in directly contrary to the First Amendment due to the ambiguity of a word like establisment and the finality of a word like no.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

emporialifer: before you get too sad for me, perhaps insight into my beliefs will help. I am doing this out of respect for you and your faith. This is about the best summation of atheism that I've ever read. I am certainly not anti-god, I just don't think he/she/it exists. While it is way off the point of the original article. It may be necessary.
The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”