Atheism Win: Woonsocket Cross is Coming Down!

i think unless you know the peronal beliefs of the deceased, it should probably stay the way it is now. who are we to change things? that's like editing the books of old. serously... leave well enough alone.

"unless you know the personal beliefs of the deceased," and "leave well enough alone."

The city should have done those things before it broke constitutional law and discriminated against nontheist taxpayers and military members.

The interpretation of the first amendment by the courts is not in holding with the original intent of the founders.
And as the founder with the greatest commitment to the separation of church and state said;

""On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 :

And as he did;

From the time of Jefferson's presidency until after the Civil war, worship services were held in the halls of congress.
Jefferson attended every Sunday service while in office.

derp?

Yes Chelsea,
I know it is a bit confusing to you progressive atheists....But the founders didn't think like you, they realized and intended the it to be a freedom of religion not as you wish it was, a freedom from religion.

Hey whatever fantasies you wanna believe ;)

It's called history Chelsea,
The founders words and actions written down for all to read...something you wish wasn't around.
It interferes with your goal of turning our country into a secular America.

Sorry Cookie,
It's not me who is stupid! Jefferson was of such character that he almost lost the election because he would not speak of his faith in light of his opponent's charges of him being an atheist
I certainly would not call you stupid but I don't hesitate to call you ignorant of the facts and history.

BTW,

"I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Thomas Jefferson to B Rush 1803

James Madison wrote: “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

John Adams wrote: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

Thomas Paine wrote: “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “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 separation between church and state.”

lol very well said. They'd be embarrassed by these ppl

For all of the above, because when you look at the facts with blinders on you see only what you want to see.
Every one of the 50 states constitution leads off in it's preamble by giving Glory to GOD.
The declaration of independence gives the same reverence to GOD the creator.

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."

"Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war."

"The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.""

"roposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task."

"Congressional Fast Day Proclamation
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King.""

Sorry but you all are mistaken.

Oh!
And BTW!
In every one of these United States of America, each one, the preamble of the individual states Constitution includes an acknowledgement of and thanks to the glory of GOD!

Where in this country can a godless atheist go to be free of the influence of the faithful......Sorry nowhere!

We are a country of the faithful

I'm sure you practiced saying that to yourself until you believed it, Dan.

Fortunately, in reality. That's simply not so ;) The American Atheists are just ONE of the many atheist groups which have WON several lawsuits against religious violation of the Constitution.

Same goes for the FFRF and many individuals.

Hate to rain on your biblical parade....but yah. ;) I can produce some examples, but I don't want to spam up the page with the 1,000+ successful lawsuits stemming from secular activism ;)

And all we need is a couple more constitutionalists on the SCOTUS and all of those atheist advances go down the tube!

You apparently don't know what it takes to change the constitution -- something which you rightwingers always accuse the "left" of wanting to do with such vitriol and hatred (and misinformation, no surprise).

;)

Your messiah, George W. Bush; he tried to change the constitution once. He failed.

I'm surprised that Obama hasn't appointed you as his religious czar. You're just the kind of person he's looking for I'm sure. Let's get Christianity out of the schools. Heck, while we're at it, let's get it out of everything and abolish the First Ammendment while we're at it. Oh, why stop there. Let's take a look at every ammendment. Maybe we need to abolish each and every one except for the ones that we can use to advance the radical leftist agenda.

Heck Chelsea, I'd bet that you are in support of population control too.

be careful what you wish for ;)

(clarification: i.e. "be careful what you wish for")

Funny you make that comment right after one of your rightwinger buddies expressed the desire to take apart the constitution so as to violate the rights of those who don't suit the ideals of his people.. your people.

Funny how atheists just want the constitution to be obeyed... yet you guys are so conflicted among yourselves that YOU either want to tear the constitution apart to fit your opinions (huh, how American... NOT) or you want to spread lies and misinformation that atheists are after the constitution.

It's sad that you guys think that these little tactics still work on the vast majority of the public. The number of "nonbelievers" is increasing in this country as are the number of successful lawsuits against those who VIOLATE our constitution.

I find Dan unpatriotic, and I find you completely misled.

For one thing, I'm not a rightwinger nor is Dan one of my rightwinger buddies. And I'm not one of ' you guys '. What you've done with that comment is commonly used ....hey, if you are opposed to our policies or views, you must be a right wing Christian. This just goes to show that you can't come up with a valid argument at all.

The attack on the First Ammendment by the Obama administration is quite obvious. Try to mask it all you want by pretending you support the First Ammendment.

We all know where your loyalties lie Chelsea,
Godless secularism has but one goal and that is to destroy anything relating to religiosity.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

I took the oath! And intend to keep it!

You on the other hand deny the Constitution and the founders for your own selfish ideals.

Huh, how typical to cry foul after you're put in your place. Go back and read your comment to me in the first place and think about it for a while. In fact, your quote right here:

For one thing, I'm not a rightwinger nor is Dan one of my rightwinger buddies. And I'm not one of ' you guys '. What you've done with that comment is commonly used ....hey, if you are opposed to our policies or views, you must be a right wing Christian. This just goes to show that you can't come up with a valid argument at all.

Isn't that just exactly what you were doing when you said:

I'm surprised that Obama hasn't appointed you as his religious czar. You're just the kind of person he's looking for I'm sure. Let's get Christianity out of the schools. Heck, while we're at it, let's get it out of everything and abolish the First Ammendment while we're at it. Oh, why stop there. Let's take a look at every ammendment. Maybe we need to abolish each and every one except for the ones that we can use to advance the radical leftist agenda.

Heck Chelsea, I'd bet that you are in support of population control too.


Let's break it down... play by play, so you can understand:

1. You showed up with a wide-sweeping ad hominem statement that had pretty much nothing of value to add to the discussion other than to insult and make ignorant baseless comments.

2. You were called out on it, and put in your place -- and properly so.

3. You cried about it.


Have a nice night and please, play again sometime!

Dan, in your delusional world, whatever you wanna fantasize about is all good and fine.

Like I said, though, reality is a litttttttle bit different ;)

I've read your articles and comments. I know what you stand for. Your attitude towards Christianity and other opinions are right out of the far left radical handbook and fall right in line with the Obama administration's attack on The Constitution.

I wrote a comment and you couldn't come up with any other argument except to lump me in with rightwingers. My comment had a foundation. Yours was simply a lame attempt at defending yourself.

Oh yes I do know what it takes to change the Constitution, the founders set the process down a long time ago.
A process that has only happened a few times due to the intent of the founders, they made sure that the Constitution could only be changed with the expressed permission of we the people!
A process which has frustrated ideologues like yourself and as a result you have to rely on activist judges to do your bidding.

I don't recall bush introducing any Constitutional amendments so no he didn't try to change the Constitution....I mean at least he didn't sign a bill into effect that gives himself the right to imprison citizens indefinitely effectively suspending Habeas corpus like Obama has done.

"but, but, but, I I I I uhhhhhh"

oh, Dan Dan Dan... how un-read you really are. Again, I doubt you really know anything about the constitution, much less what it takes to be changed or altered in any way.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Bush_administration_vs._the_U.S._Constitution

http://usliberals.about.com/b/2006/08/18/liberals-fight-bush-bid-to-change-the-constitution-on-wiretapping.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Administration-vs-the-US-Constitution-Scorecard


and just because I honestly want you to educate yourself:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

(and even when us dreaded libbies had the supermajority for that short period of time.... society didn't fall and the constitution remained intact... huh, imagine that...Your misinformation train is derailing.)

Nope Chelsea,
Reality, is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Just because the courts have for the time being sided with the secularists doesn't mean that we the people won't once again gain power and in the future revert our country to be more like the founders intended once again restoring the peoples freedom of religion that has been taken away by people like yourself.

You can't read that fast. Try again ;)

Chelsea,
You seem confused as to what changing the constitution means.
To enact unconstitutional laws is not changing the constitution and as I remember some of those laws that President Bush enacted were upheld by the courts as some were not.

So just because you label it as changing the constitution doesn't make it a fact....as is so much of your postings.

I can sympathize with the fact that you're so confused, Dan. But I truly do hope you remedy it some day.

Here is a list of countries/regions you'd probably feel more at home at, since you hate America and the freedom of Americans so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Current_theocracies

You probably wouldn't be welcomed in Tibet after about five minutes though, so that only leaves you with The Vatican and the Islamic States.

No confusion on my part Chelsea,
I understand what the founders intended.

Like I said: Fantasies are healthy. ;)

No! I'm perfectly happy right here in the country of my birth.
You on the other hand seem to not like what our founders intended so maybe it is you who should seek residence else where.

Please see above comments about fantasy

BTW,
Since you mention the Islamic states, have you seen how many Islamist the President is close to?

Can't come up with any more clever?

No, I was working.

But I see you're still lingering. Did your fantasizing drain you to the point that you forgot where the door was?

Working?
You call posting to Gather working?
Yah I guess to a progressive that is working!

Actually, no I don't.

But you know, I always say it, but it always fits whenever you post.

Ad hominem attacks are signs of a low intellect, someone who is bitter, jealous and too dumb to interact with the person they're making said ad hominem attacks against.

But none of that is really surprising.

"Ad hominem attacks are signs of a low intellect,"

Well then you are a real dullard Chelsea.

It must beat you up horribly that you can't even match me in discussion with any class or even self-dignity.

I just enjoy watching you try so hard.

Looks like you're the one trying.. and failing.. and getting so angry because what little manhood you have left in you, is crushed repeatedly by a mental superior. So you try, and you try, and that manhood shrinks...and it shrinks.. until all you have left is a sad little internet troll with a complex.

:) It's entertaining at the best, terribly tragic to witness at worst.

ROTFLMAO!
You try and try but it just doesn't work!
Due to your low self esteem your just keep trying to build yourself up by tearing others down. It feels good to express all of that hate doesn't it Chelsea? But no matter you can't delude your self...you know in your heart of hearts that you are not any better than anybody else!

My last comment must have really stung ;)

I'm impervious Chelsea.

Just remember. You dedicate your days to commenting on my posts. Attacking me. Talking to me. Talking about me. You're the one who surrounds your existence with all things me.

And it shows ;)

LOL!
Well Chelsea to you it's all about you! LOL!

I've noticed that's why you've made yourself a permanent fixture on practically any article I write.

Your obsession with me shows, and I am flattered. Far more notable people have tried what you fail at, btw, and they failed too ;)

You progressives are funny!

see how hard you try?

;)

And to think, you're not even fully aware of....nevermind.....

You are kinda hot...with those glasses...yeah. I'll admit it. I'm obsessed with you.

0_0

the glasses definately top the cake. Definately get my jollies going ;)

waka waka waka

I also do not believe in God, even so, relative to the universe, it is so small

The title of this article is proof positive of the school of Atheism’s war against Christianity. Recently I have seen article after article, story after story of how some non-believer rants about his or her right to believe in nothing and yet at every step, takes the opportunity to deny the right of others to believe in something bigger than us, puny human beings.

Yes Juan it is proof positive, but the title of the original article is much more telling;

"Cash-strapped RI city backing down in cross fight"

This group seeks out those communities who can not afford to defend their religious freedoms looking for easy kills. (says something of the character of these people)

But the win might not be quiet as soon or as easy as they expect...an interview with some of the towns people say they will push to defend their religious rights and financially support the fight.

Do you both truly believe that God is so fragile a spirit that the removal of material items will diminish his being?

Dan -- yeah, Cranston did the same thing and LOST. They also lost the taxpayers $150,000 in the process.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally wise?

Well yes you would rather it was easy and the faithful laid down and succumbed to your tyranny.

I hear you may have been foiled in one of your attempts;

Court settlement paves way for veterans to restore memorial cross in Mojave Desert

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/29/court-settlement-paves-way-for-veterans-to-restore-memorial-cross-in-mojave/#ixzz1tSvuETgV

Just because I do not hold or believe in everything that every one of our soldiers does, does not mean that I can not say a prayer in their honor and I will fight anyone who will try to stop me from doing so.

Text from the Treaty of Tripoli; ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams: “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 tranquility, 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 in interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Key phrase: "...United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"

Has anyone declared the U.S. a christian country here in this thread
Robert?
You seem to be trying really hard to counter a point that no one in this thread has made as of yet.

Dan - The article is about a "cross erected in the town on public land"

Crosses are symbols of the Christian religion, and those crosses on public land presuppose that promotion of Christianity an objective of the people who own that land; the public.

No they don't Robert!
Only in the minds of those who oppose religiosity at every turn.

Ok, well if they don't presuppose that's even worse, because in that case they're demonstrating that they don't care about anyone's belief other than their own. That's pretty rude, regardless if were talking about a religion or the glory of corn flakes.

I saw "corn flakes" and instantly knew who you were addressing before I came back to the thread...


haha

At least Robert is attempting substance,
Where Chelsea can only muster clever! LOL!
No Robert, this is your liberal progressive interpretation, it has no hold on the intent of the founders, you can not foist your twisted logic on those who developed the foundations of our country.
The FACT is that the founders did not see the display of religiosity on public property as a violation of the first amendment.

I love it how you guys give each other a reach around and pretend you're winning an argument.

oh yeah, but einstein so there.

Um... they were politicians. They used religion just like politicians today do.

Im reminded of the family guy episode when Lois ran for mayor...

Doesn't change a thing Robert,
The founders including the citizens of this country at it inception did NOT see the displaying of religion on in or around the public spaces as a violation of the first amendment.

Oh my what a sweet babies picture to get caught in the midst of such an argument..This is why I do not express my opinion on politics or religion.

Chelsea, This kind of worthless argument is exactly why Einstein seemed to think atheists were damaged goods, unable to just let other faiths be, because of their own need to be free of religion. It seems by abandoning an opening that there could be something above them, they are encumbered with the need to make all others think likewise for justification. He realized, and even back then, they were all about pushing their way onto others, more so than the faithful, who were happy doing their own thing and free to grow, learn and prosper without bothering what those of no faith thought. I see you are exactly as he predicted. Who damaged you so much as to drive you so fervently to worry that someone has faith, and you do not? What could be accomplished for mankind while you waste your time, not even philosophizing, but arguing? Not edifying, but attempting to break down? Give it a break, would you?

Jesus might get mad at your new-found idolatry ;)

Thanks Char,
Very enlightening.

(Char seems to think that Einstein, an agnostic, speaks for anybody... how desperately the religious cling to strawmen, even if they're inappropriate strawmen. To be so ..not.. self-aware, is to create comedy for those who observe)

Chelsea, That is such a silly statement, it shows your youth and inexperience in life. I am old and imminently facing death. I can assure you, I am self aware. That is why I bother with learning why people do what they do. I have already seen most of the range of human expression, and now I accept all things are possible. You should try it! That I agree with the things Einstein said regarding the atheists shows, in my experience, he is RIGHT ON! It is in no way clinging to a straw man. That is ludicrous.

really? Because that's all you've been talking about like it means anything. Einstein isn't the emperor of scientists and he by no means has anything to do with any of the discussions had here lately.

Einstein didn't die for your sins, Char. In fact, he thought that very concept was ludicrous.

In other words. The strawman you're using.. if he were alive today. He'd probably think you're stupid. quote:


A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)


Guess who Spinoza's God was? Not the god of Christianity, by any stretch of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism



you're making yourself look ridiculous, and I mean that with the utmost respect. You're embarrassing yourself. I don't mean this with any insult, but it simply is what it is.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

Your strawman doesn't represent you.

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)



Hey may not have "behaved" like an atheist -- but he surely agreed with us.

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

If I were a religionist.. I wouldn't depend on the imagery of a man who, by all intents and purposes, believed people like me were dumb and childlike.

To be clear: Char, I like you. I've seen that you and I can get along when not arguing nonpoints. I am not insulting you, as I am only pointing out that there is no point in using einstein to represent the points you're making. He didn't like atheists like ME but he himself was an atheistic agnostic who referred to god as nature. If anything he was an old timey agnostic pagan. He thought people like you were stupid and he thought people like me were just rude and out of touch with the rest of humanity.

It would honestly be like me using david duke to prove my point...

As for the article, what a hollow victory. Who did it help, what did it prove? Nobody, nothing...

I think the only people that "win" are the lawyers...

Amen to that!

You won.

The government cannot take your money and use it to erect displays which support religious beliefs which you do not believe in.

The christian zealots of America would feel differently if these were muslim images being erected with their tax dollars.

the hypocrisy hurts, but not surprising.

few realize us nasty secularists would protect their rights as well if they were being violated.. but the fact of the matter is, when things are in their favor it's different.

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

To the extent some may think the government's display of the cross a trifle that can safely be overlooked, they might heed Madison's argument against a mere three pence tax proposed for support of churches: "The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. 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? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785). In other words, if you let the government get away with illegitimate trifles, you'll be hard put to later defend against more serious abridgments of the Constitution.

Fact is Doug,
The founders didn't see the display of religiosity on public property as a violation of the first amendment.
That is why we have had so many displays of religiosity on public property.

Fact is Dan that neither do the courts always see the display of religiosity on public property a violation of the First Amendment. Hardly. With respect to government displaying monuments and such, courts generally consider the circumstances of each case and assess whether a reasonable person would understand the government to be promoting (or opposing) religion. Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

Considering that the original intent of the founders is important in deciding what is CONSTITUTIONAL and what is not when we look at what the citizens of this country at it inception allowed as far as religiosity/government commingling, we understand what they intended when it comes to the subject of the separation of church and state....And we see that it was not intended to be anything like what the progressive secularists suggest it was or should be.
Fact is.

The courts have indeed based their decisions on the original intent of the founders. Note, for instance, what Jefferson and Madison have said and done. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes.

It is instructive to recall that the Constitution's separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a "disestablishment" political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term "antidisestablishmentarianism," which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

If I am really steeping into the foray of Godless vs Godly....than dementia has surely taken over.....

But, for sometime now, have wondered why these fights for separation of church and State are fought at such individual, trivial, levels. To my mind, a determination of one persons belief, be it in God, or in no God, shouldn't be based on, or have a need for, under-minding another persons belief.

That said, why haven't groups like FFRF taken on the ultimate separation of church and State battle....religious properties having tax/ordinance exempt statuses. It is illogical to say a true separation of church and State exists when religion is the basis for such exemptions. A true separation would hold religious organizations to the same taxation and ordinance standards as secular organizations.

Crosses can be pulled down, nativity scenes packed away...just seems so inane to argue at that level when the argument should be at the level that holds potential for establishing the ultimate definition re separation of church and State.

oh trust me, Kiely, we don't like that tax exempt nonsense and it is being fought.

It's just apparently not going anywhere because the far religious right don't like paying taxes at all and LOVE shoving their theology down the throats of others.

Chelsea..Chelsea...Chelsea,
You of course have not thought this thing through....If you had you would welcome the tax except status of the religious organizations, after all the tax exempt status is tied to the churches NOT speaking out for or against political agendas...for or against political candidates.
I personally would not support any religious organization that sold it's soul for a tax deduction....But as a GODLESS atheist I would think that you would welcome it!

Hmmm....Dan,

Just so you know, I believe in God...STRONGLY believe in God. Therefore I believe in truth. Churches, particularly the Catholic church, do indeed speak out, be it for or against, political agendas while enjoying their tax exempt statuses.

*yawn*

unsurprising to see you here ;)

Kiely,
Can you give me an example of the Catholic Church speaking out politically concerning a political candidate?

Catholic Bishops Condemn CT Sen Democrats for Abortion Stance


http://dennishouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/catholic-bishops-condemn-ct-sen-democrats-for-abortion-stance/

Nope Kiely,
That letter of protest was against the proposed restriction of religious freedoms.

I usually do not indulge in troll banter. But for this time, will indulge your desire as I am plagued with anger over the circumstances surrounding a missing child. Looks the good Lord was kind enough to provide an outlet to dump anger...while also appeasing your game play.

You asked:

Kiely,
Can you give me an example of the Catholic Church speaking out politically concerning a political candidate?

I replied with:

Catholic Bishops Condemn CT Sen Democrats for Abortion Stance

........

If you do not see, I do not care. Now go put your belief to good use....pray for a lost little child.

Thanks be to God.

Sorry Kiely but it's up to you to support your contention, your example doesn't do it.
If you're going to get pissy get pissy at your lacking the ability to post sufficient evidence.

Kiely deliberately misstated your thought. You said a political candidate, and he supported himself with issues, not people. Hmmmm... Doesn't fly. Issues that affect the church are their business! Any organization having their rights effected will speak out, just think "Citizens United".

LOL...you have both got to be die hard Catholics.....capable of overlooking a child's plight yet capable of staunchly defending the Catholic Church.

You are of a religious belief, I am of a God belief...that is a twain that shall never meet.

I couldn't be further from being a Catholic. I reject their trinity, and think they are idol worshippers. I do believe in religious freedom.

Am on my way out to drive granddaughter home then pass out fliers for the child but did want to take a second to thank you for your reply, Char. fyi...am older woman. : )

Sorry if I didn't know S was Sally or Susan... ;-). B SAFE!

@ Kiely -- I agree with you on what you said about the Catholic church..I don't think these two are catholics though, Not much diff though IMHO. It's all bible thumping and hatred as far as I'm concerned.

I also doubt people like Dan take any interest in stories that matter such as little Caleigh missing..... :( though I wouldn't invite him to those posts as he'd probably use it as an excuse to troll, and I won't have that on those posts.. so meh.

I wonder how people find the time to write and write and write on these posts, I give kudos because it is capitolism on your part but it makes me realize if people really have lives or if they spend it trolling on the internet all day. Must be a dreary existance. But good entertainment I must say.

their dreary existences fatten my bank account, that's all I can say lol

lol, they unknowingly have a purpose in life.

lol!

Yeah, and I look forward to Atheists calling for the annual Hanukah Menorah lighting in the park across from the White House to be cancelled as well, or are they only exercised by crosses and manger scenes?

Ooh, I forgot, menorahs get special treatment. They're the equivalent of Christmas trees, some say.

Nope, they're religious symbols, but it seems, only Christians get discriminated against, and "atheists", like PETA, win no friends with their ridiculous antics.

A cross that was erected almost a century ago in Rhode Island, and some podunk atheist objects on behalf of some mythical soldier who might have not been a Christian?

How many "atheist" foundations get tax free exempt status, like churches, then engage in political activity while complaining when churches do that?

I'm not a christian, but it seems that there's a great deal of bigotry directed at christians, and I for one wonder at the atheist jihad to burn, er, remove every cross on public land. What does that serve except to reveal your own intolerance?

you might want to at least halfway research these things before you come flying out with ridiculous generalizations

you might want to at least halfway research these things before you come flying out with ridiculous generalizations

I'm an atheist. I don't really care what other people believe as long as it does not intrude on my rights. For example, there are religious folks out there who think they own my uterus. That is not cool at all.

Why this memorial is Constitutional

Sincerely,
an atheist veteran

Wow. A win for censorship. Atheists everywhere must be so proud.

The Separation of Church and State for Dummies :)



http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/the-separation-of-church-and-state-for-dummies/