It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 71
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
When attempting to understand the law, it is necessary to understand the context in which it was written. It isn't enough simply to read the words and interpret them as you see fit.

Where does the idea of separation of church and state come from then if not directly from the words of the Constitution? From Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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 separation between church and State.

Do you honestly think you know more about the intent of the first Amendment than Thomas Jefferson?




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
how Thomas Jefferson suddenly became the sole establisher of law in the U.S.
. Moreso was why that phrase "separation of church and state" was not included in the constitution.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
If I were to use a leter to establish law rather than the stated law, I would totally screw up the whole system of gevernment. Letters offer opinion. Laws are intended to direct the populace and create justice. Where I think Jefferson may have been coming from is that this "wall" would be that the "Church" has no power to enforce over the government, niether can the government force it's will upon the "Religious establishment". The Chuch has a voice but no authority. The government may make laws but not to the exclusion of religious freedom of expression.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
how Thomas Jefferson suddenly became the sole establisher of law in the U.S.
. Moreso was why that phrase "separation of church and state" was not included in the constitution.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by saint4God
how Thomas Jefferson suddenly became the sole establisher of law in the U.S.
. Moreso was why that phrase "separation of church and state" was not included in the constitution.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
My friend saint, I do value your opinions on many matters. However, the seperation of church and state must remain that. Seperated. Too many have been led to slaughter thru the years by governments that are entertwined with religion.

I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone else. Is GOD so weak that the government must prop him up?

Remember one of the main goals the writers of the Constitution had in mind was the protection of the minority from the majority. That is just because the majority think one way does not and should not make that way THE way. If that had been the case throughout the coarse of short history this country has gone thru things would be much, much different.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Is GOD so weak that the government must prop him up?


Nope, see above (kingdom of God, etc.). But, to say that the founding fathers weren't Christian is incorrect.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Actually, to be completely accurate, you have to say that some of the Founding Fathers were Christians and some were not.

What made these men truly great leaders was their ability to seperate the secular business of governing from their religious beliefs. I don't recall reading that any of them thought it was an "anti-Christian conspiracy" to make sure that we didn't write the name of Jesus into our Constitution. Did any of them complain that we did not explicitly state "This is a Christian nation" into our governing documents? I'm not saying it didn't happen - I just don't have any knowledge that it did.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
Actually, to be completely accurate, you have to say that some of the Founding Fathers were Christians and some were not.


Yes, pardon the appearance that it applied to all, that wasn't my intention.


Originally posted by Al Davison
What made these men truly great leaders was their ability to seperate the secular business of governing from their religious beliefs.


Yes, but they also made no attempts to hide their beliefs, unlike what we've moved to today for some reason. Oh no! Did you hear what that politician said? S/he said "God"!
Something has changed. Why?


Originally posted by Al Davison
I don't recall reading that any of them thought it was an "anti-Christian conspiracy" to make sure that we didn't write the name of Jesus into our Constitution.


Agreed. Can we move on to a real anti-conspiracy then?


Originally posted by Al Davison
Did any of them complain that we did not explicitly state "This is a Christian nation" into our governing documents? I'm not saying it didn't happen - I just don't have any knowledge that it did.


Apparently the letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams seemed pretty heated about the topic. Sounds like Adams would want it in there, and TJ is saying no way. With expressive as the members of the First Continental Congress were about their beliefs, I'd be very surprised to hear if there were no flashpoints. Nevertheless, they were on a mission together and I believe accomplished just that. I think they did good work, which is why the bastardization of it hits me funny. Not because I'm a "proud American" or anything, but because it's looks like a blantant denial of facts, tooling and discerning of intent instead of what's written.


[edit on 27-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Yes, but they also made no attempts to hide their beliefs, unlike what we've moved to today for some reason. Oh no! Did you hear what that politician said? S/he said "God"! Something has changed. Why?


I really haven't heard that in the political arena yet. The only thing heard is one party thinking they have a seemingly inside track on GOD. One party wears their "religion" on their sleeve, one holds their "spirituality" in their heart.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
I really haven't heard that in the political arena yet. The only thing heard is one party thinking they have a seemingly inside track on GOD. One party wears their "religion" on their sleeve, one holds their "spirituality" in their heart.


One party has the inside track on God, the other party condemns that first party for believing in the Christian God (and for being white, though many Republicans are neither Christian nor white). If that's spirituality in one's heart, they can have it.

Then there's Dick Durbin's comments questioning Chief Justice Robert's religious beliefs which, later in a press release, Tony Perkins explained that Durbin was only questioning Roberts' devoutness to ensure he would be a good judge. Specifically, "Repeatedly, judicial nominees have been blocked for 'deeply held beliefs' on moral issues. Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law."

If you're religious, you can't follow or uphold the law, it would seem, according to Mr. Durbin and Mr. Perkins.

It begins.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Is GOD so weak that the government must prop him up?


Nope, see above (kingdom of God, etc.). But, to say that the founding fathers weren't Christian is incorrect.


you gave 4 founding fathers. there were a lot of more founders than 4. those were the only 4, the rest didn't even go to any sort of religious service once they reached adulthood.

what about franklin? he was called a heretic by many, and he was the grandfather. he was the mastermind.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Moreso was why that phrase "separation of church and state" was not included in the constitution.


Perhaps the writers of the Constitution weren't omniscient and thought the 1st Amendment was plainly worded and unambiguous?

Allowing a permanent 10 commandments display on public land is an establishment of religion, as it compells everyone who pays taxes to participate whether they want to or not. There are Christians who reject such displays as well, because they say Jesus fulfilled the law.

While it's true that the majority are Christian in the US, it isn't true that everyone who is a Christian believes the 10 Commandments should be plastered all over the place.

Besides, most such displays are not even the real 10 commandments. They almost univerdsally subtract from scripture by simplifying the 10th commandment. Those who support such scriptural modifications are just as guilty as those who made them.

God will not be pleased with you for supporting a false 10 commandments.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Posted by Spamandham:

Allowing a permanent 10 commandments display on public land is an establishment of religion, as it compells everyone who pays taxes to participate whether they want to or not.
__________________________________

How are you compelled to obey the ten commandments? How is such a display an establishment of religion?

Also, public land is just that. It is your land and it is my land (I believe that's a song too), anyway, we all have equal use of the land that is "public". The fact that it is public shows that it belongs to the people respectively and not to the government. A government establishment of religion would say, be a law that said that at 8am everyone has to go to mass upon penalty of law, or to a synagogue, or mosque by order of the state.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Maybe compel is too strong a term, implies, suggests, or proposes might be better. In my view, it ties government to Christianity, anyway. I don't like what the implications of that bond could be, no matter how much I agree with the actual commandments.
I feel that no religion should be seen to be favored by the state, in order to create as peaceful a society as possible.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you gave 4 founding fathers.


That's 4 times the number of founding fathers we were talking about before
. I'd do more, but it'd be annoying and off topic.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there were a lot of more founders than 4. those were the only 4, the rest didn't even go to any sort of religious service once they reached adulthood.


I disagree. "The rest" encompasses a rather large population. It's that kind of propaganda that is used in an Anti-Christian Conspiracy, so at least we're back on topic.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what about franklin? he was called a heretic by many, and he was the grandfather. he was the mastermind.


I don't know what's true in this article or not, but would be interesting to do some digging:

"A mason, Benjamin Franklin's links to occult secret societies have long been known. In the clip below, the History Channel talks about his involvement in the Hellfire Club, a secret society that conducted black masses and orgies. These bizarre, occult practices are still going on today in secret societies like the Bohemian club (Alex Jones infilitrated the Bohemian Grove and caught one of their rituals on tape -- click here to go see the video).

In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home. The London Times reported on February 11, 1998:

"Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which was his home from 1757 to 1762, and from 1764 to 1775. Most of the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said yesterday: "I cannot totally discount the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I may have to hold an inquest."
www.infowars.com...

Looks like cattle-feed for conspiracy theorists to me, but no doubt historically he was a member of the Hellfire Club that prided itself on hedonism and debauchery. Nice pick for a hero
.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Perhaps the writers of the Constitution weren't omniscient and thought the 1st Amendment was plainly worded and unambiguous?


I doubt they inked something and said, "Eh, looks good, whatever". I agree with the omniscient part, but they weren't nutz, they knew what they were doing and even if one of them didn't, there was a room full of them that would've helped him out:



I appreciate the compliment though, to say I'm smarter than they were but I disagree. Hey! What is it congress is doing in this picture? Probably the same thing George Washington is doing here:


“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779


Does that sound like a separation of church and state to you?


Originally posted by spamandham
Allowing a permanent 10 commandments display on public land is an establishment of religion, as it compells everyone who pays taxes to participate whether they want to or not. There are Christians who reject such displays as well, because they say Jesus fulfilled the law.


Are we going to go back and debate the .000000001 cent we all pay for that or the $150 screwdrivers?


Originally posted by spamandham
While it's true that the majority are Christian in the US, it isn't true that everyone who is a Christian believes the 10 Commandments should be plastered all over the place.


I don't see why this makes any difference. We all have the right to opinions.


Originally posted by spamandham
Besides, most such displays are not even the real 10 commandments. They almost univerdsally subtract from scripture by simplifying the 10th commandment. Those who support such scriptural modifications are just as guilty as those who made them.


You mean they're not the actual stone tablets Moses brought down from the mountain?! Egads! Why didn't anyone say something before?



Originally posted by spamandham
God will not be pleased with you for supporting a false 10 commandments.


How would you know? If they were false, you may have a case. And again, I'd said I'd like to see them but understand if taken down, don't care what the state does to post symbols and such.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

One party has the inside track on God, the other party condemns that first party for believing in the Christian God (and for being white, though many Republicans are neither Christian nor white). If that's spirituality in one's heart, they can have it.


Sorry Jake you seem to be a good sheep. Don't be led to slaughter. There is no condemnation for believing in the Christian GOD. Are you saying I'm condemning myself for believing in the Christian GOD? Are you throwing millions upon millions of good people into that category? Turn off the 700 Club, Rush Limbaugh, and whoever else. Their specialty is the brainwashing of the public so they may be put into the pen for slaughter.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
it would be a mistake to tie Christianity to a political party. I was thinking of changing my polling card to: Party - Christian and just let everyone try to figure out what that meant. Well, actually it's pretty easy what it means, there's a whole Book on it if someone chooses, or they can talk to the party leader personally if they like. Either way, both have my vote.


I think instead of parties, which are anything but parties (but that's a topic for another thread), we should be able to vote by issue. I'm getting a little tired of people saying, "I take the lesser of the two evils". My response is, "why accept evil at all?" If someone doesn't have the time to read up and get involved in each individual issue, then maybe they shouldn't be voting for/against it.

So what does politics have to do with the Anti-Christian Conspiracy? Surprisingly more than one would guess. I think Christians have become reactionary to assaults on their God-given principles an feel forced to pick a party that best represents them. Erego, Christians are now associated with one party. It was an effective tactic and seems to be working. I won't talk about party, I'll talk about issue, and will hold the line there. Sorry, can't say I support a whole party.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Perhaps the writers of the Constitution weren't omniscient and thought the 1st Amendment was plainly worded and unambiguous?


I doubt they inked something and said, "Eh, looks good, whatever".


There is only confusion about what it says because you want there to be confusion. What is says, and what it means, are plain and clear. None of the men in the paintings wanted a theocracy, regardless of their personal convictions, and many of them were not even Christian.

There was no confusion over the meaning of the 1st Amendment when it was penned. Washington took the separation so seriously that while President, he did not even permit himself to be seen engaged in religious activity in public - while in official capacity or not.


Originally posted by saint4God
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779


"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." --George Washington, treaty with the nation of Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and ratified by the United States Senate on June 10, 1797

Which quote shall we take to reflect Washington's true position, the one made as a diplomatic speech trying to convince the Delaware Indians not to join the British, or the one codified into law?

If there was any question what the 1st Amendment meant (which there wasn't), the treaty of Tripoli certainly clarrified it.


Originally posted by saint4God
Does that sound like a separation of church and state to you?


Indeed it does. You would do well to keep in mind that the founding fathers were politicians. Political speeches and unofficial diplomatic letters should be taken with a grain of salt.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
While it's true that the majority are Christian in the US, it isn't true that everyone who is a Christian believes the 10 Commandments should be plastered all over the place.


I don't see why this makes any difference. We all have the right to opinions.


You have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to compell others to aid you in spreading your opinion. That's what this is all about.


Originally posted by saint4God
You mean they're not the actual stone tablets Moses brought down from the mountain?! Egads! Why didn't anyone say something before?


Surely your not as daft as that.

They are generally not the version found in scripture. Most of them have "Thou shalt not covet" as the 10th commandment. You commit idolatry when you erect one of these monuments, and you also violate the edict of Deuteronomy 4:2 by falsely representing the text.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join