Removal of Unconstitutional Items

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Finally they are getting rid of that Ten Commandments thing. I really don't cae, but guess what? It is religous, and is in a Government owned building. Seperation of religon and government.

But now they trying to pass a new amendment saying christian stuff alright as long as christians want it. Anyone else is going to hell, going to hell and is going to die there.(not really g to hell, but close enough)

What I don't get is part of it allows the under god in the Pledge. But the Pledge never had it until later, it originally didn't have under god, which is going against the seperation rule.

Then, if religons can influence the governments so much, why don't they pay taxes? They can do whatever they want, they can order the mass of sheep(aka followers) to vote for this guy, but never have to pay taxes. They want to change laws to make anything they consider wrong illegal yet don't have to pay the membership fee.(taxes)

Hopefully the constitution holds. Really hate the politics to be influenced by something that should stay out of politics since they don't pay the membership fees.(taxes)




posted on Sep, 4 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The reason for the whole "seperation of Church & State" thing has to do with the fact that our Founding Fathers didn't want to show "official" favoritism to any single religion...One of the reasons they left England in the first place was because they wanted to worship as *they* saw fit, not the way that the Church of England told them to.

However, the guiding principles of this new country had to have a *moral* & *ethical* backgorund to guide by. They wrote the Constitution with the mind that the federal government had only *limited* authority to protect the fledgling country, conduct foreign trade & to settle disputes between states.

If you *really* want the "Removal of Unconstitutional Items", then you'll seek to remove the whole government structure as it stands today & replace it with what the Founding Fathers intended all along; After all, the Consitution describes a Repuublic form of government...And we're a long cry from having that!

Any lesser goal (such as this controversy over the 10 Commandments being displayed like that) is nothing less than another attempt to further divide the Citizens on a minor issue in order to *distract us* from solving the *real* problems of our time; Divide the Citizens over minor issues & conquer more power from them while they're distracted. They use the "division" of Dems vs. Reps for the same purpose...After all, does it matter which party wins the majority if the Citizens *always* wind up as the losers?

The key behind the bigger problem though is to return our country to a gold-standard economy, getting rid of the srcip-based & credit-based (because it has *nothing* of value to back it up) economy we have now.



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 06:46 PM
link   
*Sigh*
Why is it that nobody seems to take the time to study beyond what they are told by those contemporary pundits with agendas ?

Again, there is no such thing as a "Separation" rule. If you bother to read what the "evil white men" that created this form of government said, you'll understand that they had no desire of there being a civil war over what "sect" is the official religion. The nation was never meant to be areligious, as a matter of fact, it was intended to be a Christian religion. Even a cursory review of the nation's documents an early history would makeit abundantly clear that the nation is founded upon the Judeo Christian system of belief. A society is based upon values and morals of some type, whether it be this nation, Iraq, India, Japan or some primitive culture in the depths of the South American rain forest.

Judge Moore di not violate the constitution. The ten commandments are the base of our judicial system.

Understand, whether you find that the last forty years of liberal assault on this nations very soul to your liking, it is not what the Founders intended. Quit hiding behind the very document that you despise and attack it from a frontal assault. The deceit does nothing but take away whatever credibility you might have.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Do you agree with this Thomas? Should we only be a Christian nation without respect to other religions?



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Do you agree that a house divided will fall?
A culture is a group of people with commonalities, correct?
Whose system of morality and standards do we use?

This nation was based upon a particular set of ethics, morals and principles. As all sets are not alike, one nation cannot cater to all of them and remain one nation.

The 1st Amendment has been used to support ideas not meant by the Founding Fatehrs as ideas for this nation. Trouble is, when they wrote the Bill of Rights, it was assumed the citizenry understood the intent, and as that was probably true then, it is certainly not true now. And since most people rely on others to tell them what the constitution and Bill of Rights says (Let alone the Articles of Confederation, the first shot at a governing document), you know darned well they will not take the time to read the actual words of the Founding Fathers in other documents, letters and speeches. This lack of knowledge allows those with evil intentions to slowly destroy this nation, and with it, the original form of government for this nation.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Tom, you must realize that the central principle of America is division. A house divided constitutes a democratic government. What would you prefer, a Tyranny? Where everyone is united under a central priciple governed by an unquestionable leader. You dont want that, do you? It is because we are free to worship of our own choice that we are democratic, and having a religous statue in front of a governmental institution influences our choice of religion. Plus, having no seperation between church and state opens up the government to influence by religous leaders. The founding fathers saw what happened to european countries that had been secretly and openly governed by priests and demagogues and did not want that to happent to their freely democratic state. Think about it Tom, seperation of church and state is necessary in a democracy, the founders wanted it that way.

xAOS



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
Tom, you must realize that the central principle of America is division. A house divided constitutes a democratic government. What would you prefer, a Tyranny?

Actually, TC is more correct than you're giving him credit for; The US *was* founded on solid religious principles, but the key to the whole "seperation of Church & State" is that the Church itself would have no official say in how the government conducts itself.

Even though the US government was *founded* on the basic tenants of a certain religion, the actual Church itself would not be allowed to control it. The Founding Fathers actually fled from a country based upon an "aristocratic rule by divine favor"...They didn't want to see their new country saddled with the same problems.

I think where most people get this issue confused is that they're not thinking about what the difference is between "separation of *church* & state" & "the separation between morals & leadership". Th *leaders* of the US should have a good degree of morals & ethics to help them carry out their duties to the nation...But those very same leaders should not allow the Church itself to dictate their actions.

Xaos, in your post you seem to infer that the Founding Fathers of the US *wanted* a Democratic form of government; If you actually read the Constitution, you'll see that they envisioned a *Republic* form of government...They wanted a "States United", not a "nation divided by the government".


[Edited on 16-9-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Excuse me, I meant that they wanted a government in which the people had as much of a say as the leaders. I did not think anyone would mind if I didnt tack Representative in front of democracy.

XAOS



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Thanks, M-D, you did a fine job at clarifying hwt I was trying to say.

Xaos, what I am attempting to suggest is not my position, but the position of the Founding Fathers. They in no way attempted to separate God from the nation, recognized the fact that our rights were given by the Creator and not from laws of men, but wanted no particular sect to be the recognized official curch of the land. This, by the way, did not mean that other religions other than the Judeo-Christian belief had equal play in the nation and its laws, but that the only way this experiment in society was even going to succeed was with Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and principles.

What has been attempted, that is, to remove God from the nation and any evidence of His involvement in the blessings of this nation, is a relatively new thing and in no way reflects what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and as a matter of fact, is in direct contrasdiction to what they expected. They had no way of knowing how lacking in knowledge we would become, or I imagine they would have been more clear in the documentation.

It should go without saying that a nation cannot operate while trying to cater to every principle of every religion, nor can it even maintain a moral code or foundation for its judicial system if it cannot even maintain its own identity. This identity crisis was not evident until the last few decades. Eventually, the nation will degenerate to the point where the judicial basis will be man's interpretation of right and wrong, and this foundation will change with the needs and to the benefit of the governmental powers.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I will again challenge you and any other Christian where the founding fathers used the word Christian or Christianity in any document or writing.

No, they used the word God which is all encompassing for all religious beliefs.

When you can't find the words let me know and I'll send you some smelling salts.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 02:47 PM
link   
.....I do not believe we should consider morals & ethics as tied to religion; whereas they might be more accurately said to be derived from them. else, we have excluded a slew of moral & ethical agnostics & atheists.

The judge in Alabama was wrong on several counts:
- Not his place to choose how to decorate
- Not following his chain of command after a direct order
- Inciting riot in a state building as a state employee
- That whole Judeo/Christian basis argument - it stopped holding water after the demographics shifted in this country



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 11:25 AM
link   
MMAW, I challenge you to study. You are incorrect by a far stretch. I have covered this at length, many months ago. Spoon-feeding those who do not want information that goes against either their personal agendas or desires, or goes against their mediocre public education does no good. By actually doing honest research to actually find the truth, you may learn. I'm not wasting time or enduring the pain of worsening carpal tunnel problems urinating in the breeze.

BT,
Whose place is it, the maid?
What do you think he's in, the military?
You feel that an unconstitutional ruling, violating both the U.S. Constitution as well as the Alabama Constitution, is not the provocation for peaceful demonstration (There was no riot or anything near that)?
You do not know that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. citizenry consider themselves of the Judeo-Christian belief (Even if many do not even understand what it is they profess to follow)? Regardless of whether or not demographics change, it is still what our judicial system is based. You want to change it? Do away with the founding documents and start over; its simple. Just do it up front, don't subvert and deceive.

Another thing, MMAW, the notion that the Founding Fathers were so stupid as to think that all religions can be brought under one umbrella and that such an umbrella can be the basis for one system of morals and ethics is insulting and ridiculous on its own merit.



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Again I ask you to show me anywhere in the Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights where the word Christian is used. It is not. I don't need to study those documents.

You may do all the studying that you wish. However, the truth is the word Christian, Christianity, or any other religion is not in the documents for a reason.

Am I not correct in this? A simple yes or no is the correct answer and I know which answer it is and so do you.



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 06:16 PM
link   
No smart arse 'n here, I just know your a 'Bama boy & that your a Fundamentalist Christian.
What I heard was that they were shouting at the crane operator and "praying for God to make it break down"!

Two things in 'Bama I know keeping you running for another beer: this Judge-in-John Ashcroft-clothing and a Repub Gov. calling for a big tax increase!!



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Again I ask you to show me anywhere in the Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights where the word Christian is used. It is not. I don't need to study those documents.

You may do all the studying that you wish. However, the truth is the word Christian, Christianity, or any other religion is not in the documents for a reason.

Am I not correct in this? A simple yes or no is the correct answer and I know which answer it is and so do you.


Again, you say you do not need to study, I say you do. You will find writings by the Founders and you will learn the story behind the documents. You will learn, for example, the the 1st Amendment does not mean "Freedom from religion", per se. Reamin ignorant if you wish, I'm not in the frame of mind to spoon feed one who wants to believe what he wants and merely wishes to brawl.

I will tell you once again, you are wrong and that you should trot off and do your own reading. You eventually realize how ignorant sounding you are at this time.

Bout Time, that is not what constitutes a riot and you know that. You want a riot situation around here? Be around the water coolers the Monday after the Alabama/Auburn football game! The morons can't spell constitution and couldn't guess which amendment guarrantees the right to a speedy and public trial if you gave their first 5 guess as freebies, but they can tell you the stats on each and every player of their particular team. Unfreakin' believable!

As far as that incredibly stupid governor is concerned, I'm tired of emailing and phone-calling the idgit-headed liar. You know what kills me? I mean really chaffs my arse like sandpaper and kerosene? These idiots like Ed Richardson, the grand poo-bah of Alabama Public Education Atrocity System, who is making an extreme killing with the future of a Six Freakin' Digit Retirement, talking about cutting back on the school system. Give me the darned knife, I'll help them trim some fat!
Don't get me started on this inexusable mess while I'm trying to enjoy a nice, cool one!



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 08:17 PM
link   
MMAW, do you know what Ben Franklin said about this nation and Christianity, for example? It is but a small snapshot of the entire background of the nation's infancy, but it is a theme that can be found throughout. Again, forget about that which the pubic-ed teachers flooded your brain. There's a reason why you were taught what you were, just as there is a reason why cattle go to the feed lot.



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 09:23 PM
link   
TC as strongly as you feel you are correct in this respect how would you respond to the contents of this link?

Quotations



posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Again, you guys are confusing the meaning of the words "seperation of church & state". The Founding Fathers wanted to let The People worship however they wanted...But the basic morals & ethics of the leaders of the country *should be* strongly be in favor of benefiting The People as a nation...Not to give the *organized religion* itself any say in how the government is conducted. The whole "rule by divine favor" screwed up the countries that they fled from...Why would they want to see that mistake repeated in the US? However, by speration of *morals & ethics* from the state, this is what starts atrocities like Crusades & Inquisitions. These problems were a direct result of allowing the Church itself to have the power to force conversion by mass-murder.

Yet, by seperating the Church itself from leadership of the government, but still demanding that the government strongly practice a high moral fiber, that should allow The People themselves choose how to worship whichever way they wish.

However, as much as Bush professess to be a devout Christian, he's shown more duplicity, arrogance & elitism than any President in any American history I can remember.

Bush is running this country like a corporation...And his own historical record shows that he can't even lead a company anywhere except into bankruptcy, and his position as Govenor of Texas is (at least) equally as botched.



posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I can pull up sites like that, Toltec, but from the other direction. Neither side's sites are worth two hoots as they are merely snapshots of history. Snapshots can be taken out of context, twisted and contorted to suit one's particular position.

The same Jefferson who is quoted in that link in reference the Virginia constitution, had a totally different outlook in reference to the University, and as well, expected the government to fund the spreading of the Gospel to the "savages".

The Treaty of Tripoly is exactly correct, if you know what it is saying, and the difference between the nation and the government. The District can, and must be kept as a corporation so that it may deal with other governments representing nations that are unlike and incompatible with ours.

Gotta go.



posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I was not taught anything but the basics in public ed.

Again, you have not answered my question about any religion being mentioned in the documents. The reason is because there is no mention. Just the basic, generic, GOD.

He is God of us all no matter what the religion.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join