Separation of Church and State

originally posted by: roth1
Congress has a preacher there and prays.

The congress opens with a generic invocation to God.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain. We don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation.
~Congressional Records of our American founders, June 7th – September 25th, 1789

This is simply NOT TRUE! This is NOT from any records of our founders. It looks like you got this from Free Republic

The person who wrote that is Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA, a present-day Catholic Minister. From the article:

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

I'm sorry. Your lack of research has just made you look like the "ignorant" that you're hoping to educate... Deny ignorance, indeed!

originally posted by: Metallicus
I appreciate your history lesson. Don't be dismayed by those that hate the very idea of God. It is trendy right now.

I don't hate that others believe in such nonsense. It makes me sick that they are so gullible though. What i do hate is it being pushed on me, or in my face all the time. Keep your fantasies fine. but share them with those that choose to be a part of your cult not everyone. If you don't like being attack for your beliefs then don't make them public. Share where it belongs in your church, home, and with other of like minded willing participants in the proper forum.

Lets go back to the beginning to read the words once again:


On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it.( Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791,)

by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

( Article 2 concerning “varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives” was ratified on May 7, 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative, was never ratified.)



Transcript of the Joint Resolution of Congress, known as the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.



Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: roth1
Congress has a preacher there and prays.

The congress opens with a generic Inovation to God.

But, they shouldn't. IMO

There are secular invocations.

a reply to: Annee

As far as I know it is secular, even the Dhali Lama gave the prayer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Annee

As far as I know it is secular, even the Dhali Lama gave the prayer.

Is it secular if God is included?

For me it's not. There are many incentives etc that can be said without involving a God, any God, or God type reference.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus How is it generic really? Do they just mention god? No. Even it just a mention, in my opinion it should be there. But there go farther, they recruit a representative of the church to be there and pray. Like it was a church not a gov office. Should they say praise Satan and may Satan have your soul too. That would be fair. I do believe that would be unacceptable by most. And i don't see the difference.

a reply to: Annee

To me it is secular, but that is solely my opinion. As long as no specific name is mentioned; Jesus, Allah, etc.

God is just the word we use in English to signify Deity.

ETA: I have also heard the phrase Great Architect used which is what we Masons use in Lodge.

a reply to: roth1

I think you are preaching to the choir here. I agree that the government should be secular and if you'd look up the thread that came out a month or two ago that talked about the prayer in Congress, you'd see that I am in agreement and there shouldn't be any prayer there as well.

Though, I'm curious, why do you keep bringing up Satanism? You do know that what actual Satanists practice and what Christians call Satanism can be and usually are two different things right? If you look into it, it's actually kind of interesting. For one, there is even an atheistic Satanism. Satanism

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
For one, there is even an atheistic Satanism.

An atheist lacks belief, therefore an atheist also lacks belief in Satan.

The Church of Satan has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Let's just not go there.

a reply to: Annee

That's just one example of atheistic satanism. Here's another Satanic Temple - Goals

It's not about worshiping a being named Satan, but more about being tolerant of others and letting others do what they want to do without harming others. The probably use the name Satan to suggest that they aren't trying to be Christians. I personally am not part of this church, but just putting that out there. Don't judge a book by its cover. And yes these guys are an organized religion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Atheist is lack of belief in a deity -- period.

Hijacking the word for a personal agenda has nothing to do with what an atheist is.

Atheists are individuals. If an atheist chooses to adopt/believe in a philosophy --- that is his personal choice. As long as there is no belief in a deity OR the antithesis.

a reply to: Annee

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me about this. I know what an atheist is and I also know that atheist religions exist. I just gave you two of them. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant because those people in the religions say otherwise.

originally posted by: Annee
Atheist is lack of belief -- period.

Which is why the Atheistic Satanists use that moniker to separate themselves from the Theistic Satanists.

One does not believe in Satan (or anything else) and the other believes in Satan and various parts of the Christian and Gnostic mythologies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
Atheist is lack of belief -- period.

Which is why the Atheistic Satanists use that moniker to separate themselves from the Theistic Satanists.

One does not believe in Satan (or anything else) and the other believes in Satan and various parts of the Christian and Gnostic mythologies.

I edited my post, but too late.

There is atheist and then there is individual atheist philosophy. Two different things, with one required connection.

I'm fully aware of the Church of Satan, which is not atheistic, but there are atheist members.

This is going off topic. So, I end this discussion here.

originally posted by: Annee
I'm fully aware of the Church of Satan, which is not atheistic, but there are atheist members.

I was always under the impression that the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey was atheistic.

Either way, we are off topic.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Our founding fathers were mostly deists, not Christians. Stating that they were Christians is the lie.

That's very intertesting, I knew a little about Jefferson, not the majority, I'll read up on it more BH , thanks.

This is a strange subject as neither side has any proof that there is or is not a power greater than mankind out somewhere in the Cosmos, and there is no human like us hairless monkeys.

I can not prove that there is a God, and they can not prove that there is not a God.

Looking at the vastness of outer space, you can by a reasonable persons mind, believe that circumstantial evidence exist of a strong possibility we are not alone.

Knowing that the Universe has many Galaxies much older then ours, combined with the fact our technology has grown in a very few years to the level of our going into space, logic would dictates that there are beings that we may never understand what they are or are capable of doing...Like creating life from clay?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain. We don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation.
~Congressional Records of our American founders, June 7th – September 25th, 1789

Totally agree. Though i do not believe. It can teach good morals and principals. So can parents without it. Problems with the religion itself is that there are extremist in every group that try and force it on others, and that is the point of this. Most wars around the world are all about that forcing it on others and knocking down all other views. Although Christianity is thought to be a good and just thing by many. Christianity has probably killed as many or more people than any other religion to promote and stifle other religions throughout the years. All while having one of its founding rules broken. Shall not kill. Wouldn't it be a good thing to p promote your religion by simply following the principals it entails?

This is simply NOT TRUE! This is NOT from any records of our founders. It looks like you got this from Free Republic

The person who wrote that is Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA, a present-day Catholic Minister. From the article:

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

I'm sorry. Your lack of research has just made you look like the "ignorant" that you're hoping to educate... Deny ignorance, indeed!