I thought that was an excellent response.

The original author of Seperation of Church and State:

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's"
-Jesus Christ

Simply put, history is just that, his-story.

AND THEN KFC POSTS A QUOTE FROM BARTON,



Note the word "individualism" and with that I would suggest that individualism means in more cases often than not, "me, myself and I". We have come to the point in America where once individualism "melted into the pot" however, not any longer. Every individual is asking what's in it for me (but with someone else being responsible and paying for it). We've been divided along lines of our race, gender, age, and now with anti-discrimination and hate crime laws according to our sexual practice. It's a big divided mess we are burying ourselves in.

Even if another event happens, it will just continue to divide us. "It's our own fault" vs. "It's the terrorist's fault!" We're so divided now that there's nothing that can bring us back together. Like a watershed in Switzerland, half of us went to the cold waters of the North Sea, the other half to the warm waters of the Mediterranean.

The religion practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries.

When Adams was president and signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated in article XI that "America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" ---he was basically saying that our nation was founded not on the Catholic religion, but on Enlightenment ones. In 1776, only a small number of Catholics lived in America and not that many Jews. The US was a Protestant nation and it remained such throughout the 1800s.

History, not the revisionists kind, has shown the Pilgrims (devout Protestants) and Puritans were quite intolerant of any religion other than their own.

Lula,

This reminded me of something. The great French Statesman Alexis de Tocqueville came a few times all the way from Europe to visit this new nation. This would have been in the 1830's. He wanted to see America and see what set it apart. When he finished he wrote about his experiences and summarized what he found. He said:

"In the US the sovereign authority is religious there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature then that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on earth."

He also said this and I thought this very interesting:

"I sought for the key to the greatness and the genius of America in her harbors, in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and in institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and the power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

In order for us to remain great we need to stand shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm united as one and say to the rest of the world.....united we stand, divided we fall. We will NOT be divided. We will not fall. Let us be what God has enabled us to be; what he has called us to be. One Nation Under God.

Thank you for reminding me of Tocqueville. He was quite the man in his time. The way he described America at her beginning brings goose-bumps especially right before the 4th of July. It's almost prophetic what he wrote of America's destiny, KFC. " America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."



He returned to France and lived through the dictatorship of Napoleon III. He wrote just as brilliantly of the despotic government and the French Revoltion. He seemed to have both a political and philosophical understanding of history and he seemed to understand the process that dooms nations.

now that there's nothing that can bring us back together

I refuse to believe that there is no hope for mankind. But I hate to believe that the current situation happening around the world with a possibility of a 3rd World War may actually be our only hope. But that's just me, I watch too many Sci-Fi TV shows and movies. But it's what makes most sense to me.

my citation of samuel adams' call to deny freedom of religion to catholics was this direct quote from adams' report 'the rights of the colonists' published in 1772:

"The only sects which he (locke) thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed."

i wasn't refering to the puritans attitudes nor to john adams (snf certainly not john quincy adams just in case anyone decides to go there).

the pilgrims weren't fleeing catholicism nor were they proponents of religious tolerance for anyone but themselves. later in the year before yall begin cranking up the annual whinefest about how we're only a court order away from banning such religious icons as santa claus and christmas trees, spend a lil time researching just what kinda go-straight-to-hell-do-not-pass-purgatory-and-collect-$200 disgusting blasphemers those pilgrims would find you to be for engaging in your so-called traditional christmas celebrations.

rem acu tetigisti!

v.omnis populi sapien
r.ora pro nobis

Kingbee posts:

The quote helps clarify your point.

We know that the States had the power to prescribe State religious establishments and the sole purpose of the First AMendment was to prevent the federal government from usurping this specific State power.

What happened was while, constitutionally, America allowed the free exercise of other religions, the overwhelming majority of those were Protestant, Congregationalists to be exact and religious issues fell within their grasp. The Founders as well as those who set up State government were fearful, in some cases, even hated, the aspect of Catholic doctrine which they viewed as repugnant. And why would this be surprising? After all, Protestantism ever since the 1500s had revolted from all things Catholic, especially Catholic authority in the form of the papacy.

The American Revolution was a movement away from foreign power and authority. I imagine they viewed Catholics as those who have allegience to the "foreign power" of Rome in the same way. Perhaps this is over simplificatin and perhaps I'm wrong, however this is the way I see it. It's still basically the same today. American politics isn't overly tolerant of the "ideal and values" of practicing Catholics who are in communion with the Pope in politics. Just look at all the flap that came from the recent Supreme Court decision to ban late term abortions known as partial birth abortion. We didn't hear much about the merits of the decision itself rather with the fact that it was 5 Catholic Justices that brought it to bear was the headline.



Kingbee, I think this has already been adequately established.

Awww, Come On, Man,

There is No ACLU, fella! The ACLU is a bunch of American People who have their own vision of the way they feel Americans should be entitled to live, and they stand up for their beliefs! The ACLU has NO agenda beyond what you see in their literature and hear from their representatives. I've been a member for over ten years now, and I've never heard any indication from anyone in the group that they are "EVIL!"

What does it do for you to "brand" some other groups of Americans as this way or that way? I mean, KFC, what are YOU a member of? Sounds like you might be a member of a Church group or maybe a Republican Group. Is that close? Well, why couldn't I, or anyone else, brand YOUR group as anti-American, or pro-Socialist, or anything else?

I can tell that the thought of enlightenment scares you, but I have a suggestion: Go read the entire set of Winston Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples" Yes, you will find in the amazing historical reference the entire melding of our particular ancestry, that is, Western Man, and I don't mean California. Here in this set you will find, once and for all, the events that caused Christianity to be the guiding light for birth of our civilization. Yes, America would not be what it is if not for Christianity. And, of course, it doesn't stop there.

But you treat this legally established group of Americans as some kind of Leper. They don't deserve this disdain. The ACLU did NOT write the Constitution; our Founding Fathers did, and they did it on purpose. But because there are those in America today who are moving to usurp many of the rights granted under the Constitution, the ACLU has to Act! And, probably if they didn't Act there might not be anyone to act.

As it is, you castigate the entire group of Americans who make up the ACLU as if you want to line them up for lynching, so it looks like you, KFC, who is the Bigot here!

Ok, you really had to go the easy way and call me a communism? Talk about being brainwashed..

Legalizing abortion was the right thing, because many woman were aborting anyway. Either you find it moral or immoral is irrelevant (and my opinion is too). However, it is immoral to blind ourselves to these very un-lawful abortions commited by these women, which often treathened their lives. Legalizing abortion allowed them to do it in a safe way, and I totally agree with trying to keep these women safe.

I do not need a God (or a minister, or a church) to point me what is good and what is evil. Atheist people can be much more morale than believers, since their morale isn't dictated, it's chosen.

Ask a religious fanatic what's morale. His sense of right and wrong is absolute and un-conditional. He didn't asked himself what's right and wrong, he's been told. That's why I consider believing people who have your kind of attitude to atheism as immature moralist. Like children who believe in Santa Class because they never had the chance to believe otherwise.


If you try to impose any churches' value on the citizen and it's state, it means that some other people that don't believe in the same thing that you will be imposed your belief, which is wrong. A godless state is the only thing that promotes fairness to everybody, may they be believers or non-believers. A godless justice/moral is based on moral axioms and developped around it in a logical pattern until a proper set of rules is applied.

Where the believer's morale has been dictated by someone else's, and he never puts in in question. I may think abortion is immoral as a mean of contraception. However, I may also think it's sometimes the lesser evil. I have a friend who was totally against abortions for minors without their parent's consent.

I talked to him about this situation (he dates a vietnamese, which means he knows asian culture pretty well): Imagine a 17-years old viet girl who fooled around with a guy, and stupidly fall pregnant. Do you think the girl will either:

1- Carry the pregnancy to term
2- Ask her parent for abortion
3- try to abort in ANY WAY possible, without her parent's knowledge?

If you forbid abortion for the minors without their parent's consent, the #3 will happen, and there is a lot of chance that young girl will ending up aborting with a long metal spoon, and having her health treathen because of it.

My friend agreed with me that exception should be allowed. He hasn't had his morale dictated, he has to think it.

Religious morality cannot see these distinctions. They would have rather seen the girl either thrown out of her house because of her indiscretion, or put at a serious health risk.

legalizing murder is the right thing, because many people are murdering anyway.

Is suicide still illegal in the U.S.? It was, because of those stupid christian-values.

They legalized it in Canada, because they saw that it didn'T really stopped people from doing it, lol. However, when someone commit suicide, now, he's no more charged; he recieve psychological help. Which is a much better approach, IMHO. Atheist for the win.

Abortion was a self-inflicted wound, considered illegal. They made it legal, so people could receive help into making it much less letha for the woman. No murder

First, yes, suicide is (in some states, not all). Second, I was showing you the absurdity of that argument. Just because people do things does not mean it should be made legal.

But third and more importantly, it should be for the people to decide. That has yet to happen in the USA. Contrary to popular belief:

1. Abortion was not illegal in the USA prior to Roe v. Wade (just some states).

2. Reversing Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal in the USA (just some states, and even then it does not look like a majority of them).

So if you want to make abortion legal, let the voters decide. I know that is a radical concept in a democracy, but it has been shown to work on occassion.

Why would they force psychological help on someone for doing something LEGAL? In America people receive psychological help as well.

What you're saying, basically, supports my position. You're saying that as an atheist you HAVE NO morals. If your morals can change tomorrow and by various circumstances, then you HAVE NO MORALS. You are, then, AMORAL.

You can laud the superiority of atheism all you want, cikomyr, but you're arguing against yourself in the very arguments you present.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS"

CIKOMYR POSTS:

Cikomyr,

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Translation: Your talk is like Communism.

In your scenario, the most innocent one of all, the baby in the womb, pays the heaviest and most severe price...the death penalty. How about counseling the 17 year-old girl and giving the option of carrying the baby to term and giving the baby up for adoption? Isn't that a win-win situation, Cikomyr? The best possible thing the girl can do for her body is deliver the baby (as being pregnant isn't a disease). She delivers a life into this world to live out all life's choices, something our mother's allowed us to do.

You do know, Cikomyr, that women die from abortions...and the complications afterwards, oh my? Breast, ovarian, and uterian cancer...deep depression, suicidal tendencies, infertility, the list goes on.

If you forbid abortion for the minors without their parent's consent, the #3 will happen,

says who? Before 1973 adoptions were more prevalent. There were girls I knew that got pregnant. Some kept their babies and some gave them up. I know of not one case personally where they tried to abort their baby. Not saying it wasn't done, I know better but I think it was more the case they went thru with the pregnancy,......including Jane Roe in 1973 who was Norma McCorvey and the lady who was behind this whole thing to begin with. She gave birth to a little girl and never aborted her own child.

Legalizing abortion was the right thing, because many woman were aborting anyway

ya, let's just keep lowering the bar....I'm afraid that what you said here is the way of our society. Give the people what they want, not what's best....so if it's drugs....let's just legalize it anyway because they are doing it anyway. Let's allow 12 year olds to have sex with 40 year olds....it's being done anyhow. Let's just put it on the books.

Put the bar down another notch. Heck.....let's just throw the whole bar away. We don't need it anymore.

So if you want to make abortion legal, let the voters decide. I know that is a radical concept in a democracy, but it has been shown to work on occassion.

Ya, let's just put this to a vote. Let's get radical.

that's stupid talk, and you know it. I am not talking about making everything perfectly acceptable and legal within our society. I am talking about creating a solid regulation of abortions. If abortion is illegal, then anybody can go breake the law in un-sanitarial condition. If abortion is made legal, then people will come to the authority. You can always make conselling session obligatory for women who wants to abort, so they do not on a whim.

Legilizing something gives the room for any measures of counselling, backgroung checking and the suches. I can't say I like the abortion measures in some states, because there aren't almost any. But I hate even more the state that made abortion totally illegal, because it prevent the women who wants to abort.

(for the other arguments up-there, I'm gonna answer to them later. But it still stupid to call me a communism just because I want godless institutions. Is France communism? Am I a communism even if I believe in a lot of capitalist things? (even if I studied financial mathematics - with a lot of pleasure - ?!?) You just say stupid populism arguments trying to discredit what I have to say)

Let them go break the law in unsanitary conditions. If we catch those Drs, lock 'em up. Murder charges. I don't know what to do with the mothers, though. I just don't know.

Counseling only works for those who want to counseling. So making a session or two mandatory won't work, and if you make too many sessions then it will be too late for the abortion anyway. Actually, I like that. Must attend 42 weeks of counseling before having an abortion.

where in all this are the babies' rights? She had a right BEFORE she got pregnant NOT to get pregnant. She shouldn't have the right to kill her baby after she made her decision for the sake of the life inside her.

There are so many ways NOT to get pregnant...including abstaining, that we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

In NH they just passed a bill that parents DO NOT have to be notified of their daughter's pregnancy. I think this is so wrong. She could die having an abortion and the parent's would have no clue nor a chance to rectify the situation. I know if it were my daughter, I would NOT be happy she got herself pregnant but I would do everything I could to ensure the child was treated humanly making a decision that was best for both daughter and child.

Abortion is not the best solution for either mom to be or baby.