--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 7/13/07 12:59:51 P.M. Central Daylight > Time, > > > > > do.rflex@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > As I've already cited, US laws are not based on Biblical > > > > > > laws. > > > > > > > > > > You were wrong and so were your sources. > > > > > > > > LOL! What a smug asshole. > > > > > > He's only "smug" and an "asshole" if he's wrong. > > > > IMO, there was more than enough smugness and > > assholiness to go around, on all sides of this > > silly exercise in "I'm right and you're wrong." :-) > > > > MDixon is right that Christianity was pretty much > > the only religion that the framers of the Consti- > > tution had in mind. At the time they wrote that > > document, if there were any Muslims in the country, > > they were probably slaves, and the small number > > of Jews were probably irrelevant to mainstream > > thinking. The nearest Hindu or Buddhist was > > probably thousands of miles away. > > > > That said, others were right that the framers of > > the Constitution were driven more by a desire for > > freedom *from* religion than they were by freedom > > of religion. They had just come, after all, from > > Europe, where humans had just demonstrated clearly > > the idiocy of governments declaring a state religion > > or religions *becoming* the government or government > > getting involved in religion in any way. They wanted > > nothing to do with that, and...uh...God bless 'em > > for thinking that way. > > > > IMO, spiritual beliefs just don't mix with govern- > > ment. Bad Idea all around, whether it's English > > kings inventing a church and imposing it on its > > citizens or Maharishi feeling all warm and fuzzy > > about mandating TM for citizens of a country "for > > their own good." Read what the Inquisitors of the > > past or the Islamic fundamentalists and Christian > > fundamentalists of today have to say and you'll > > find the same message -- "We know better than you > > do what is best for you, and we're so confident that > > our 'knowing' equates to 'truth' that we're willing > > to impose it on you whether you want it or not." > > > > Yeah, right. May they all turn out to be wrong > > about what happens in the afterlife and wind up in > > the *same* place, thus inventing Hell. :-) > > > > Me, I'll stick with those who feel (as the founding > > fathers of America did) that the only thing that can > > relate to a religion or a set of spiritual beliefs > > is an individual human being. They should be free > > to do that, preferably in private, and *certainly* > > not in front of a governmental body, grandstanding > > and imposing their individual "take" on spirituality > > on people who would be better served by being left > > to investigate their own "take" on such things. > > > > The whole *idea* of opening a session of Congress > > with a prayer is offensive to me, and to America, > > and to the founders of America, and to the ideas > > they stood for. It doesn't matter whether it's a > > Catholic prayer or a Protestant prayer or a Hindu > > prayer or an Islamic prayer or a Voodoo prayer or > > a Jewish prayer or a Native American one. That's > > irrelevant. The fact that some politicians are so > > eager to win votes by appearing to either support > > one religion or be against it is all that's relevant. > > > > America is NOT a "Christian nation." It is a nation > > founded as a *reaction to* and *rejection of* the > > idea of any state religion, and as an experiment > > to see whether such idiocy could be prevented in > > the future. > > > > Clearly it cannot. The most that those of us who > > have read some history and the writings of the > > framers of the Constitution and thus what they had > > in mind can do is to remind people what that was. > > The idea was simple -- "Believe whatever you want. > > Evangelize all you want, if you're given to that > > kind of embarrassing behavior. But DO NOT attempt > > to sway the government of the United States into > > evangelizing for you, or into mandating your beliefs > > for others. That is inappropriate in our country, > > and will not be tolerated." > > > > Several good quotes were posted, but not the one > > that describes what one of the main architects of > > America thought of Christians who try to use the > > government to promote their beliefs. It was in a > > letter to a friend, provoked by an attempt by > > Christians to take over a school system and promote > > their ideas in its curriculum. You can still read > > it today carved into the Jefferson Memorial, > > although few today remember its context, and *who* > > Tom was referring to as tyrants: > > > > "I have sworn upon the altar of god > > eternal hostility against every form > > of tyranny over the mind of man." > > > > Interesting post, thanks. > > The Jefferson quote prompted me to google it. Here is the paragraph > in the letter you allude to in which the quote appears. It is from > http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff04.htm : > > "I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not > forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, > that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present > dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease > neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many > to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it > would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms > against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be > softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it > possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the > prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, > while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom > of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of > obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' > the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, > every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians > & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country > threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of > power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. > And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, > eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. > But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their > opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets > against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, > &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to > rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, > for they are men of truth."
Here's another one: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." - Thomas Jefferson, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
