Deang

Rollerballs aside, I thought maybe it was a good time share my dirty secret with you all. About 6 months ago I was getting ready to drop some big dollars on Cardis interconnects. My eyes then fell on Audioquest, and some of the things they were saying at there website prompted me to give myself a crash course on how electricity works. I work two 12 hour shifts on the weekends, and ended up giving myself 48 hours of online instruction on electricity and how it works. I also spoke with several electrical engineers at work about some of the things I was learning. I am by no means an expert, but even a rudimentary understanding of how electricity works should lead one to see how ridiculously impossible it is for a power cord, speaker cable, or interconnect, to make any difference as far as any component is concerned. If one is convinced that the reasoning behind the benefits of high-end cables sounds feasable, then I would respond by saying that any benefit supposedly gained, is lost at the binding posts, clip wire, tin soldered connections at the drivers, crossover(s), and the internal wiring at the RCA or balanced inputs/outputs of any component. However, there can be no benefit. It's complete nonsense. Personally, I don't care how long this guy has been working in a studio making recordings. A recording engineer is NOT an electrical engineer. Of course, it all comes down to what we hear, and I certainly believe that people hear differences. I will say that the differences are real, however, they are not related to anything that has to do with electricity. Like I say in the referenced thread -- belief is a powerful mechanism. However, I no longer believe that a person hears a difference merely because they convinced themselves there is a difference -- because they dropped big money on a cable(s). Rather, I believe most audiophiles are conditioned to believe that if they make ANY change to their system -- there will be a difference -- and so there is! However, I also know from experience that a cable tweak can seem dramatic -- but when I remove the said cable, the degradation is nonexistent. Doesn't this beg the question? Ed, I would just ask you: Did your wife just sit down in front of your system and exlaim -- "Oh my gosh Ed, what did you do! The bass is so much better, the treble goes on forever, and the soudstage is so much more expansive!" "Check it out honey, it's these little balls! No, not those! These!!" I think voltage changes in the AC line, and barometric pressure, are greater factors in day to day changes in the sound of our systems than anything else. As far as doppler effect goes -- all speakers do this, but horns certainly to a greater degree. The effect is caused by the listener's head rotating 360 degrees while seated at the listening position. It's also caused by having a listening chair which rests on casters -- being blown across the room by any amp playing in excess of 5 watts. The wavering tones you hear while your head is rotating is "doppler effect". f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 07-02-2002 at 09:27 AM

Justin -- I never realized Canada had so many people living in it. You really didn't have to cut and paste the whole Canadian phone book. She's pretty. Can sing too huh? "Garbage and Pink"? Anything I would like? ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Buy watts by the pound ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

I hate to sound insensitive but the production and utilization of goods and services, the trading of those goods and services with other countries -- is what keeps everyone employed and makes the world go around. A little less of all these things and most of the civilized world is in serious trouble. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 07-01-2002 at 10:29 AM

May the wings of God's protection and his grace shine upon her! ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

I'm sorry Craig, but Ed has already agreed to accept my $120 for it. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

That's certainly interesting. I wonder how old The Motto is?"f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?ampstube&1030657330&class&3&4& ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

All and any speaker will benefit from being pulled out from the back wall somewhat. 18" is good. 24" is better. 36" is best. However, you could go as close as 12" to the back wall and be O.K. It really comes down to preference. The closer to the back wall you get the more bass there is, but the soundstage suffers miserably. Pulling them out increases soundstage depth at the sacrifice of some bass output. It's best to experiment to see what you like. I like mine out into the room. f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 09:02 PM

I'm depressedf>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

That was built back when Pioneer really cared about how things sounded. They used discrete components and a big ole power supply in that monster. It's a 2 channel receiver with multiple speaker hookups right? It probably weighs more than your multichannel Outlaw. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Now justin, that question is atypical for you. See Ed's sig line f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 07:37 PM

Mine! mine! mine!! Everybody back off f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 07:36 PM

Jim, Is it a stereo receiver or audio/video receiver (2 channel or multichannel)? How many watts per channel and how much does it weigh? f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 04:53 PM

The "God" references weren't added to the currency, pledge, and motto until the 1950's. Did you actually read the whole thread before you posted? We already covered everything you brought up BTW - welcome to the forum. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Agreed ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

rotflol "...God can look out for Himself." Very profound Tom. So, should we expand the thread to include the other topics? As far as the Middle East goes -- When Saddam went to then Ambassador to Iraq, April Glasspie, to complain about Kurwait pulling oil out of his oil fields, and to warn her that if they did not cease -- he would invade Kuwait -- the official U.S. response was: "The United States has no opinion on Arab to Arab conflicts." Until the United States begins to address the multidimensional dynamics of the problem over there -- our Middle East policies will continue to be ineffective. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 11:28 AM

Agreed. So... "In God we Trust", using the Bible to swear in witness in court and public officials for office, Chaplains in the Military, Chaplain and Chapel residing at Capitol Hill, and the 10 Commandments and figure of Moses at the Supreme Court building, ...will all be challenged at some point. It is just a matter of time. The issue regarding prayer in schools, and the exercise of religious freedom in schools is also interesting. Apparently, we have been led to believe by some elements of the 'Religious Right' that God has been kicked out schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is true is that there has been in fact great latitude given to students and teachers. In fact, there is so much latitude that is almost easier just to state what they cannot do. School staff cannot be used to supervise or lead religous meetings on school property. However, students are free to meet and practice their faith on school property. Schools cannot initiate involuntary or voluntary prayers. However, students are free to pray and express their religion at any time -- as long as it does not intefere with normal school activity. Students are free to pass out religious literature, as long as they have made school officials aware of it so they can set up a single point of presence, like a table -- where the students can pass out the literature. Students are free the share their faith with other students who are willing to listen. However, they cannot corner someone who does not want to listen, nor can they use the message to 'harrass' individuals. Teachers can actually use the Bible in class for the purpose of teaching comparative religion. They can also use it to teach history. Sience teachers cannot teach "Creationism". However, they can use elements of Creation Science that are "scientific" in nature for the purpose of presenting a balanced "view". Some good examples of this can be found here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/ Many of these articles are strictly from a scientific perspective. At any rate -- things aren't as bad as some make it out to be. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 10:09 AM

I have been doing nothing except reading and soul searching since yesterday on this. I never realized just how complex the issue is. I've actually spent the better part of the day studying the historical aspects of the amendment, and as of an hour or so ago, I have been digging into the grammatical aspects. In spite of Ed's and Gil's enlightening posts, along with some great information on the web -- I'm still wrestling with an issue. These men apparently did not believe they were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the amendment when they were incorporating and exercising their faith while at the same time carrying out their official duties for the people of the United States. They prayed on the House and Senate floors, they preached Scripture while presenting arguments, they built a Chapel inside the Capitol, they assigned a House Chaplain, etc.. If they believed in an all encompassing level of separation -- then Houston, we have a problem. Now Ole Forrest may be a little abrasive, but he has a valid point. It seems these men placed as much emphasis on the Free Exercise Clause as on the Establishment Clause. While they could not make a law concerning an establishment of religion, they also could not make a law regulating the expression of it. This fact is probably why they felt no conflict with the Establishment Clause of the amendment while exercising their faith on a daily basis on Capitol Hill. I'm leaning towards the idea that Congress has no constitutionally delegated power to make any law concerning matters of religion. However, they also can not make a law regulating the expression of my faith, whether that expression is private or public. Incidently, it should be noted that one of the reasons they provided no constitutionally delegated power in this area, was because they wanted to leave it to the individual states. This means that the states could work freely in this area but the federal government could not -- so, doesn't this beg the question as to why state laws are struck down by federal courts when they involve a religious matter? I've been reading from the following three sites. Enjoy. f>s> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm http://www.schoolprayer.com/eduguide/current_law.html http://www.wallbuilders.com/ f>s> Sinatraf>s> Tomorrow we will talk about metaphysics and Mr.& Mrs. Flatf>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 09:23 AM

Great posts. Fini, you're a trip. I'm with you Max -- I'm really happy where I'm at, and pretty much was as soon Mobile turned me on to the AE-25. The 9000ES and SVS upgrades were sure nice too though, but I'm done for a while. It's all about the music again. I just don't have any desire to do anything else with the system -- though I have two amps now, and I'm thinking about some Heresy's to go with it down in the basement. You guys listen to some really wierd music. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Great post Gil, and that's pretty much what Ed is saying too. I get it, I really do, and I really agree with the both of you. I definitely do not want government involved in my, or anybody else's religious affairs (except the Satanists of course I just think references to God used in the context of our history should remain intact. We ought to be able to say The Pledge, sing God Bless America, Oh Purple Mountains, and the like -- without someone completely freaking out and going to the Supreme Court. I'm certainly not going to feel like my religious freedoms are being assaulted if the pledge is changed back to the way it originally was. Jeepers, I almost forgot that that was what this thread was about. Well, it was sure fun exercising what little of my brain I have left. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Ed, It wasn't my intent to use the quotation of the Supreme Court in the 1892 decision to prove we were a "Christian Nation". I'm actually with Roadhawk on this one -- going to church makes one a Christian about as much as going into your garage makes you a car. I agree with him in equally applying this to a country. No, my point with the quotation, as well as Washington's from his Farewell address -- was simply to illustrate that for the better part of 200 years, no one had a problem with religion being excerised or expressed in government. When I followed up with the "what they said they meant" statement, I was specifically speaking of the Framers -- not the 1892's Supreme Courts statement. My point here was that we have access to documents written by the Framers, that gives insight regarding their intent related to many things in the Declaration of Independance and The U.S. Constitution. I mean, they even wrote letters back and forth to each talking about this stuff as they were hammering out the details. Regarding the 1892 decision, I have not had time to research it yet -- but you are very emphatic that an injustice was done. I absolutely see your point, and based on things you have related about it so far -- I am inclined to agree with you. The court should not have have sided with a Christian just because they were Christian. That is in fact the very thing the 1st amendment was designed to prevent. We agree here. Your post is excellent -- and we are in much more agreement than disagreement. However, I see no problem with government aiding the church in propagating what is good and proper. This is in fact what laws are anyway -- a framework for acceptable conduct in all areas of civilized life. You see, we have freedom to do "right", we do not have "freedom" to do wrong. So, how can government propagate what is right and moral -- without religion? That was George Washington's point. You said, "...I think all Americans have to protect against any one religion or combination of sects from imposing their symbolism upon us as the 84th Congress and President Eisenhower did." Why? The symbolism reflects our national heritage. It also represents much of the reasoning used by the Colonists to revolt against the British Crown. So then, the atheists choke on the word "God", but they are free not to speak it, and they have no religion but their non-belief, and they are free to practice it and lead their lives however they choose -- so how are they violated, and what rights have been breached or surrendered? They are splitting hairs! Maybe America should bar people of religious orientation from running for offices of government because their bias' impact how they vote on various legislation. How far do we separate church and state? The paragraph where you state: ...a government declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right is a definite WOE! ... for it advances a religious view of some of the people over all of the people. Sorry "righteous trampling" over the religious freedoms of my fellow Americans in the self-proclaimed name of God... no matter how devout you may be... is not what America is about in my opinion. Salvation and morality are personal issues that don't need a Constitutional Amendment for God's acceptance.... ...gives me pause. It's a great point, and I find trouble in deciding how to respond to it. Your last statement I am in complete agreement with, and can only say that I don't believe leaving intact a bare minimum of references to this nation's Godly heritage is a form of "righteous trampling", or the advancement of a "religious view" over all of the people. To me, it is simply an acknowledgement of our origins as a nation. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Eric, Many of these quotations were used as precedants by the Supreme Court in the 1892 descision. They show us the minds of these men, and reinforce the idea that much of what constituted government from their point of view -- rested on the foundation religion. On the other point you brought up regarding the meaning of the clause "respecting no establishment of religion", -- it's not so much my interpretation so much as it is Thomas Jefferson's, who I quoted directly. It is clear that he was thinking in terms of denominations -- because they had all been in the process of positioning themselves to become the "official" church of the New Republic. However, I do believe the meaning can now be broadened somewhat, since we have such a melting pot of belief systems in this country now -- without doing harm to the original meaning. The spirit of the law remains completely intact. I would like to let it be known that though I am a Conservative, I do not align myself with the Christian Right on several issues. I do not believe in forced prayer in schools (because Godly people can pray anytime they choose, after all -- The Apostle Paul said to "pray without ceasing"), I'm on the fence regarding vouchers (because the loss of this money to the public school system is detrimental to their existence -- and we need them), and I certainly don't believe someone should have to utter the words "under God" if it is not what they personally believe, or if they find it offensive. I find it extremely offensive that atheists and evolutionists misrepresent historical facts, distort scientific evidence, and use the courts to beat us down because they do not want our voices to be heard. When we fight back, WE are accused of attempting to legislate morality (of course, no one ever stops to think that even something as basic as a stop sign is a form of "legislating morality"), and brainwash our kids back into the dark ages (because we would really like our kids to know they have value, and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by a Creator who loves them). The irony is that they see no problem using their belief system to change the way people think. BTW -- can anyone explain to me why Atheism is NOT a "religion"? "Religion -- a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe." So, they can propagate their belief system, which can't even be reconciled with elements of basic biology -- using governmental agencies -- but we can't. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 08:54 PM

HornEd Why are you mixing elements of the arguement? I feel that some of what you bring up doesn't really relate to the issue, or maybe I'm not getting where you are coming from. There are some who say this is a "Christian Nation" stated in the majority opinion in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. in the Supreme Court of 1892... I need to go back and read more about this case because it seems to have you pretty torqued. At any rate, we are NOT a "Christian Nation", but we are a nation with Christian roots and a Godly Heritage. I think there is a huge difference between those two statements. I don't believe The Framers were trying to create a "Christian Nation" -- but I do believe they felt it would have to be mostly comprised of a virtous, religious people for it to succeed! "That case reversed a lower court that held that the law applies equally to legally organized entities whether or not they are churches. The Supreme Court ruling was that a Christian church and a Christian minister were above that law in that it was the intent of the founding fathers that this be a Christian nation even if they didn't say so. Setting aside the actual case for now, let's instead focus on why the court might have thought this. "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." -- John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." -- John Quincy Adams "There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy." -- John Quincy Adams "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." -- Samuel Adams "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, and which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and which insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -- Charles Carroll of Carrollton "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Ben Franklin "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from tis unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one of more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." -- James Madison "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind." -- Thomas Jefferson "I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers." -- Thomas Jefferson "Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience." -- James McHenry "To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them." -- Jedediah Morse "It is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's." -- William Penn "The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." -- Benjamin Rush "If we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity." -- Daniel Webster "The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts." -- Noah Webster "Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both." -- James Wilson "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet." -- Robert Winthrop f>s>In "Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. -- the Supreme Court Justices cited 87 precedents. Frankly, it is quite likely that such shameful bias and disregard for equality under the law that caused the framers of the constitution to leave God out of secular government. Hardly, a 'Constitution' outlines the system of fundamental principles to which a nation will govern. It simply defines the mechanisms government will utilize to do its work. BTW -- the amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution, and the 1st amendment covers religion -- so, it would appeard God was not left out of your 'secular' government. I covered that in my last post so I'm not going to go into it again here. That is the kind of edicts that came out of the officially Christian nations of Germany and Spain under the guidance of Adolph Hitler and Francisco Franco. You are confusing state-church, political Catholicsm with Evangelical Christianity. A government using and controlling a religion for the purpose of using religion as a means to bend a people to it's will, is a far cry from a government acknowleding the Creator and incorporating religious beliefs in the excercise of its duties and functions. Sadly, despite all the rhetoric of God's Love and Guidance of a Favored Nation, brute force and economic bribes still seem to be the most compelling reasons for nation's to change... even as it was in the time of Moses. You are right, however, we cannot blame the Creator because people willingly choose to ignore His instruction, or choose to use their faith as a shield to hide their wickedness. To that end, more people have been slain in the name of Christ than for any other cause. Run the numbers on that have you? I would say that many have been killed using Christ like an advertising label to champion their cause -- but the reality is that greed, hate, self-centeredness, and like -- are the real reason these things happen. The Christians on either side of the U. S. Civil War certainly gave us a more than ample sample of the polarization of religious differences even within the larger body of the Christian church. It sure sucks when that happens, but one side was definitely right, and the other side was definitely wrong, and the side that was right -- won. Being a Christian does not make one immune from deception. It gets even the best of us from time to time. In truth, it was much more than religious differences that brought on the Civil war. ...the early Christian Church has been splintered into an incredible number of often at odds sects.... Yes, but amazingly enough -- we all agree on what counts. I sure don't seeing me swinging a sword at a Baptist any time in the near future. I am strong enough in my faith that I need not have my religious tenets scrawled across my government. Give me a government with laws I can understand as a person... an petition to have changed any law that fails the "Golden Rule" test. Let the devout among us pray wisdom for our leaders, strength for our nation, and freedom, justice and equality for ourselves and our fellow Americans. Our government should continue to acknowledge the Creator of all. In the day they do not, it will mean our demise -- see Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Does anyone seriously think that an Almighty God would be so miffed at not getting top billing that he/she would prey upon the nation that his/her devout followers pray for? I hope not... for that would force me back to the Supreme Being drawing board. It's cause and effect Ed. Godly people create and support Godly principles and laws. Keeping pushing God further and further back into the canvas and something else will come forward and take His place. Also keep in mind that the sins of guilty create consequences that always bleed over onto the innocent. It's just the way it is. Does anyone seriously think that the best course for this nation as the lone remaining Super Power to declare itself a de facto Christian Nation and all the other religions or non-religions of the world could like it or lump it. Woe there, that's quite a leap. How about a declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right? To protect the down-trodden and help others? whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, or whatever -- we recogize a "Higher Power" to whom we are accountable. Atheists will just have to get over it. At least, with the honest division of Church and State, one can always vote their conscience and thereby honor their God and influence the guidance of this nation. You are way to intelligent to make such a statement. Vote for who? Godless people who sell you out every chance they get? You honor God by advancing the cause of good and by sharing His Son. You influence the guidance of this nation by changing hearts and minds -- to honor God. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 04:03 PM

Kev313, My comment regarding the Christian Right being a bunch of idiots and existing for the sole purpose of shoving our religion down everyone's throat, was put forth in the spirit of sarcasm. I mean, this is what people say about us. Our position would be that we are merely attempting to nail everything down before it all comes completely apart. You said, ...But consideration must be given to the fact that in 2002 America is much more religiously diverse than it was in the 1700's. Why should consideration be given to this fact. The use of the word 'God' can also be applied in the most generic sense -- and so in application would cover the religious beliefs of the greater majority, regardless of the particular belief system. HornEd brings up the polytheistic beliefs of some Native Indians, however, he fails to to point out the majority of Native Americans actually have monotheistic beliefs. At any rate, the use of the word 'God' perfectly conveys this idea that there is a Creator, whether personal or impersonal -- and that this country's foundational principles are bound to this idea. What arguement can be rightly presented that shows we should divorce this concept from Partriotism? You then said, "If we were to accept the logic of your argument, then one must also agree that slavery is ok because there is a historical basis for it. The framers were as much slaveowner as they were christian." There is no language in the Declaration of Independance, or the Constitution, or any other document the Framers were involved with, that can be used to show that slavery was an integral part of the process of governing. The point that everyone seems to keep missing is that the Framers themselves seemed to have no problem whatsoever incorporating religion into the governmental process -- yet we are to believe that their intent was to completely divorce religion from government? Does religion have a place in government? I believe that constitutionally it does not. Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion. The term God is absent from the constitution. Like most people, you left out the part in the amendment that is actually the key to its true meaning. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This COULD mean many different things depending on how one defined the word "respecting" in this context. How are we to understand it? 1) Congress can make no law relating to the establishment known as "religion". 2) Congress can make no law showing favoritism over one religion over another. I believe the weight should be given to the latter, since this would naturally have been the concern of everyone involved. At the time, the Colonies of both Virginia and Massachusetts had churches which were being supported by taxes and 'state' sponsorship. We have correspondance between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamn Rush, also a signer of the Declaration of Independance, that explains what his concerns were. It is clear from this letter that the specific verbiage utilized in the 1st amendment was to prevent the establishment of a government sponsored, or backed religion -- more specifically, the government backing of one particular Christian denomination over another. "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 through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."f>s> Using this letter to Benamin Rush, and then laying it along side the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the head of the Danbury Baptist Association, we can draw some very strong conclusions where Jefferson stood on this. We do not need to wrestle with the grammical construction of the amendment at all. "Gentlemen, -The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."f>s> The "wall" of separation was not for the purpose of limiting religious activities in public. The "wall" was put up to prevent government from interfering with religious expressions and activities. Obviously this is true, for just about every one of these men had calluses on their knees from the amount of praying they engaged in on the House and Senate floors, schools used the Bible to teach kids how to read, and The 10 Commandments were EVERYWHERE. So, based on these things -- what are we to think THEY thought about this part of the 1st amendment? So, the present day interpretation of "The Wall" is in fact the TOTAL OPPOSITE of what Jefferson meant by it. I say that if Jeffersons statement is to be used, it should be used and understood in the context that he meant it. Also, consider that this was a PERSONAL and PRIVATE letter to a select group of individuals. "There is probably no other instance in Americas history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter, words clearly divorced from their context --have become the sole authorization for a national policy." -- David Barton ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 03:36 PM