Grrrr, the f---s in CA have made it illegal for me to...

[forresthump2]

"Capitalism eats this up because these individuals ravenously consume junk food along with junk ideas"

Clipped & Neudered, Come down off your mount of self-titled intelligence dude, the air's obviously too thin for you up there. LOL

What enrages ignorant libbies like C&N & tripud etc is that the 8 Year Slick dumbing down of America project is going down the tubes and meeting its bitter end. I laugh in your faces. MUHAHAHA This ruling's defeat only adds further to your losing ways. All I have to do is sit back & watch you libby losers *****. LOL

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[forresthump2]

"No one here complains about the pledge, as for one, its recognised as a symbol,

two, why not? Its not harming anyone"

Rat that why a more credible and less politically biased court will overturn such ridiculousness with de minimus. In fact the courts Should rule the entire Dem

Liberal Agenda as de minimus and Unconstitutional. Liberals suck and do more so as they get more desperate each day. Liberals are de minimus.

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[tripod]

Forrest, looks like you got a little overexcited with your word of the day. 3 times in 4 sentences!

Hump on Forrest.

Your buddy, Tripud

(I tried to change my name to that, but you can't modify your userid. Bummer)

This message has been edited by tripod on 06-28-2002 at 12:53 PM

[forresthump2]

Actual it should of been "de minimis" but i put in the "u" in your honor tripud. Good luck selling those lowly speakers for that price. MUHAHAHA

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[Roadhawg]

Dean, I agree with your assessment. It is easy for those of us who are the beneficiaries of our Founding Fathers' efforts to do the Monday morning quarterbacking and say it would be better had they done it differently. You cannot rewrite history.

The fact is these were men with a deep faith in God which was a fundamental part of who they were, not a peripheral one.

The work they did in creating this country had a recogition of and reliance upon God as it's underpinnings. This country would not have been established without that belief. To say that this is not so is to deny what these men actually wrote and said.

Some have conceded that maybe that is what was said back then, but our country has changed and those views are out of step today, pointing out that slavery was also accepted back then. That is a valid point of discussion. My response is that I believe there are some absolutes in this world that remain true regardless of our changing society, preferences or values.

Gravity is one example. No matter how much I resent the fact that gravity holds me down, it acts upon me without regard for my opinion. The sun rises in the east daily with no concern for my opinion in the matter.

I believe that the existence of a loving, forgiving God who is actively involved in the daily affairs of man is an absolute. I further believe that the accomplishments of this nation descend directly from our foundations upon Christian principles.

With regard to slavery and other wrongs committed by our Founding Fathers and ourselves, it is my belief that one of the most remarkable characteristics of God is His respect for our freedom to make choices, even horribly wrong choices. If you accept that an all powerful God exists, how amazing that He will not override our free will.

There are consequences for not following God-I believe we as a society are seeing those daily. Just as there would be consequences if I decided to put water in my car's engine instead of oil or if I decided to defy gravity and jump off a building.

Our Founding Fathers did not make this stuff up. They recognized where true freedom comes from and built a country based upon that belief. It works. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. This system works despite imperfect people.

Clipped and Shorn-I presume from your posts on this topic that I would be part of the mysterious, stupid, closeminded, antagonistic "they" that you have been referring to.

You don't define the group very clearly, so I have to make assumptions, always risky even with more information than is presented here.

"They" seems to include anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. You know, it is possible to disagree with someone without being stupid or unenlightened.

I'll tell you a true story. I used to live in Southeast Houston. A "truth seeking scientist" who was pretty high up in NASA came to the pastor of my church to ask some questions about Christianity. He was not a very happy man, but extremely intelligent. My pastor said this to him: "Would you say that you know 10% of everything there is to know in the world?" The man replied that no one person knew that much. By his own admission he felt he knew less than a fraction of 1% of all the knowledge in the world if even that much. To which my pastor then said: "I'll answer your questions if you will grant me that somewhere in the more than 99% of knowledge you don't possess, there may be something I know that you don't know."

That man became a Christian.

I tell that story because of the tone you take with people you appear to consider unenlightened. Consider the possibility that you may be wrong or guilty of flawed logic.

Case in point-you wrote:

"Mr. Horned expresses himself with thoughtful intelligence.

"Certain afflicted individuals not possessing the ability to comprehend him resort to calling him liberal."

"Ergo liberal is another word for thoughtful intelligence."

Here is the flaw in your cause-effect reasoning. Make the following substitution for statements 2 & 3:

"Certain afflicted individuals not possessing the ability to comprehend him resort to calling him a refrigerator."

"Ergo refrigerator is another word for thoughtful intelligence."

I happen to disagree with Horned on this subject. I do believe his argument is both thoughtful and intelligent as are all of his posts. The fact that I disagree with him on this issue doesn't lessen my respect for him or make me think he is stupid. We simply disagree on this subject. I enjoy people with strong well thought out opinions whether they agree with me or not. I also enjoy being around creative people. I spent 5 years as a fulltime musician creating music. So I don't seem to fit your stereotype even though I'm sure you would consider me part of "they".

Your negative view of capitalism seems out of sync and somewhat hypocritical given the fact that you're using a computer and visiting a high end audio forum, both of which would not exist without capitalism. Kind of like talking animal rights wearing leather shoes and a fur coat.

My advice would be to shore up your position a little more rather than resort to blanket erroneous characterizations of groups of people you don't know just because their views don't match yours. It almost makes you seem a little, I don't know... what's the word? Bigoted, closeminded, intolerant, hateful, arrogant...no wait, that's the rest of us isn't it?

[tripod]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forresthump2:

Actual it should of been "de minimis" but i put in the "u" in your honor tripud. Good luck selling those lowly speakers for that price. MUHAHAHA

---

I am truly honored. Actually I'm thinking about BUYING those lowly speakers, not selling them. Just thought others might be interested. If you think those are bad, you should see what I'm actually using now.

[HornEd]

Once again, it is refreshing to realize that, perhaps, hundreds of Forum members and lurkers of various religious persuasions and national origins have visited this thread. And despite the rockets "rad" glare or the "bums" bursting in "err"... many shades of what it means to be an American have been reflected here. It has been a time to take stock of what was, what is, and what ought to be... from our own deeply held personal perspectives.

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. 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.

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. 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.

There are those who object to change in any form, and certainly this nation went through a long period of isolation from the affairs of the world community. But such notions seem grossly out of step with the interdependency of economic and military affairs in the now and, likely, future world. 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.

To that end, more people have been slain in the name of Christ than for any other cause. 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.

My purpose is not to disabuse Christianity, but rather to show that even well intended, devout, people acting for God have not proven to be infallible in war... let alone faith and morals. In fact, left to its own devices, the early Christian Church has been splintered into an incredible number of often at odds sects. Secular government already has enough flaws without adding the human frailties found rampant in religious organizations claiming to be the one God most favors.

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.

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.

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.

Our country is held suspect by many developing countries around the world whose people have suffered under the yoke of a religious state. Religion does far better as a matter of conscience than as a matter of law.

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. -HornED

PS: Isn't it great to live in a country where we can speak our minds (or parts thereof )... on a corporately sponsored Forum... and have an opportunity to learn from other people's understanding about audio and life.

Four pages of commentary in so short a span of time speaks to the importance of the issue. That we can disagree with each other on surround choices or the inclusion of the words "under God" and still enjoy a mutual respect that transcends our differences. Thanks Klipsch... for providing this broad spectrum opportunity to be more than we were at first lurk.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-28-2002 at 01:53 PM

[forresthump2]

"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."

Dont get it huh horny? That's what makes the ruling so senseless. Leaving 2 words in a traditional saying does not make this a DeFacto Christian Nation and forever kill the minds of our youth toward religion. You have to be a fanatical Lib like you obviously now are to make such ado about nothing.

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[Deang]

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

[HornEd]

Not so, Forrest-who-would-make-any-other-cHump, I would not presume to impinge upon your rhetorical territory.

the issue, as well you should know, is the prsumption that this nation was built by Christians for Christians. And, no matter what the Constitution or the Pledge may say, the "intent" of the framers gives the 1892 court license to treat a Christian entity acting contrary to the law with a Christian alien differently under the law... even when the law expressly reads "any alien"... makes liberty and justice for all a compromised American value.

How that openly biased and patently unfair decision speaks to Christian morality and ethical jurisprudence in the highest court in the land... escapes me. Somehow I would like to believe that the Golden Rule test of our Constitutional fairness is not intended to be... the one with the gold rules... even if that "gold" be the world's most popular religion.

deang has given us much that is obviously both fervently held and insightful. He has said that he believes that "Congress can make no law showing favoritism over one religion over another. And I think he is dead right about that... but, perhaps, we do not agree as to whether "under God" meets the favoritism test.

.And, further, we may not agree as to how the spirit of not favoring one religion over another affects the efficacy of using the 1892 Supreme Court action of overturning a lower court decision on the grounds that Christian inspired actions would not have been deemed to be a breaking of the law by the founding fathers. Particularly since it was used as a rationale for legitimizing official government positions which reflect an official Christian bias in a de facto Christian Nation. deang's caused me to rethink my own... and was certainly NOT a cause for me to hurl rude, crude and flaming remarks his way.

I respect deang as a person, as an audio aficionado, as a Christian researcher and, even more, as a man devout in his faith. I do not believe that by our disagreement I have proved to be any less devout in mine. (Oh, BTW, on that Native American religious issue... I thought the case for monotheism to have been already well established by Christian example. -H.E.)

So, FH, play your silly games, spout your kiddie names, rant your hack, show your lack... it won't be the first time a thread gets cut short by your not being able to stand up to the realities of reasonable differences. May you learn that prey with an "a" is far more welcome here, IMHO. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-28-2002 at 03:11 PM

[forresthump2]

Takes a Hack to know one Horny. And every political comment you've made here shows only you're just another Liberal Political Hack. One also has to question your santity for making such a big deal about nothing. And you went 1st chump.

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[kenratboy]

Back to my topic of a need for a basis, there are others.

-The years is 2002 AD., is that not bases on the birth of Jesus Christ?

-Reguardless of the names used, in school, we get a week off at Easter and two weeks off for Christmas. Reguardless of religion, this is a travel time appreciated by all.

-In a funeral of an unknown person (the cheap graves), isn't there usually a cross to symbloize the grave, and the burial traditions are bases on Cathloic practices.

These are bases that we use. We cannot live in a totally universal and unoffensive world, or there would be nothing. We need to have standards, and religion just happens to be the case for some of them.

Its not evil or discriminitory, just a way to make life easier.

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

[Deang]

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

[badbob]

Ok, OK, OK!

Here is my response - - There is 2:1 ratio of responses to the number of views for this thread. I don't think that I have ever seen this before.

Carry on!

[forresthump2]

"Why do keep mixing elements of the arguement? Much of what you say doesn't even

relate to the issue."

Dean Welcome to the Wacky Zany world of Horny. LOL He does that on every debate. Like any true Lib he trys to complicate simple issues to confuse while trying to make it Appear he's smart. LOL

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[Roadhawg]

I would not say that this or any other nation is a Christian Nation. By definition a nation cannot be Christian any more than a car can be Christian. Christianity is an individual decision everyone must make for themselves. Much as I want for my children to be Christian, that is a choice they will have to make for themselves when they are old enough to understand.I will tell them the truth and do my best to persuade them but ultimately the decision will be theirs.

While this cannot be a Christian Nation, it is undeniably a nation founded on Christian principles.

Which brings us to the rub of the matter. Are there abuses by people claiming to be Christian? Absolutely. Have their been wrongs done to others by Chrisians? Absolutely. However, this does not detract from the rightness of those principles, it further illustrates the consequences of deviating from them. When asked what the greatest commandment was by people who were attempting to trick him, Jesus responded to love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

The atrocities committed in "the name of Christ" do not reflect at all on the dangers of Christianity but rather individual choices of greed and selfishness which are rationalized by tacking God's name onto it.

If I break into your house and steal your LaScalas (a capital offense if ever there was one) and say I'm doing it in God's name-it certainly doesn't mean God signed off on it. People can say anything.

You want to understand what Christianity is, look to its central figure, Jesus. He did not kill anyone, harm anyone. In fact, I believe He ultimately died for everyone, even those who hated him. I cannot think of a more noble set of principles to found a nation on than those of Chrisianity. Far from being greedy or self seeking, the Bible teaches if you want to be greatest, be the servant of everyone. The Bible is to me the most honest book ever written. No spin, even the Bible's greatest heroes like Moses, David, Jonah and Abraham are laid bare with all of their sins and the consequences clearly spelled out along with God's unchanging love and forgiveness in the face of rejection and defiance.

I do not believe the framers in either intent or action set up a process for churches or ministers to be above the law. In fact, the Bible is crystal clear on the fact that teachers and ministers are held to a higher standard of accountability than anyone else.

I know this seems somewhat off topic, but bear with me. Chrisianity is not an attempt to cash in a winning lottery ticket guaranteeing health, wealth and victory in every undertaking. It is a personal relationship based on what has already been given freely. It shows the highest respect for personal choice and freedom.

I do not believe the phrase "under God" serves to isolate us from the rest of the world in either economic or military matters. I believe in being respectful of others' beliefs and choices, but I don't believe we have to deny our origins to keep someone else from feeling uncomfortable.

The phrase "under God" recognizes what I believe to be a fact: there is a God. According to the polls I have seen the majority of Americans do believe there is a God. If there is, not only are we "under God" but so is everyone else on this earth. According to most polls I have seen, the majority of Americans believe there is a God. Whether we choose to follow Him is up to us.

[Eric D]

FH2: I believe from your words (Leaving 2 words in a traditional saying does not make this a DeFacto Christian Nation,) that you dont want a de facto Christian nation. My question to you is, how do we best communicate that to the world as well as to all our citizens?

Roadhawg and deang. Thanks for your considered and defended points

Roadhawg - one aside: I do wear leather (and just dont think I happen to have any fur outside of wool car seats) but I would still defend animal rights, but Im not a PETA member. Personal example: I dont eat veal unless I absolutely know the source wasnt via the usual pen-raised route. I have debated with a PETA member, saying that if I was visiting a rancher and he pointed out a calf frolicking across the pasture and said it was dinner that night, Id truly savor the meal.

But back on topic. Roadhawg said, I believe that the existence of a loving, forgiving God who is actively involved in the daily affairs of man is an absolute. I further believe that the accomplishments of this nation descend directly from our foundations upon Christian principles. I agree with that, both as the accomplishments have been good and bad. I feel that our countrys greatest moments have come when we have applied Love thy neighbor as thyself, and the worst have come when weve let Christianity make us feel superior to someone else. (I dont mean to bring scripture into the discussion I mean it only as discussion of the precept.)

Amen. A much more important point than the two words that started the discussion. But re, I don't believe we have to deny our origins to keep someone else from feeling uncomfortable, I would suggest that we arent just trying to be a country for the majority of Americans. The purpose of the majority is as the way we try to make difficult decisions through our vote. And sometimes the designers set the bar even higher so that it becomes even more difficult to affect us as individuals. As such, I hope we try to be inclusive of minority religions why should we cause them to be uncomfortable in a vow of fealty to our shared country.

deang said, We have correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, also a signer of the Declaration of Independence, 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 back religion -- more specifically, the government backing of one particular Christian denomination over another. I agree, but I have to ask why the words werent Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of one particular Christian denomination or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. His letter does illuminate the intent, and speaks to the specific problem; but they seemed to choose to write the more general case when they could have been more specific if they wanted.

And anyway deang, you said that this is your interpretation of the first amendment is 2) Congress can make no law showing favoritism over one religion over another. We seem to be in agreement since you didnt insert denomination there. But Im not trying to put words in your mouth I suspect from your later posting that it might be be your actual interpretation.

I got a bit lost in the later set of quotations. I guess to my thinking, a quotations usefulness lies in stating more succinctly some thought we have been unable to quite spit out correctly, rather than by weight of numbers. Taking them in sum, it looked to me like you were trying to equate virtuousness with Christianity. So I guess the next question you should essay should be, Is it more or less virtuous to be protestant or catholic?

Were probably rapidly approaching a parting of the ways. Thank you for the meat youve given me to chew upon. I know I will consider your words. I do think we agree on using our respective religious values to organize and to run the government. I know that if I was ever saddled with the weighty responsibility of governing, Id have sores on my knees as well, as well I would want the thoughts, prayers, and understanding of those I was trying to represent.

k-boy I always want to respond to you since this is your thread. Re: These are bases that we use. We cannot live in a totally universal and unoffensive world, or there would be nothing. We need to have standards, and religion just happens to be the case for some of them. I have tried to espouse fervently the use of religion as the basis for standards, and the basis for law. Im just against making one religion the standard of the country, even if it is my own.

And finally, BadBob: Thanks for posting and not running up the view-to-response ratio!

You all have a good weekend,

Eric

(just running around the outside of this melee throwing a few which appear to be missing but it makes me happy)

[forresthump2]

Eric who are you HornEd's Nephew? LOL I don't mind a nation that shows that its traditions are based on a deity sprinkled here & there. But that's a far cry from a "De Facto Christian Nation". Or was that a question to me instead of a statement it appeared as?

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[Eric D]

I was not trying to put words in your mouth.

You said earlier, "Leaving 2 words in a traditional saying does not make this a DeFacto Christian Nation ..."

I extracted (this being the stretch), that you didn't want this to be a de facto Christian Nation. If that induction was incorrect, the rest of this is moot.

But taking my assumption as fact, I asked the question, how would you best communicate that we are a country based on christian values but not a defacto Christian nation, to the rest of the world, and to our citizens?

Eric

[Eric D]

Oh yeah, and I forgot

No relation to the Horned one, but I did notice a while back that if you use my initials, I'm "ED" without the "Horn". Being hornless is not something I want to be on a Klipsch website.

Well, really gotta run now. I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! (he heads for the rabbit hole...)

toodles,

Eric