America was not founded in Jesus Name.

Definitely wasn't, but starting with the Pilgrims, Americans have been having a great difficulty noticing, recognizing or respecting that.

Imagine! the audacity they had of imposing the Sabbath Laws on the native population! Now they want to impose Judeo-Christian morality on the entire nation; even on the pagans and atheists!

Interesting Dennis,
Is there someone else posting on your behalf? LOL!
I believe the pilgrims had documentation from the King of England giving them the right to use the land and charging them to proselytize to the natives, If we look at the individual colonies before the formation of the federal government and after many had the requirement that in order to hold public office the must profess a belief in Jesus Christ as savior.
Although the country as a whole is not a Christian country we can be assured that the society was.
And as for you comment concerning more current times...Who is trying to impose Judea-Christian morality on anyone?
If anything I see the secularists trying to drive any sort or Judea-Christian religiosity from the public square to behind the temple door.

Dan, may I congratulate you on finally having an accurate assessment of reality?

The Colonies were ruled by the law of England. In fact, the governors were appointed by the King. The revolutionary war overthrew and rejected that whole system, including the Jesus is Savior requirement for public office.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Now Dan, your facts are right. But applying them to any part of the USA after 1789 is an anachronism.

The Constitution is based on Masonry and was written by Masons. Our currency today has Mason symbolism, the US Capitol City is laid out in Mason Symbols. George Washington was a Mason. Masons have held positions of power and responsibility throughout our history. The bill of rights is a reflection of Mason Philosophy, and many Christian Churches, notable the Roman Catholics PROHIBIT communicants from being Masons.

Now you Know Dan, so start taking care of the gaps in your civics education.

Dan, you asked, "Who is trying to impose Judeo/Christian morality on anyone?"

Do I need to make a list, or will you take just a couple of examples? Lets Start with virtually every evangelical fundamentalist preacher, especially the televangelists. All the Right To Life groups. Every individual and organization trying to post the Jewish - Catholic - ten commandments on public buildings and on public squares. Virtually every individual and group seeking to restore organized daily prayer in classrooms and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and they basis for all the clamoring for Christ in Government is the false claim that Christians founded the USA for Christians.

Dan, I left someone important off my list. YOU.

You posted my list Karl. Except that mine did not include Dan :-D

Karl, & Dennis,

"Lets Start with virtually every evangelical fundamentalist preacher,"

Freedom of religion....Next!

"All the Right To Life groups."

Fredom of speech...Next!

"Every individual and organization trying to post the Jewish - Catholic - ten commandments on public buildings and on public squares. "

Freedom of Religion & the freedom of speech....Next!

Well I won't bother with the remainder of your post except to say that because someone expresses their freedoms doesn't mean that they are trying to force their ideals on others....Not like Obama and you progressives anyway Karl.

BTW Karl,
Personal attacks are expected but not effective.

". . . because someone expresses their freedoms doesn't mean that they are trying to force their ideals on others . . ."

It would be just great if they'd just stop at merely expressing their freedom of speech, however, they're attempting to get persons elected who will pass those laws, they're currently lobbying your congress to pass those laws.

Your Constitution currently says that no test of the candidate's religion should be imposed, yet let anyone try to get elected and not profess to be a Christian. If that person does not claim membership in a religion, what are his/her chances. If the candidate is Buddhist, what are his/her chances. How about if he/she is Jewish? And if the person is Muslim, he/she shouldn't even try for city council.

Dan, do you actually think that saying you were on the list YOU asked me to provide is an ATTACK? Now I wonder if perhaps you know that being on that list is Anti-American.
Freedom of Religion is guaranteed to you. It is also guaranteed to me. My religion says that no display of religious symbols or prayer or regulation is permitted by government or on communal property...what the government owns for public use. So, how does the government comply with both of our religions? Well the Government, by right of the First Amendment is prohibited from compliance with either.

Freedom of Speech. Same initial position. You have a guarantee, from the government, to speak freely. So do I. You asked who was trying to force feed Christianity and the people who say the nation is Christian are speaking freely. I am also speaking freely. So, you want to put a Christian symbol or the Ten commandments, beginning with the provision that I worship only your God, and say so. I say I don't worship your God and would appreciate it if you did not tell me to. You Can still tell me to, but you can't have the government join you in that endeavor.

Every organization trying to tell me to bow to or worship the Judeo/Christian God is practicing their religion by asking, and free speech by asking. I am practicing mine by saying no.

Yes Karl it's a common progressive attribute, to personally attack someone when faced with an argument you can't counter.

But as usual you also believe that "the more words posted wins the debate so you blather on with nonsense trying to validate nonsense.

Our Constitution the freedom of religion but you progressives are trying to make it a freedom from religion and are trying to drive anything related to religiosity from the public square to behind the temple door. History shows us the intent of the founders, and they would NOT support you progressives in hardly any of your agenda.
If there are any who can be classified as anti-American it is progressives as you all try to force your agenda on the rest of us.
Obamacare.
cap and trade.
the porkulus bill.

"It would be just great if they'd just stop at merely expressing their freedom of speech, however, they're attempting to get persons elected who will pass those laws, they're currently lobbying your congress to pass those laws. "

What is the basis of your comment Dennis? I don't think that it is true at all.

Dan, get this straight, I have a religion. I practice it according to the Tenants of it. I don't ask the government to help me practice it, and expect the government to stay out of my religion. You want the government to enforce yours. Well, if you want religion in government, you have to expect government in religion. I don't want religion in government because I don't want government in religion. You say I am trying to force you to not practice your religion. Well that is a lie. I am doing no such thing.

Dan, no one I know is trying to get laws passed to prevent you from the free practice of your religion. I know of millions who will do anything to keep the government from passing laws requiring them to practice your religion. And Dan, the Constitution Demands that the government allow both of us to practice our religions, and prohibits the government from practicing ANY religion.

The big example is the issue of marriage. The government has a role in the legal aspects of the marriage contract, but has no role in the sanctity of marriage. I can marry in a Justice court, and in many other venues. If I chose to marry another man, there are churches that will perform the ceremony of sanctifying the union, because their beliefs accept it. For the government to deny the contractural protections and obligations to those couples is a violation of their equal rights under the law. Your church will never be obligated to recognize them, or perform them, but your church has no right to outlaw them.

Dan, It is not possible to hold an HONEST debate with you. You deny what is widely visible. And claim that your denial is our fault.

Karl, It is not possible to hold an HONEST debate with you. You deny what is widely visible. And claim that your denial is our fault.

I'll just shoot that one right back to you Karl.

See Karl you progressives don't care what is, the most important to you is what you want it to be.....It's your holier than thou mindset.

the founders were perfectly fine with signs of religiosity in public places...but you don't care what their intent was you want the constitution to read the way you want it to read, you even consider yourself superior to the founders.

"and prohibits the government from practicing ANY religion."

So are you saying that politicians are not allowed to worship?

Gee maybe you should study up on some history where they (the founders) helsd WORSHIP every Sunday in the halls of congress until Civil war...so apparently you don't know (or care) about the intentions of the founders.

"Your church will never be obligated to recognize them, or perform them,"

Really?

"44 Catholic Institutions Sue Feds For 1st Amendment Violations ..."

They...Or maybe better said, YOU-ALL are already trying to do it Karl.

"What is the basis of your comment Dennis? I don't think that it is true at all."

There are several bases, but the attitude is well illustrated by the reactions I get when I state that I hate that gay marriages are allowed but would never advocate to have them banned. All the "fundamentalists" suggest that I'm being hypocritical. If I hate it, I should try to get it eliminated. (Can't imagine why I should)

Here's another: To me, abortion on demand is murder and to allow abortions on demand, the law must contradict itself, but I would never advocate for the repeal of those laws. That got several of then incensed with me. Their rage was very intense.

If they had my attitude, that of merely stating my opinion but not willing to push my moral code on the nation, that would be just great, but they want to have their moral codes imposed on the nation with the passages of laws based on those codes.

Dennis,
My position concerning gay marriage and abortion is the same as yours, but where I disagree with you is, I don't see;

"they're attempting to get persons elected who will pass those laws,"

Maybe on an extremely limited basis but not enough to claim that it is common practice.

Dan, just because a man is a politician, it does not mean that he is "the government" and therefore forbidden to practice his own religion. You are confusing two separate things and trying to make them one.

Perhaps you should take into consideration that there were and are numerous different religions in America. The various members all have the same right to practice their own religion. Not all the religions are Christian but even amongst the Christian sects, there are many differing beliefs. It is far simpler to not have, for example, any prayer in public schools than to pray to all the gods of each of the students every morning.

No one is trying to take any rights away from any Christian. I know they howl about some fictional war on Christianity every time they try to codify their beliefs as the law of the land and those who do not wish to be forced to practice Christianity say no. Christians should have some sympathy for the position of saying no since, in some locations, they have passed anti-Sharia laws forbidding Islam from imposing it's religious beliefs on the rest of us.

"Maybe on an extremely limited basis but not enough to claim that it is common practice."

You live there, so I'll defer to your opinion, but to us who live in other countries, that "limited basis" is so vocal, so opinionated, so adamant, they're almost the only voices we hear.

Susan,
please refer to my post Dan E. Jun 15, 2012, 6:59am EDT;
The current administration is trying to force religious institutions to violate their moral standards.

"44 Catholic Institutions Sue Feds For 1st Amendment Violations ..."

Dan, the suits are real. The issue is about people working for businesses that are connected to churches. Not everyone working for Catholic Hospitals are Catholics. And the people served certainly are not. EVEN Nuns are involved in the health benefit coverages -- in opposition to the Churches.
But you are right, the Administration is trying to force employers to recognize the civil rights of their employees.

Doesn't matter how you wordsmith it Karl,
The bill forces religious organizations to violate it's own moral code, it forces them to commit sin...It violates their freedom OF religion.

The Catholic church has already stated that they will shut down the operations in which they would be forced to violate their moral code rather than comply.
How will that effect the nation...........Lets just say that the day after any court supports this unconstitutional regulation millions of additional Americans will be unemployed....tens of thousands who are receiving help from Catholic charities will have to do without...

All for the presidents political agenda.

Then the Catholic church should shut down the businesses or what is more likely and sensible, sell them to the highest bidder and get the Church our of the marketplace. I am not what most people would call reverent, or religious Dan, but I do know that According to the ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE, Jesus tossed the business men out of the temple.
Evidently you believe that the temple businessmen should have, as they did, move into the marketplace. Well, if you are in the market place you play the game by the rules of the marketplace and not by the rules of the Church.

We both know full well that if the marketplace operated as the Church does, no one would be poor, because the market would be run for the benefit of the poor, and not the benefit of the marketer.

Karl, by now I hope that you recognize the truth in Thomas Paine's statement, "To try to discuss issues with someone who has rejected all reliance on reason is like trying to give medicine to a dead person." Then there is the other more blunt saying, "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Prov. 26:12, "Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for the stupid one than for him"

Prov. 23:9, "Into the ears of a stupid one do not speak, for he will despise your discreet words."

Prov 12:15, "The way of the foolish one is right in his own eyes"

Prov 15:12, "The ridiculer does not love the one reproving him. To the wise ones he will not go"

Prov 9:8, "Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you"

George, Dennis, both of you have me pegged.
I am learning, arguing with idiots has led me to telling the wise what they already know.
I don't have any motivation to change, at my age it's just not an issue, and it may be impossible anyway.

Dennis,
I have never seen you as an insulter before! It is something I have come to expect from the likes of Karl and George.
They resort to insults because their arguments are so weak.

In our country the freedom OF religion is paramount;

""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.""

I took the oath and will do my best to follow it....It's apparent who did not take the oath or worse took the oath and now breaks it....We know those people as dishonorable cowards.........That wouldn't be any one on this thread would it?
Karl did you serve your country and take the oath? George?

Dan, I took the same oath, and in the interest of following it, have made myself quite familiar with the Document, and it's amendments.
I believe that you can tell a lot about the character of a man by what he finds insulting, and even more by what he considers an insult to others.

Dan the truth is the only unpardonable insult. It makes us examine our faith.

So you have broken your oath...and we now know the limit of your character

Gee, I took that oath also, obeyed it for the six years that I served, now that I am honorably discharged I find no reason to feel still obligated to it ... in other words, I now think for myself.

Dan, I do issue insults from time to time. Those were not aimed specifically at you. You could apply it to them for the same reason they apply it to you :-D

Jerry,
yes, reading your posts I would have assumed you an oath breaker.

Dan, speaking of insults, you just made an rather simplistic attempt to deliver one. I really do enjoy observing your apparently unlimited capacity for Hypocrisy. You say that I am not bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Yet my only advice to you recently is that you take some time to learn what the document says, particularly about establishment of religion, and freedom of speech. Regardless of your right to urge, recommend, and campaign for the Government Adopting a religion, it would be Unconstitutional if your campaign succeeded. Now that is not my Idea of true faith and allegiance to it. Now, if you really want to get right with the Constitution you are going to have to accept the fact that you are perfectly free to practice a religion of your choice, but you are NOT perfectly free to impose it on me, or any other citizen or resident, legal or illegally in the country.
So, Dan, which of us, you or I, has taken a path of attacking the Constitution?

"So, Dan, which of us, you or I, has taken a path of attacking the Constitution?"

You have Karl,

I seek to understand the founders and their motivations, I don't just read the words and apply what ever definition suits my agenda like you progressives do.
The founders intended exactly what the first amendment states, that the government can not establish a state sponsored religion...It has only been in the last 50 or so years that you liberals have successfully changed the meaning of the amendment into a freedom FROM religion, where no mention or appearance of religousity is to be found on public property.

We only need a couple of constitonalist justices appointed to the SCOTUS to turn it all around.

You don't have a right to not be offended Karl.

Dan, I see that you wish to understand the motivations of the founders. Well the Constitutional Convention reached many compromises. Let's start with the first, or rather, "the Great Compromise." The intent of the founders from large states was to have a unicameral Congress with representation based on the population of each state. Those from the small states wanted a congress based on equal representation from each state regardless of population. The compromise was a bicameral Congress, the House and the Senate. The next issue was how to count the population. Non Slave States wanted to count only Free Men. Slave States wanted to count all Slaves. There was a side issue, and that was slavery itself. Well the intent of the founders was to maintain the slave system, to count 3/5ths of the slave population in the decennial census, and those were the compromises written into the Constitution. Now which founders do you think should prevail today?

The constitution is, and always has been the result of a series of compromises that resulted in a system that was acceptable, but did not meet the demands of any one of the founders.

Your claim that you wish to use the intent and motivation of the Founders is clear as fin glass. And the intent of the Constitution, as determined by the Founders could not be more clearly stated that it is in the Preamble, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to provide for the Defense and General Welfare of the nation.

My argument is that separation of Church and State benefits the Welfare of EVERY Religious person, or the general welfare, yours seems to be that the state religion should be Christianity.
Please take a moment to explain how your position would protect the welfare of these Founders, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams or Benjamin Franklin. All these Founders were different in their religious views. Jefferson was personally anti-religion. Washington was a Freemason, nominally Deist but excluded from the major Christian religions of the day.
Not one of the the nineteen Presidents from the Ratification till 1880, with the Possible exception of Washington, had ever been a member of a Christian church. Washington was a Member of the Church of England, but he was not a Communicant. He was a Free Mason, a Deist, but his status as a Mason excluded him from the Communion of Christians.

Now, what was that about the founders being hell bent on making the USA a "Christian Nation?"

You two are amazing me!

Dennis I amaze me sometimes. This issue carries weight in my universe only because I would rather Die than live in a Sectarian Nation. I would, and have agreed to, commit to war to give Dan the Right to worship as he sees fit, and would again go to the barricades to prevent him from imposing his practice on anyone who did not come to it voluntarily. I call that Defending the Constitution against all Enemies, foreign and domestic. Dan calls it treason at worst and disloyalty to the Nation at least.

Dan, I am going to point something out to you. It is clear you have decided to cherry pick the First Amendment, and that you have taken to heart the propaganda of those who would discard it.

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

Dan, note carefully the punctuation of that sentence. I have emphasized the first clause. It ends with a semicolon (;) and is made up of two parts, separated by a comma (,) and should be read as two equal parts of the single clause.

Dan, will allow that this is Cherry Picking the Gospel of Luke, I quote only a single line of Luke 18. It is the Commandments as given to the Wealthy man seeking Heaven. “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ Now, if that were all that was to be posted on the Courthouse Lawn, I would find no fault. I would leap at a chance to make the monument if it contained ONLY the bold face part of that scripture. That is the second clause of Luke 18:20.

Karl, for me the nation being sectarian would not be a problem. I have no problem even living in a atheistic nation. My problem has always been tyranny and tyranny has existed under every form of government devised so far. I believe, after very extensive reading of American History that tyranny has been what your Founding Fathers were attempting to eliminate.

I even suspect that at least Jefferson wanted a sectarian state, possibly Franklin would have preferred a sectarian state also.

"Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother." are universal laws. Every religion, every philosophy hold those as principles to live by. I wish we had that posted at the entrance and covering the walls of every courthouse in my country also.

Dennis, I am going to five you the benefit of doubt. I think you meant secular, not sectarian. If I am right, you are as well. If you meant sectarian, as in subscribing to a particular sect or religion, we have some issues to resolve.

Karl,
I do not wish to understand the motivations of the standards of the founders...Their actions establish that with out a doubt.
And as far as cherry picking goes it is you who is looking at what supports your position and ignoring how the founders lived their lives that counters your agenda.
It was that great American Deist Benjamin Franklin who suggested that the Bible be taught in public schools...Oh but you have to ignore that in order to believe that the founders thought back then like you do today....You also have to ignore the fact that the continental Congress provided land and money to establish religious outposts in the new territories or that the congress offered it's official recommendation on the printing of the Bible, or as I have already stated that the congress approved of the halls of congress to be used for religious worship on the sabbath for many many years.
You point to punctuation to "Cherry Pick" to as Thomas Jefferson said:

""On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 "

You Karl are "trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it,"

Correct Karl, I meant "secular" in the second paragraph. Many thanks for spotting that communication error.

Living in a country that subscribes to a particular sect or religion would not in and of itself be a problem for me. Its tyranny that is the problem every time, not sectarianism.

Ancient Israel was a sectarian society, yet in the laws given by Moses, tyranny was not allowed. The resident non-Hebrew was free to disobey all the religious laws with impunity (eg. check out Deuteronomy 14:21)

In case anyone wants to counter with Leviticus 17:10, that person should understand that Leviticus 17:10 shows clearly that a convert (proselyte) would be bound by the law. Leviticus 17:10 must refer to a convert otherwise the law would contradict itself.

When an Israelite man married a pagan wife, the pagan wife was free to worship any god she wanted with impunity. The wives were never punished for practicing idolatry.

Dan, I studied the Bible in Literature Classes. Or rather It was presented as an example of literary excellence. My public School English Teacher Mother taught -- in writing classes -- that ignorance of the Bible was a great handicap in writing, going so far as to tell me, in the presence of her students, that a working knowledge of the Bible was necessary for literacy in our culture.
You have a hell of a problem convincing me that Not going to a Christian Church should be a crime, and that knowing the Bible should be a requirement for graduation from school. I would counter that the Qur'an would have to stand beside the Bible in that mandate.

Et Tu Danny. In regards to squeezing meaning from the Constitution. Case in point, The mention of religion appears twice. First in "Article VI, Clause 3 "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This sweeping language, adopted at the original Constitutional Convention two years before the First Amendment's famous prohibition on "establishment of religion," left so little doubt as to its meaning that not even the most imaginative jurists or politicians have attempted to interpret it away. Except you Dan, think it's not there or has no weight. Jefferson KNEW better and said, as you so willingly quote, "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." And that spirit was one of compromise and liberty before all else. Then, of course, the second occasion, the First Amendment.
Dan, you are simply wrong on all points. The Constitutiona was NOT written in the name of Jesus

My Second Point, the Presidential Oath of Office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Congressional Oath is not in the Constitution but reads, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." It's not in the Constitution, and So Help Me God may well be optional, just as it is optional to Swear, or Affirm. For Enlisted members of the Army, I, (____________), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I suppose, with some authority, that the Oath, for Congress or the Military carries the weight of law, but they did not let anyone out of the Army for not Saying "So Help Me God." Nor did they press charges.

The Point, the Presidential Oath is not to God, but to the Voters.

Now to Benjamin Franklin, Raised an Episcopalian and apparently a Deist in later life was a member of a Methodist Congregation. In 1818, 30 years post Ratification, the Methodists and the Unitarians were virtually indistinguishable. Sort of saying a Deist is a Deist when it comes to Jefferson and Franklin.
"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district; all studied and appreciated as they merit; are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty." Ben Franklin. Please note, Dan, the phrase "studied and appreciated as they merit." And, if you will, notice that the Place of the Bible is in the house.

Dan, I reiterate, The United States of America was NOT founded in the name of Jesus. How Jesus feels about that he has not communicated to me. I'll wait for his word, not yours on the issue.

Karl,
You ignore what doesn't agree with your agenda, Franklin suggested the Bible be taught in every school. That fact in itself shows us that the founders didn't intend the first amendment to mean such a restriction as you suggest.
Again you focus on the words and try to manipulate the words into supporting your position...As you ignore the mountain of evidence that is in opposition to what you wish was.

Dan, Ben Franklin did not write, or approve or ratify the First Amendment. What he wanted was not what the Constitution allowed.
You seem to give some kind of prophetic power to the men who hammered out the Constitution with compromise and genuine interest in making a sustainable nation.
I really think you need to test your opinions against the facts. How can you say that I am ignoring anything? Franklin wanted the Bible taught in Schools. So did McGuffey, and the McGuffey's reader actually used Bible Passages, and Aesop's Fables and history stories to teach reading.
The First Amendment is perfectly clear. I would not object to your position otherwise.
AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED IN JESUS NAME. FULL STOP. END OF DISCUSSION. ANY QUESTIONS?

One doesn't need to be a prophet to read what the founders did Karl....But one does have to be in denial to ignore it....To say what the founders did doesn't mean anything.

The Constitution does allow for the Bible to be taught in the public schools, then and now, as a matter of fact I took a class in highschool (many years ago) titled the Bible as literature.
It's only your myopia that won't allow you to see the truth about our Constitution.

Nope! Karl, no questions, I understand the history I know the truth...I doubt you ever will.

Dan, The Constitution allows the teaching of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" it just does not allow a Public School to teach it as Gospel Truth. I suppose that a 5th Grade book report on the Bible would read something like your Mental Mambo around the concept of separation of church and state.
You argue like the McCarthy era Commie Hunters. Communists are Godless, therefor the Capitalist must be Godly.
Dan, it simply does not follow that secular government is based on Christianity. We are a strong nation that has survived for nearly two and a quarter centuries because the Nation has Resisted the temptation to unify under a single church.
We are strong because of secular moral, ethical and legal standards that may well belong in a church but are not from a church.
Take the widely accepted process of mediation in a civil dispute. It is widely used in family law, labor disputes, accident settlements and hundreds of other situations where compromise restores the injured and leaves the injurer standing. That whole process is distinctly Islamic. It's the foundation of the body of law called Sharia. Or the Jury Trial of a criminal complaint. That has roots in the ancient Pagan law of the Norse, the Roman and the Greek governments. Common law, the basis of much of the US legal system has its roots in the Norse and Roman Pagan religions. It gained its foothold in modern culture in Pagan mythology. So, if you are going to argue for a National Religion, why not argue for the Pagan traditions that rested on the laws of nature imbued with supernatural entities? Mars is the protector of Rome, seat of modern Western Christianity, and the protector of the Roman Legions. So why not revert to calling on Mars to protect our armed forces instead of asking Juno to do it? Perhaps you would prefer the Norse God, Thor, protector and guide of the Vikings to stand for Mars when asking protection of the Navy. Personally, I prefer body armor and drones to do wheret Thor and Mars might fail.
But have it your way, Jesus is your protector, and the defender of your person. If you're going to a gun fight load your pistol, and put your prayer book over your heart where it might do some good.

Something I seem to be missing here. Is it really not allowed for the bible to be taught in schools? If so why? Here in Jamaica, they teach the bible, the Q'uran or any "holy book" they please. My children were taught the teachings of Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, and the Rastafarians in school. What is the objection? Why the objection?

Dennis, the Christian Right is furious because where the Bible is taught, and it's permitted in the Public Schools with a limit, the teaching is limited to the literary and historical merits, and dogma is excluded -- scrupulously excluded. Schools are allowed to teach the Bible as "Something Some People have believed" in the same vein as they teach Greek, Roman and Norse Mythology.
Needless to say, some Christians get their knickers in a twist being lumped in with "Mythology."

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."
-- W.C. Fields

Doing a great job Karl.

Here's a little history lesson for you;

"The Origin of Republican Form of Government in the United States and the Hebrew Commonwealth by"
Oscar S. Straus

As you try to bullsh** your way past my point that you can't counter, which is that your interpretation of the freedom of religion is not what the founders intended and therefore your version is NOT valid.

"That whole process is distinctly Islamic."

You say 'well there are some similarities there so they must be related'

Sorry Karl as the above referenced source indicates our form of government was developed from a distinctly Judeo-Christian influence......Which BTW Karl pre-dates Islam by a couple of thousand years.

But as you blather on I'm reminded of this;

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."
-- W.C. Fields

Dan, in 1774 The Colonies were negotiating with King George and England for equal standing as British Subjects with residents of England. So, when George Washington said to the British General that Colonists would not feel secure or free without guaranteed property rights, he was talking about property, not religion. Washington was a Freemason.

The new United States, met in Convention to establish a "more perfect Union." The convention began about 10 years after the end of the Revolutionary War, and among other things they established a carefully crafted SECULAR government. Alfred Owen Aldridge has described Franklin as a confirmed Deist, who, in contrast to more militant Deists like Tom Paine, did not attempt to "wither Christianity by ridicule or bludgeon it to death by argument."

In the Constitutional Convention, Franklin entered a motion, "This Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?... 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." The Motion was voted down.

Rick Shenkman, "An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?", posted 20 December 2004 on History News Network website Might just interest you, as might this ARTICLE

Dan, I do not just shoot my mouth off. You assert revised history, and worse. Still, you deserve the respect of having your errors corrected.

Dan, Washington and Franklin were Avowed Freemasons. Jefferson may have been but he was not forthcoming on the subject. Freemasonry is the only "religion" that influenced the writing of the Constitution. THE FIRST "QUESTION" (as in matter for debate) for a Freemason is "In God We Trust." The dollar bill is marked with Masonic symbolism. INCLUDING "IN GOD WE TRUST." Washington DC is laid out as the Masonic Star, Masons are not required to be Christians, and many Christians flatly reject all Freemasons from their congregations.

The USA was not founded in Jesus Name.

It was founded by FREEMASONS.

The Masonic Dollar
"Some of the greatest names of the American Revolution were Masons: Ethan Alien, Edmund Burke, John Claypoole, William Daws, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, Robert Livingston, Paul Revere, Colonel Benjamin Tupper, and George Washington. Of the 56 signers of The Declaration of Independence, eight were known Masons and seven others exhibited strong evidence of Masonic membership. Of the forty signers of the Constitution, nine were known Masons, 13 exhibited evidence of Masonic membership, and six more later became Masons.

"There were many other Masonic influences in early American history: Lafayette, the French liaison to the Colonies, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason; the majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of "Army Lodges"; most of George Washington's generals were Freemasons; the Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the "Freemasons' Arms" and "the Headquarters of the Revolution"; George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic lodge, and the Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge; and the Cornerstone of the Capital Building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland."

As you continue to try to divert away from what our discussion is about.....I'll remind you.
The founding fathers intent as to meaning of the first amendment was that the expression of religiosity on governmental property was NOT restricted by the first amendment.
And in all of your postings and diversions you have NOT provided one shred of evidence that the founders thought the way you do.

Dan, that is pure speculation. And, (till now) the Supreme court has disagreed with you. Most of the issues have revolved around monuments to the Ten Commandments.

How would you feel about -- maybe I should ask differently -- What do you think about this as a "substitute" for the Ten Commandments, "We the people affirm;

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Thomas Jefferson was not an atheist, but he certainly wasn't a Christian. Ben Franklin probably wasn't an atheist either, but much of his religion was like most Christians today in that it was used only when it was handy. He used it to justify what he wanted to do.

Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian. Ben Franklin probably was not, for the reasons you detail. George Washington was a Mason. The Catholics and I believe the Anglicans of that time, and perhaps the Lutherans would not have a Mason in the communion. The Unitarians would, and still will. The Catholics still won't.

If churches had influence on the Constitution, they were the Unitarian and Congregationalists movement. In other words, Free Thinkers. But the single most influential organization was the Masons. Influence to the extent that the city of Washington, DC is laid out in Mason style.

Influence of the Masons on the foundation of the nation are manifold. Even our paper money is covered with Mason symbolism. Calling a Mason a Jesus Freak might get you into a pretty serious fight.

Actually, from my reading, I would describe Jefferson as a Deist more than a Unitarian.

Well George, Jefferson said he was a Unitarian. That's the best evidence I have, but I invite you to discuss this with an expert, Ron Stevens At the Unitarian Universalist Group on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204654293/10150949400769294/?comment_id=10150949596499294&notif_t=group_comment_reply

Many tanks for that Karl. I also though Jefferson was a Deist.

So did I ....

Jefferson openly admired Christian values, but also openly criticized institutionalized Christianity and its claims to divine revelation.
In an 1823 letter to John Adams (during the "Second Great Awakening"), he wrote, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Dennis, Jerry, Ruta, I am a Unitarian, have been since early childhood. Unitarians are Deists...in general...And Jefferson was a Unitarian. Masons, I am named after a 32 degree Mason, are also Deists. The Universalist Church is (or was) vehemently not Christian. They merged with the Unitarian Church in 1961 (maybe 62) after nearly a century of negotiation.
In a nutshell, and without going to deeply into dogma, cause the Unitarian Universalists are very weak on dogma, Unitarians have always held to the Socratic method for learning about Life, the Universe and Everything.
I would invite you to the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations for information on the Present day Church, and if you find interest in pursuing the matter, a congregation near you. Or, if you would like current discussion debate, and recent sermons from around the English Speaking World, To the Facebook Unitarian Universalist Group
George Washington was a Mason. He was denied communion in virtually every Christian Church of the time. Masons are Deists. It is a requirement of the Order. Jefferson was a Unitarian, an early version of the Unitarian Church, but a Unitarian. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were members of a Congregational Church that merged easily with the Unitarians. I don't have a complete list, but the Masons do have a list of Masons who played major roles in the Development of the USA. And the Catholic Church will not admit a Mason to the Communion. The Same may be true of many Mainstream Protestant Churches. Ask them, not me.

Karl, I am a Mason, and I am the only Mason that I know of who is a Deist. I know a few who are Catholic, but they don't flout that as they might still be excommunicated from the Church in some areas. All the rest of the Masons that I know are Christians.

Karl, thanks for the links (and the rest of the info offered), I have reviewed there and related links, finding a congregation about 80 miles from here that sounds appealing.

I have always admired the UU (and Unity) and Masonic principles ( I have and have studied, Pikes Book concerning Morals and Dogma through the 33rd degree)

Thomas Jefferson attended religious services in the "House" every Sunday in his second term along with his vice President John Adams.
What is important is that he did not see the presence of religiosity on public property to be a violation of the first amendment as the progressives wish it was.

George, Franklin, a Mason, said, up to a month before his death that he "doubted the divinity of Jesus."

The American People prefer their illusions to knowing the truth. Illusions are more fun.

And much more comfortable :-D

LOL!

I have to agree Larry.

And there is this:

I am having a real problem with Gather's links.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

And also, this:
http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html

It is truly difficult for me to believe that the majority of our founders and the Framers were truly, truly Christian--in the real sense of the word--when you consider the fact that our country's existence, and survival, was based, partially, on genocide; and that our country's economic engine was based, partially, on slavery.

That wouldn't be the strongest grounds for disbelief. Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust (Germany was a Christian nation).
There are stronger, historical grounds to show that many of the founding fathers were not Christians. See just above.

No one's having a comparison contest for immorality, here.

If we were, your examples would be excellent choices.

But we are addressing, simply, the double standards and the hypocricies of how this country was conceived and developed.

On their own, these deplorable inconsistencies stand up to scrutiny--without us having to look to at other aberrations in the name, or in the de facto name, of Chrisitanity.

That's "Christianity", not Chrisitanity.

Bret, you are judging the people of the 18th Century against a 21st Century culture. You are looking at the unenlightened, and judging them with an enlightened ethic.

You make a good point--but I don't entirely agree and here's why:

The Human Mind and the Human Brain may, indeed, evolve over time. But back then--as today--both the Human Mind and the Human Brain know, basically, the difference between Right and Wrong.

While "Hitler's Executioners"--the German people, according to one post-modern historian--may not all be actively culpable for the crimes of its centralized government, there is something to be said about the basic character difference between Athens and Sparta and, say, China and Tibet.

Brett. The framers were looking at the Indians as predators, not prey. That changed later.

Slavery wasn't even worth mentioning to them. Just a thing. They didn't think more of these children of God than Hitler did the Jews. He didn't "invent" the Haulocaust, he just signed off on it, couldn't care less, had world domination on his mind. Makes it worse, I think. If it could be.

George. Hitler was Germany. He was the boss, they were his fist. And he was atheist.

Karl. If Jesus could articulate the value of mercy, the best and brightest 18 centuries later could exhibit it. It wasn't primative occlusion, it was deliberate ignorance.

interesting & informative comments, Karl. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for sharing and submitting to
The Surreal Circus.

Now featured at Examining Our Religion.

Uh Oh! Wrong door excuse me... I thought that sign on the door said Ladies..