# Seperation of Church and State



## Soapvox (Jun 11, 2001)

Today  the Supreme  Court has dealt a blow to one of the most important parts of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has ruled that a school in NY cannot kee  a prayer group from  using  a  class room for prayer after school.   No I know I am  openning myself up for flaming, but please listen to my  argument with  an open mind (you use Macs so I know you have one).  Our fore fathers came to this country to escape religious opression, now we are saying that christians are allowed to practice their religion in the schools that my children go to and my tax dollars pay for.  Religion is all fine and good and I feel the more religions there are the better this country can be, but I am a atheist and my children are atheist, and now if there are religious organizations allowed in the schools, it will emphasize that fact and make my kids stand out as outcasts, and let us not forget the other non-christian groups that will be ridiculed.  Our children have a hard enough time in school why to we need them to stand out even more.  If these groups want to have bible study after school, that is great, do it at someone elses house or church, but do not recruit or practice it in my schools!

I will now step off of my soapbox, thank you.


----------



## jdog (Jun 12, 2001)

From what I understood of the ruling, it allowed those kids to have a "church club" much like a chess or debate club.  While I do not feel this is a bad thing, but if we are to allow a church club, we would have to allow for other "cult" clubs.  (And yes the church is a cult).  The high school I attended had someype of church group, I remeber seeing them sitting in a large circle in the court yard having a group prayer.  Now that I think about it, its actually kinda spooky.

On a side note Soapvox, how did you tell your kids about life/death, etc?  I am pretty firm in my atheist belief, and have recently pondered what I would tell my future children when the time comes.  My mother always explained life to me as though there was a god, so I grew up assuming there was an afterlife.  This however, did not save me from losing sleep thinking about being dead for eternity.  I want to save my children as much of that thinking as I can, but I understand there are parts of life that are just unavoidable.

-jdog


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 12, 2001)

My knickname is anxietyboy, because I too spend too many nights thinking  of what comes after.  Not having the crutch of the church to fall  back  on I must accept the fact  that  we are here now and that  afterwards I   am going to decompose.  My  wife is a catholic  so our children hear both of our views on religion and death, but we underline it with the important fact is love and doing right because it is right, not because god told you to or  you  are going to get in trouble is how they live their life.  My biggest problem with this ruling is that you  are right christianity and all religions are cults that  just caught on, and now we are saying that the ones that the schools say are ok will be allowed to meet after school, while the ones they don't whether it is Hindu, Mormon, Satanic, or Pagan will not be allowed at the schools discretion.  I see it already in the south where they want to post the Ten Commandments in schools, while I do not have a problem with the basis of the ten commandments, does that mean I can post my personal atheist laws in the school, or can we post teachings from the Koran in the school.  We are here to be free of religious persecution, that does not mean we are here to be converted to christianity.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 12, 2001)

take it from me, that people have to accept some view on their own.

I am a Greek Christian Orthodox.  Most greeks, like italian catholics in italy, abstain from church between the ages of  16 and 60 (well give or take a decade or half a decade).  I am no exception.  I used to go to church religiously when I was younger, and now like most I go on major holidays like my nameday, Xmas & easter.  There are regular  church goers and there are always people there on sunday mass even though the trend is as described above.   

I am more of an agnostic at this stage of my life, I have not witnessed any miracles and I am pretty sceptical about everything, I tend to put stuff under a microscope.  I think that in the end people can take the advice of whatever church is out there but in the end people will go where their gut tells em to go, and dont sweat the decomposing part...we will all decompose just like all the ones that came before us.

As for the school issue...  I think that there are enought churches out there and the clerics should allow kids or whomever wants to use the church for prayer meetings because that is one of the roles of the church.  If schools allow christians (all shapes and sizes) to practice their faith on school ground then they should allow all jews, muslims, and followers of any religion to to create clubs to worship what ever God(s) they wish.


Admiral


----------



## scott (Jun 13, 2001)

I come from a completely non-religious background. However, as I rot in hotel rooms, I occasionally take the Gideons up on their offer of reading materials. I "browse" the bible now and then because I find it not only a fascinating historical work, acurate or not, as well as the fact that I feel that I cannot accurately argument it's control on our society without reading it.

Anyway, a group, church or not, should have as much access to a school classroom as a soccer or baseball team has to the field.

I have more, but my fingers don't work now  Took me ten minutes to type this


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 13, 2001)

< most memorable preaper voice >
Death to all unbelievers
< /end most memorable church voice >


lol   maybe u were too tired ... or just hate hotels  ... I know I do... and I dont look forward to spening 6 days in one ... Hmmmm I will see if I can coerce a friend or two to let me stay at their places in Athens, GR when I go lol 



Admiral


----------



## HyperLiteG4 (Jun 14, 2001)

just my $0.02...

I am a devout Christian and I love God with all my heart. I am very offended when people try to separate church from everything else. When I was in high school we fought a lot with the administration about this issue on my campus and didn't get very far.

I'm not trying to sound like some religious freak or anything. In fact, I don't even like to associate Christianity with the word 'religion.' Being a Christian is just about loving God and doing what He wants for you. It's not anything more than that, and definately not a cult like whoever posted earlier said. Now don't all hate me or think I'm crazy, I'm not very prepared to get into a deep conversation about this right now. I just wanted to say my $0.02...
email me if you wanna go at it more though...

-Mike


oh, check this song out that i wrote on this separation between people and where I stand with it:

Intersect; cross the lines
Break the barriers; link the areas
Unify our stakes; take my hand
Grip this man and fill the land
Rectify our states; stand together
None are better, so send the letters
Vilify these walls
Freedom is to come as one
To take hold of this day, no other way

You wont find me gone
Raised hands surround us
Three nails to protect us
Ill find my way back home
Raised hands surround us
Three nails to protect us

I place my fate in your hands
Loss of self, no demands
So to give my years Ill relent and drop my pride
Cross the fence so to confide

Laid hands on my head
Sense of self long since dead
Seven words got my back
So let off, and set off and snap my shame away
You ask me whats the point to scrape and fight
To win another day to live
My answer is to stand united, we cant live divided
Until we die and gain whats our claim


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

I am not downing christianity, I just don't think it has a place  in schools.  You have a right to worship whoever you want, but me and my children do not subscribe to your religion, even though we probably have a lot of similar beliefs, we just don't believe in God.   It is because not everyone is a christian (there are buhdist, hindu, pagan, agnostics, atheist etc...) we need to seperate it from our teaching institutions to keep  it to learning.  Now I am not against a class that teaches about values and such or even one that teaches about religions and non believers, as  long as it is not biased to anyone way.  I was a christian for many years and I realize your belief in your one and only  god, but I chose not  to  believe any more, but even in your religion I am no better than you  and  you  are  no better than me, we both have faults  (your bible calls it sinners) and I am truly  open to a fruitful conversation.  As long as we keep this positive, lets  keep the conversation going  !


----------



## jdog (Jun 15, 2001)

I have nothing against people who are religous and/or beleive on God.  I strongly beleive you should have the right to worship whatever you want, on your time!  I do not want somebody telling my children their philisophical point of view, as though it were the only option available.  While you may not beleive it personally, Christianity is not THE only religion out there.  It is ok for people to believe in a different god or gods or no god.  

I personally have a big problem with the Church (mainly Catholic, but including many others, except maybe Gnostic types).  If you have studied in any lenghts the type of people have historically run the church, you would have a problem with them too.  And yes the church is a cult: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=cult  look at definitions 2-5.

-jdog


----------



## RacerX (Jun 15, 2001)

The only way Christian could possibly understand the importance of separation is if they where having other religious beliefs inflicted on them. maybe if the schools started having a prayer to begin the day in some other religious belief (any of the ones that Soapvox brought up would do), they would quickly see that their rights are being infringed upon.

The separation of church and state is there to protect the rights of others to believe as they choose, and to insure that they are not force into taking part in the beliefs of others while at public institutions. I do not feel that a moment of silence infringes on my rights as an atheist (let who ever pray silently to their deity, while I talk that moment to reflect), but when I am force to lessen to someone profess their beliefs at a public function, yes, my rights are being violated.

Tolerance is something that most Christian sorely lack. Your beliefs and faith are something that should be private, shared with others that believe as you do, and never inflicted on other that dont. You beliefs should give you an inner strength and confidence that does not need to be worn on your sleeve. My experience has been that those who force their beliefs on other need others to reassure them in their beliefs.

On a side note, one of my most favorite exchanges with a Christian went as follows:

Christian: Do you believe is God?

RacerX: No, I dont believe in form of deity.

Christian: Do you believe in the Devil?


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2001)

smart ass remark :

Jehova's withness : DO you believe in the devil ?

Admiral : Yes, I was with her last night


----------



## RacerX (Jun 15, 2001)

I'm telling!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2001)

LOL 
Who are you telling  ???? (my mom ???   lol )


----------



## RacerX (Jun 15, 2001)

which Devil where you talking about this time?

By the way, is that what they mean by "the Devil made me do it"?


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2001)

depends 
My computer devil = diablo (the game)
but last night...well that devil is my little secret  lol


----------



## apb3 (Jun 15, 2001)

I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the constitution. Therefore, I believe in the absolute separation of church and state.

However, the US is schizophrenic in this. Even in the Constitution itself. References to god, religion, etc are everywhere in federal offices, on money, in pledges, oaths of service, honesty and office, etc.

We also allow groups that have obvious religious views to hold meetings in public buildings and schools. Boy scouts and AA come to mind. Should we ban the Boy Scouts and or AA  from meeting in our schools or public property - I don't know. I'd probably say no despite my constructionist leanings - they do more social good than harm for the most part. Other groups, it depends but I'd be more likely to say they don't belong in our schools.

I guess I'm saying this is a good topic. Made me rethink some things. But it's a tough call in some cases.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

I'm a strict constructionist also when it comes to the Constitution. The Constitution makes references to a natural god, that god being the god of the Deism which is the logical personification of nature according to the beliefs of the founding fathers (most of whom were Deist), not the God of the Christian belief system. In other words, the term god in the Constitution would be a pagan deity by most Christian standards (I love that). The term "In God We Trust" was added to US currency in the 1860s (by the Republican Party in power at the time) and the "under God" was added to our pledge of allegiance in the 1950's (again, by the Republican Party in power at the time).

Allowing groups that have obvious religious views assemble in public places is an important freedom, letting them control public functions is quite a different thing altogether. Boy scouts should be restricted from activities with in a school setting while school is in session (a public function), if they are using that same area after hours I don't see any difference than if they assembled at a national park. They should not be inflicting their views on others at public functions.

Any time people's religious views come into play, it should not be in situation where others can't freely leave. Children can NOT just up and leave school if someone is preaching their religious views there, so the law is there to protect us from that. It protects ALL of us (including Christian, though they don't seem to see it that way). Why do you think religion was included in the Constitution, because many of the writer believed differently from others in the colonies at the time. They felt that difference and realized that it needed to be protected in the foundation of a country made up of people from all different backgrounds. The fact that any group would try to promote itself as the national religion is in direct contrast to what the writers of the Constitution were trying to do.


----------



## scott (Jun 16, 2001)

The U.S. constitution contains specific Christian/Catholic reference to religion. I cannot accurately debate this, but I can relate it to my home.

In Canada, we still maintain a "relationship" to the English monarchy. in 1982 (I think) a formal separation occured, theoretically removing all ties to 'Liz but friendly tea. However, our money is still staunchly adorned with the images of the monarchy, and I cannot help but compare this with the "In God we Trust" insignia on the American monetary notes, not to mention the contitution. I am sure our constitution contains thrice the reference to church as a controlling power of state than the U.S.A.

Anyway, I firmly believe that if a country is hipocritical enough to enshrine a Christian "term" or even "philosophy" into their very constitution, yet promote "multi-culturalism" on such a huge level, is therefore the textbook example of the reason of separation of church and state.
A multi-cultural society, such as the melting pot we have here in Canada (no opinion implied) cannot run under the guise of one religion, therefore none should be implied, or worse yet implied, in it's laws.

In simplistic terms, the best argument for separation of church and state is that the "state" is required to recognize that by nature there are numerous "churches" within their bounds and that they cannot please all of the people all of the time. So, due to the differing reliogins within our countries, the state's actions cannot be bound by the beliefs of one church.

Scott


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

scott: "The U.S. constitution contains specific Christian/Catholic reference to religion."

This is false and is not supported by the historical facts. The fact is that the term "god" is generic enough that Christian have been mistakenly claiming for years that the US founding father were in fact Christian themselves, which is completely false. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin were all Deist. In Deism, it is believed that you can NOT know god by reading the writing of man (that is the Bible), you can only create an understanding of god by studying the only logical and true connection with god... nature (even being an atheist I can not help but admire such a beautiful belief systems). At the same time, this doesn't remove the roles of the other representative of the rest of the colonies which all have different religious backgrounds, their presence is why the new government (controls by non-Christian) needed to promise not to inflict it's 'age of enlightenment' views on people who truly didn't share them.

Were Christian at the heart of adding the later terms (and I included dates to show that they didn't occur in the 1770's/1780's)? YES, they were. I have not studied the history of Canada, I have studied the history of the US (extensively), and I have not misrepresented any of it, and therefore your opening statement is (respectively) in error. Any argument that is based on anything less than the actual facts can carry little weight. Everything that I has stated is very easily checkable, and should be researched by any and every person who cares about this issue.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 16, 2001)

Speed's cooler brother:

I couldn't agree more and you added some points that I neglected. I re-read the thread just now and see the original point. I should have directed my comments more to the forcing of one groups beliefs on another.

That obviously is not cool. And, while it has happened throughout our history (references I think we both mentioned), that doesn't make it right. The one thing I did mention that I don't think you did is the oath given before testimony in a court/deposition/etc... If memory serves, this wasn't our 'fault'. A lot of our legal practices (hell, almost all) come from England. I believe that their oath contains the "so help you god[my lack of capitalization]" line. So that was a bad example on my part.

Your historical references and facts cannot be debated. Did a quick search and, as suspected, there's nothing about christ or catholicism. The god of the Constitution and Declaration was indeed as you describe. And, I feel a legitimazation of the colonists claims. "All men are created equal..." "endowed by their creator with...", etc... was a way of saying to a world pretty much still in monarchistic states, "Hey, we're not just a yahoos from the hills. These are valid ideas." And I agree whole heartedly with Speed's brother (I always had a crush on Trixie.... but I digress) that this 'god' was the Deist god. Not a god I think today's christians would worship.

Also, these documents borrowed heavily from Rousseau, Locke and some others. They (the aforementioned philosophers) used phrases like this for whatever reason. Another way by the yanks to show these ideas weren't just some hicks not wanting to pay taxes anymore - they had valid points about the way a country should be run.

They wanted these ideas to work so much that they included the church & state clause to ensure passage by the other 'states', some of whom weren't of the same beliefs as the writers. (as hinted at , I think by racerx - correct me if I'm wrong as to the attribution).

This idea still holds today. As it should. NO ONE should force their views in ANY way on another - religious or otherwise.

uhhh, Amen?


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 16, 2001)

I think that it is hard to separate church and state.  First of all if someone is a devout christian/buddist/jew/etc religion is part of his everyday routine, thus what he does is in part a reflection of the morals and ideals that that particular church has instilled on him.  On the other hand, take a look at JFK's election.  There was a big broo-ha-ha about the fact that he was a catholic and this could possibly interefere with his duties ??? what a bunch of BS.

I think that we need to see some after-school jew, muslim, orthodox, buddist, and in general what are considered the "side religions" in schools as clubs... I think that some people might not take well to the die to the fact that they are "minority" religions or so... I would like for this to be taken to court lol ... it would be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 16, 2001)

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010616/tc/tech_apple_satanists_dc_1.html

I wonder what people would say if people had a church of satan club


----------



## scott (Jun 16, 2001)

RacerX - point taken. I do not know enough American history to back up such a statement (maybe we get too much of your T.V.? ) I beleive my point is still valid, but could have been made within my last paragraph.

Here, our main opposition party in government (sort of the equivalent to the democrats?) is a political party with a strictly Christian platform (by strictly I mean a Christian platform, not a braodly based religious platform). I feel that if such a party were to govern, many laws affecting our entire country would be influenced by the bible, whereas certain issues (i.e. abortion) should be dealt with the entire country in mind, not the religious majority.


Blah blah blah 


Scott


----------



## apb3 (Jun 16, 2001)

It makes no difference how your own personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) effect your behavior. But when  you start state sanctioned religious activities - you run into a BIG problem in my book.

Another can of worms:
Who decides which religious activities or "clubs" get access to facilities - facilities I pay for by the way. Do we want thought police (any more than we already do)? Suppose Rastafarians (a valid religion) want their "club" to meet at the local high school after hours. Or, maybe even smoke a joint (a tenet to some if not all members) before class in much the same way school prayers were done in my catholic grade school? Yeah Yeah, pot's illegal but I'm taking the argument to the extreme to make a point. Anyway, even if they don't actually smoke the joint, it's a tenet of their faith and as such would be part of their discussions/teachings. 

As I have stated before, I have more of a problem with prohibition and the 'war' on drugs than with their actual use in the privacy of one's own home with  limited legalization (minimum age, permits maybe, public safety rules - don't want my pilot hopped on a speedball, taxes on the importation, yada yada). Hell use it in your own home without the legalization, just don't get caught and don't interfere with me.

So... the Rasta thing wouldn't bother me too much. BUT, it'd bother A LOT of others.

The Church of satan is a recognized religion. How about them? 

I think or hope you see my point. I think the line above, "Just don't interfere with me," sums it up fairly well although the term 'interfere' could lead to debate. For example, is the cost of the 'war' on drugs fueled by those home users interfering with me in some way - taxes, allocation of resources, etc? Off topic. Sorry.


----------



## iThink (Jun 16, 2001)

With all due respect to the atheist point of view, how do you conclude that Macs are the superior computing platform, and then conclude that there is no God. It seems that either way a similar thought and reasoning process must take place to come to a logical conclusion. I think it is appropriate, as has been suggested in previous posts, that we stick with the facts and the truth. 

Fact: God lives.

Fact: God is good.

Fact: All truth is inspired of God.

Fact: Truth is truth whether stated in Scipture, the Constitution, or spoken by the mouth of Confusious, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or some anyonomous  person on the internet. If there are errors whether written or spoken, they are the errors of fallible human beings.

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God. The very foundation of 
the Constitution hangs on the truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. 

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind. 

Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved. 

Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Even though the Founding Fathers may have viewed God differently, they all understood moral law and truth, and most acknowledged that the Constitution was in fact God inspired. Must everyone understand how Quartz works to be able to all agree that it provides a better graphical experience? 

Myth: The reference to separation of church and state simply does not exist in the US Constitution. This continues to be repeated by the media and uninformed individuals. It distorts the true context of the first amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the prohibiting the free exercise thereof that gets lost in every debate. Simply put, it means that each and every one of us sovereign individuals has the inalienable right to worship "God" as they see fit without restriction by government. The first part of that amendment prohibits the government from respecting any specific religion as state endorsed.

Prayer is not only a religious right it is a speech right as well. I keep hearing the word inflict used as pertaining to having to listen to someones prayer or religious point of view. Do you feel the same way about the doctrine of evolution? How about profanity? The only intolerance that I can see is the intolerance of religion and offending speech. 

The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God. 

My 25 cents.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

I still prefer the term "inflict" to "interfere".  

PS
has anyone noticed how quite the rest of the site has been lately?


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 16, 2001)

Ithink, again I am not trying to flame anyone but those are some very harsh "facts" you put out. Here is my rebutal.



> Fact:God Lives


????? How is that a fact? Just because you beleive does not make it a fact, as a child I beleived in Santa but he does not live.



> Fact: God is Good


???? How is that a fact seeing how good is a matter of perception?



> Fact:  All truth is inspired of God.


I would love to hear your basis on that one, that isn't based on blind devotion, because we are talking of facts here.

I'll give you the fourth one, because whether there is a god, buddah or not, we are humans and have flaws and make honest mistakes (and sometimes decietful ones).



> Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God.


I strongly disagree with that one, the constitution gives equal rights to people not because of god but because the law of the land.



> Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.


 Uh Congress and the president can recind the constitution, it's called marshal law.



> Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.


Again that is an opinion, in mine we didn't come from nothing we came from the big bang.



> Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


 you are right on that one, but just because you believe doesn't mean it exists either.



> The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God.


How can you be so brazen to say that, do you know what religion the founding fathers were? Neither do I, you cannot assume they were Christian, especially when a few were rumored to be Illuinati and Free Masons.  Saying that satanism isn't a valid religion is like a stanist saying christianity isn't a valid religion, its a conflict of interest.  All religions are cults, some just catch on and become accepted.  When "Jesus" was arround, christianity was definitly a cult, they were persecuted because of it.  Just because your religion is popular doesn't mean it is not a cult.  You still have marriage "rituals", funeral "rituals", prayer "rituals"... sounds like a cult to me, but that is not a bad thing, its just not fit for my beliefs.

My point after all this is that your statements are based on facts, they are based on beliefs, and you know what your beliefs maybe right, but until proven they are not facts.  

I also just wanted to say to everyone how great this is that we are sharing views on such a hot issue and everyone is being very cool about it.

Sorry for this being so long.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

Fact: God lives. 

There is no evidence that one or more deity exist. Further there is no evidence that any religious teaching speak for any possible deity/deities. Therefore, this statement cant not be held as fact.

Fact: God is good.

The falsehood of this Fact follows directly from the error of the first. We have no reference that any possible deity works with or even cares about the human notion of good (or evil for that matter)

Fact: All truth is inspired of God.

Truth is a human construct (as is the concept of God) and they are mutually exclusive.

Fact: Truth is truth whether stated in Scipture, the Constitution, or spoken by the mouth of Confusious, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or some anyonomous person on the internet. If there are errors whether written or spoken, they are the errors of fallible human beings.

True, the concept of true is an ideal which is never truly obtained. It is an aspiration we all strive for.

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God. The very foundation of the Constitution hangs on the truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

At the time of its writing the idea of atheism was as in vogue as Deism is today. their reference was the every one had some deity behind their beliefs (I can live with that over sight on there parts). When you take there belief in the creator being nature, you can remove the need for god as easily as Kant was able to in his writings of morals and ethics (funny how all of these was happening around the same period of time). 

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind. 

Left field, your argument is not following a logical process. Human rights are a human creation. They are based on reason and duty, self interest and empathy for others.


Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.

Untrue, and damaging to the argument of a highly intelligent Creator involved. If the creator is as great as is being stated, why would the creator need to continuously be involved in the process. In a causal universe such as our, I would submit that the only proof of a creator is an event/effect without a cause. A study of nature shows only one region of space-time that that could possibly exist (the big bang), and even then there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion of Fact, hence the term faith.

Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Absolutely, but without direct evidence you cant not make ANY conclusion. the study of nature is the study of the only possible connection with a possible creator. I submit to you that anyone who doesnt not take the time to study our ONLY possible link to God, nature, is taking the easy way out, and not willing to invest in communing with the possible creator.  

...understood moral law and truth, and most acknowledged that the Constitution was in fact God inspired.

Again your conclude is based on errors that you have made earlier, because the God of the Constitution is the creator of the natural world. That means that the writer were saying that moral law and truth are logical out comes of the study of nature. I still feel that Kants duty and reason is a more sound basis (but then again he was not only a Christian, he was also a mathematician).

Myth: The reference to separation of church and state simply does not exist in the US Constitution. This continues to be repeated by the media and uninformed individuals. It distorts the true context of the first amendment.

Here is a Fact for you, there is a very real understanding in the constitution that there share NOT be a state religion (helps to have a father who is a professor of Constitutional law).

The first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the prohibiting the free exercise thereof that gets lost in every debate. Simply put, it means that each and every one of us sovereign individuals has the inalienable right to worship "God" as they see fit without restriction by government. The first part of that amendment prohibits the government from respecting any specific religion as state endorsed.

Beautiful! I could not have said that better myself.

Prayer is not only a religious right it is a speech right as well. I keep hearing the word inflict used as pertaining to having to listen to someones prayer or religious point of view. Do you feel the same way about the doctrine of evolution? How about profanity? The only intolerance that I can see is the intolerance of religion and offending speech.

the doctrine of evolution is the theory of evolution which is it self evolving as more inform is acquired. Infact, if there is a God, I would put it to you that speaking out against evolution is the same as saying that God was wrong in the process He took in bring us to this point. Why, that is Blaspheme!

My 50 cents


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

good post though


----------



## apb3 (Jun 16, 2001)

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."



Yes that is the letter of the law. We have a branch of government called the Judiciary that interprets the letter of the law.

They have held, for the most part, that "make no law respecting..." includes such things as giving even the appearance of supporting one religion or another - or all of them.

I happen to agree. Making a kid of religion X say a prayer from religion y (or making anyone say ANY prayer or perform ANY religious ritual) before school or a football game or whatever if sanctioned by the State (ie implemented by a principal in a public school or any local/state/national representative of the government) is de facto law.

Along the same lines, allowing the use of public property - school, city hall, whatever - is de facto law if sanctioned by the State as mentioned above. As the State controls those buildings ( as trustees for We the People ) I see no way around the fact that it would in fact be "...mak[ing] a law respecting the establishment of a religion."

The other clause of the above qouted quote re: the prohibition of anyone's free exercise of their chosen religion is a non-issue. Who is stopping anyone from practicing their religion of choice. Public schools, city/school football teams, city hall, etc - pick your public location - aren't the only places to do your religious practices. I've seen churches. I was an altar boy for eight years. I've seen local prayer centers. What's wrong with those places. Or I assume you have a home or some private place in which to do whatever your religion dictates. 

Adherents of Islam are one exception that just popped into my mind. They have to bow to Mecca at such and such a time. I've seen it on the sidewalk. This wouldn't bother me. They're not 'inflicting' (I like that better too) their practices on me. Now that is a free speech matter that iThink eluded to (the local constabulary might be a little jerky and call it a public nuisance or something, but I doubt it). You can walk down the street and say just about anything you want (within certain laws), including prayers. Go ahead. That's free speech. the government isn't sanctioning the nature of the speech, just the idea that you can do it. That's the difference, iThink.

Lastly, I too think it has been refreshing that things have been kept cool for the most part. In stating that, I wish to make it clear that although individuals were named and quoted in my post, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion and have nothing against you or anyone here. Hell, I don't know you. I am pretty thick skinned and feel heated debates are often the quickest route to the truth - so feel free to rip into me or my ideas as you see fit.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 16, 2001)

Wow, its strange how two completely different people can come up with such similar opinions.  You don't have to answer this one racer, but are you a believer?  Turnabout is fair play so, No I am an atheist, with a strong sense of "good".


----------



## apb3 (Jun 16, 2001)

"god", I must type slowly....


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

I'm an atheist. When I was very young I started asking questions of myself like;

Question: "Do I actually believe in God?"

Answer: "No"

That lead me to questioning other things that I had up to that point taken for granted (that point being 9 years old) dealing with ethics and morals, the nature of time and space, life and death.

I am one of the only atheist I know, and contrary to the stereo type, I tend to be very happy-go-lucky, and enjoy knowing people who's faith is a special part of their lives.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 16, 2001)

I was actually hoping you were a devout presbeterian (?sp) or something.  

Its very funny my wife is a strong catholic and she agrees with my views of seperation of church and state, it's always good in my eyes when two different points of view agree on the same conclusion.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 16, 2001)

Me too.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 16, 2001)

After so long I have lost count of all teh christian sects.... this is so f*cked up ... It seems that people twist religion or "teachings" around to suit their needs.  People no longer conform to the church, the church conforms to them  ....

What is the point then ???

Oh well ... I live my life  in the following motto 

Carpe Diem!


----------



## iThink (Jun 18, 2001)

????? How is that a fact? Just because you beleive does not make it a fact, as a child I beleived in Santa but he does not live. 

(A) Unfortunately you assume that because you have no proof then I must have no proof. Unlike many who do profess a belief or faith that God lives, I have a witness from God himself and I can assure you that there is no greater proof. Your lack of knowledge does not change the truth. I reiterate the fact that God lives.

???? How is that a fact seeing how good is a matter of perception? 

(A) Once one has had a witness of the existence of God, felt of His power and influence, and received light and knowledge it is easy to discern the facts from the fiction. I reiterate the fact that God is Good.

Fact: All truth is inspired of God. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love to hear your basis on that one, that isn't based on blind devotion, because we are talking of facts here. 

(A) Once the Fact that God exists is established, and one obtains a witness of the truthfulness of His words, then one can establish that those words are the truth and therefore facts. I reiterate the fact that God is the author of all truth.

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly disagree with that one, the constitution gives equal rights to people not because of god but because the law of the land.

(A) Once again I would say that once the aforementioned basic fundamental truths are established then it is not difficult to conclude that author of the Constitution (Jefferson) was correct when he stated the following; "The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of Kings and legislators, but under the King of Kings."

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh Congress and the president can recind the constitution, it's called marshal law. 

(A) Only in the legal sense. In the ultimate sense each individual will decide whether to cooperate for the good of the Country, not the commander in chief. God or death is the only way to suspend ones inalienable rights. 

Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again that is an opinion, in mine we didn't come from nothing we came from the big bang.

(A) You believe in the latest greatest scientific theory, however you did not address the overwhelming evidence that points to an intelligent design and plan. Even most reputable scientists today agree that the probability of this all happening by chance is so astronomical that it isn't considered possible.

The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you be so brazen to say that, do you know what religion the founding fathers were? Neither do I, you cannot assume they were Christian, especially when a few were rumored to be Illuinati and Free Masons. Saying that satanism isn't a valid religion is like a stanist saying christianity isn't a valid religion, its a conflict of interest. All religions are cults, some just catch on and become accepted. When "Jesus" was arround, christianity was definitly a cult, they were persecuted because of it. Just because your religion is popular doesn't mean it is not a cult. You still have marriage "rituals", funeral "rituals", prayer "rituals"... sounds like a cult to me, but that is not a bad thing, its just not fit for my beliefs.

(A) Please quote one factual statement uttered by any Founding Father that ever alluded to the freedom of religion meaning anything other than the right to worship God as one sees fit. Please refer me to the quote that states that Satanism was considered. It is an insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic.


My point after all this is that your statements are based on facts, they are based on beliefs, and you know what your beliefs maybe right, but until proven they are not facts. 

(A) On the contrary. I intentionally mentioned only the things I know to be factual according to my aforementioned statements of testimony. I stand by my original statements of facts. 

I found it ironic that your response to the very things you referred to as my opinion, was presented as factual. In other words if one accuses another of being judgemental are they themselves not being judgemental?


----------



## apb3 (Jun 18, 2001)

The thing I find most interesting is that you failed to respond to any of the points I made.

Were they not worth the time or too true?


----------



## RacerX (Jun 18, 2001)

iThink,

Ill try not to take the fact that you didnt answer my post personally, and continue on with an examination you most entertaining post.


(A) Unfortunately you assume that because you have no proof then I must have no proof. Unlike many who do profess a belief or faith that God lives, I have a witness from God himself and I can assure you that there is no greater proof. Your lack of knowledge does not change the truth. I reiterate the fact that God lives.

Have you actually seen God? Please dont take this the wrong way, but you just stated that you have a witness, which means you have NOT (I would assume) seen actual proof of a deity in any form. I would take it a step further and say that you are basing your Facts on your faith in others. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would strengthen your argument if you, your self, had witnessed God. 


(A) Once one has had a witness of the existence of God, felt of His power and influence, and  received light and knowledge it is easy to discern the facts from the fiction. I reiterate the fact that God is Good.

I have no doubt that you have felt some form of power and influence, but as to what is behind that, Ill reserve judgment.


(A) Once the Fact that God exists is established, and one obtains a witness of the truthfulness of His words, then one can establish that those words are the truth and therefore facts. I reiterate the fact that God is the author of all truth.

Once again we are up against the lack of Facts which you have a mastery of in the argument. Your arguing from passion, and have offered no evidence to back up your point of view. You should be taking your argument from the point of view that we are not as privileged as you and you should be presenting your facts in the manner helps us to reach the same conclusions that you have. Your argument is more of an effort to dictate you beliefs rather than persuade us to see them for the (professed) truth that you say they are.


A) Once again I would say that once the aforementioned basic fundamental truths are established then it is not difficult to conclude that author of the Constitution (Jefferson) was correct when he stated the following...

Thomas Jefferson was a strong believer of Deism, and the the only true path to God was through an understanding of nature. Your argument would be stronger if you quoted someone like George Washington whos belief in Deism was politically motivated, and was in his heart most likely a Christian. Also we are all wanting for you to establish any of the facts or truths in your earilier agruments.


(A) You believe in the latest greatest scientific theory, however you did not address the overwhelming evidence that points to an intelligent design and plan. Even most reputable scientists today agree that the probability of this all happening by chance is so astronomical that it isn't considered possible.

One of my last papers before beginning my current break from graduate school (for Mathematics) was on an alternate theory of the Big Bang Theory (current known as Inflation Cosmology) because aspects of the theory  required changing of the definitions of singularities in space-time. I would be the first to point out that if I was a Physicist I would have a hard time getting such a paper published, but as a Mathematician it could be published as a mathematical curiosity. Even in Science you have the problems that come from social interactions, and it is hard to point out short coming of the current theory when so many have based their reputations on it. I would point out that most people who study the large scale structure of the universe and its origins are motivated by wanting to be the first to provide a direct link to the creator. Most are realistic about this and would be happy to provide a step on the path towards the final goal.


(A) Please quote one factual statement uttered by any Founding Father that ever alluded to the freedom of religion meaning anything other than the right to worship God as one sees fit. Please refer me to the quote that states that Satanism was considered. It is an insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic.

I think that we can pass on providing facts for someone who has a hard time with the definition of facts. 


(A) On the contrary. I intentionally mentioned only the things I know to be factual according to my aforementioned statements of testimony. I stand by my original statements of facts. 

 I found it ironic that your response to the very things you referred to as my opinion, was presented as factual. In other words if one accuses another of being judgemental are they themselves not being judgemental?

The only judgment that is needed is that you dictate opinions as facts. Facts can be backed up with proof that both sides can agree on, and you have failed to provide those in either your initial or latest arguments. I look forward to your next post and hope that you will be more generous in providing actual support for your professed facts.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 18, 2001)

I was watching a grek TV channel last night, the news to be precise.
There was a story on there about a "miracle" a while back.  The icon of one of the saints (Saint fanourios) seemes to have tears of blood on it and many people went over to bow to it and ask it for aid in their lives.  Most people that do this sort of stuff and are eager to believe such things are the older generation.

Even though I am a Greek Orthodx I take all these with a grain of salt until proof exits.  Well, last night the proof.  It wasnt blood and most likely not a miracle.  What where the stains?  The did lab results on them (probably secretivelly) and they found that the red substance was dried up Visino juice (visino = a sweet cherry like fruit that is used to make juices, it also has a blood kinda color).  So what happened?  Your guess is as good as mine... a little kid in sunday mass ? an eager priest ?  who knows.  I just find it weird that people are so eager to believe this.

Also, last year greece was going to eliminate certain things from its IDs like religion, ethnicity, and a few others (Greek ID cards are HUGE).  There were masses of people protesting because they were going to remove religion from it... the arguments you heard were "If they remove the religion I believe in from my ID I will be an atheist"  ... MY GOD!  It makes me want to bang my head up the wall!  I have never had a greek ID given that I am not a  greek citizen, I have always had an MA driver's license which serves as ID... Geez!  And all this "fiasco" was initiated by the patriarch mr Christodoulos... what a jackass.


Sometimes it makes me wonder what else they want to put on their IDs ?  A small biography ? sexual orientation ?  Times of the day they prefer to have sex ? Number of kids they have ?  What job they do ?? How much $$$ they make a year and how much they pay to the IRS ?  this is stupid!   Keep it short and simple


oh well enough ranting 


Admiral


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 18, 2001)

They find a need for identifying their religion on their IDs or, who knows they might forget which one they are.  (That may have sounded mean but I meant it in the most Joking of manners).

iThink, I admire your convictions, but I still have not been swayed by your opinion.  Like the other two posters who responded to your first I still see no proof of fact.  It seems that everything hinges on your belief that there is a god, and though you claim to know someone who has seen god, unless they can show proof it is purely hearsay, I have known people who have spoke in tongues in church and claim to have seen god, but when people are creating an Illusion it is easy to be sucked in, but if your friend truly saw god, it would be great if he shared some proof so us non-believers have a chance to not burn in hell(yes I know the whole saving hook "Only be saved through our lord jesus christ").  Until s/he can prove it I am not convinced.  As far as this statement:





> (A) Please quote one factual statement uttered by any Founding Father that ever alluded to the freedom of religion meaning anything other than the right to worship God as one sees fit. Please refer me to the quote that states that Satanism was considered. It is an insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic.


I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution it saying we had to worship a christian god... Satan is a pagan god as well as the christians whipping boy.  And as far as it being an "insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic", have you every read anything about satanism from a non-christian point of view, it says nothing about doing evil, it is all about carnal pleasure, and we are all derivatives of beasts, so how can carnal pleasure be wrong if it wasn't for a society that feels they should regulate what I do behind my closed doors.  And what of all the Indians and Chinese and Balinese etc... who for a very long time and some still do believe in multiple gods, did the founding fathers really mean to discriminate against them??? According to your argument, Indians aren't protected by the rights to freedom of religion because they worship a sun god, a moon god, an earth god... no I know deep down (and this is not fact because it is on my faith) that the founding fathers meant all religions, even ones they did not agree with.

I would like to ask a question to everyone,  I am creating a bbs like this one for political reasons (pro-environmental), but if it was free and open would people be interested in a bbs where everyone could debate religion and daily politics?


----------



## apb3 (Jun 18, 2001)

Definitely.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 18, 2001)

I don't know about something like that. One of the things that make this discussion not escalate beyond an interesting aside is that most of us have had contact with each other outside of this post in other areas of this site. I believe that iThink feels a freedom of anonymity in his post that we don't because we exist in a social structure that we care about. When all is said and done we are all going to be here still, helping and sharing with each other, but iThink may not (though he is welcome). That makes this a unique situation were we can share our views openly without forgetting we are all friends here.


----------



## scott (Jun 18, 2001)

!


----------



## jdog (Jun 18, 2001)

iThink,

Would you please expand on your statement of having a witness of God?  Are you saying you, yourself, have witnessed God?  Or you know someone who has witnessed God?  I know dozens of people, including myself who have NOT witnessed God, does this mean God singles out people he feels worthy of presenting himself too?  Why would he not show himself to everyone and put a stop to this question?

Soapvox,

I would be gladly participate in your bbs!



-jdog


----------



## scott (Jun 18, 2001)

Would you call it Soapvox's Soapbox?

I'd participate


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 18, 2001)

You get the Idea, actually soapbox was taken, so i got soapvox.org (vox means voice).  Right now it is in development but people can check it out if you want


----------



## apb3 (Jun 18, 2001)

Black Sheep of the Racer family:

Once again the voice of thoughtfulness and reason.

After reading your post above, I agree with your assertion. Many of us have spoken in other threads and have a sort of 'relationship' - good or bad. This helps keep this sort of discussion as cool as it's been - mostly.

Oh, never answered the "what religion are you?" question from earlier. forgot. Snake Dancers/Poison Drinkers - Just Joking! - 


Agnostic.


----------



## iThink (Jun 20, 2001)

In the interest of time, let me respond in general to all the unbelievers. 

I never said anything to refer to Christianity when I made reference to the freedom of religion being the freedom to worship God as one chose. Even Christians have a different interpretation of scripture, and the makeup and personality of God. Every religion finds their version of God right and good otherwise why worship Him. It is also assumed that Satan is evil by definition. I didn't claim someone can't worship who they may, I just made a common sense point that it is a contradiction of terms to make the church of Satan a legitimate religion when by definition he is described as the antithesis of God. If being carnal is not evil then what is evil. Jefferson referred to natural law as moral law. The existence of God is so fundamental that once He is eliminated from the picture anything goes. You and I can then commit the most outrageous and henious acts and defend it as being our own personal moral and religious beliefs and therefore our right. 

In regards to the witness that I received, suffice it to say that God communicated with me in a spiritual sense in answer to a sincere prayer of faith. The specifics are personal, but I can say that the (revelation if you would) occured over 20 years ago, and it was real and powerful in a way that cannot be communicated with words, and the memory of that experience has not faded.

By definition, faith are things hoped for that cannot be seen. This is the motivating factor to seek a sure knowledge. This is as clear as I can make it. I have a sure knowledge of Gods existence. It is not faith or belief. I'm puzzeled by the numerous posts which assume that my statements are not factual because you have no evidence. How does a third parties lack of evidence change a fact. You have my testimony, and I might add that there are millions of people who have that same witness. To be fair and accurate you should be saying that you don't know that what I am saying is factual or not. If I used the same standard as you, then I would demand that you prove to me that my statements are not factual. Because it is impossible to do so, you must then state that you don't know whether it is an opinion or fact because you have no proof to the contrary.

Maybe this is a bad example, but let me pose a number of questions. Do any of you exist? If one is honest the answer would be yes. Can you prove to me that you exist? Even if you were to show up on my doorstep I can call you an illusion, but it doesn't change the fact that you do exist. My lack of evidence (or disbelief) that you exist has no bearing upon the truth. 

Is sugar sweet? It is a fact that sugar is sweet but you cannot prove it to me if I have never tasted it for myself. Just because I have not tasted sugar doesn't change the fact that sugar is sweet. And if you had tasted sugar and knew for yourself that it was sweet then you could factually state to me that it is sweet even though I have no evidence that it is sweet. If you want proof for yourself, you will have to go out (if you would) and taste the sugar.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 20, 2001)

This is getting old.

Last post and you'll never have to hear me in this thread again.

Facts are facts because (1) they can be proved and observed consistently, (2) they can be reproduced and (3) the proof and the reproduction mentioned are universal and unchanging.


Your sugar example: anyone CAN taste sugar and know it's what we call sweet. You can scientifically test it and see that it contains the compounds that make things we call sweet, well, sweet. This can be done over and over with the same results. Those results will not change over time or because some new pope, "True Believer," or whatever changes the "rules" of what sweet is.

Do I exist: I don't really know. Do you? Maybe this is all that bad season finale of St. Elsewhere in which it was all a dream. The old saying, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound," is similar. I would assume it does, but I DON'T KNOW. As someone fairly learned, I think it does make a sound and that I do exist in some sense. This is because, in the tree's case, I've seen trees fall and they ALWAYS have made a sound. I wouldn't say that I know for a FACT that my witnessing the tree fall doesn't somehow influence the situation and make the sound , but that's a stretch. Is sound relative? Yup. Is sweet relative? Yup. Is faith in any god (and, yes, satan to some is a god. The antithesis of anything is something by definition. What's the opposite of matter? Antimatter. And while we all know "we canna mix mattah and antimattah!" we know it is something. Which doesn't exist, black or white? Which is the 'god' that is the antithesis of the other? Is satan the guy you 'witnessed' or was it 'god?') relative? Yup. Is existence relative? Yup.

I guess I do have faith in something. I have faith that when a tree falls in a forest and I'm not there to hear it, it does make a sound- I think.

Look, I respect your opinion. I just find it severely lacking in logic. I'm actually happy that religion or your god or whatever seem to make your life better FOR YOU. Respect me enough to allow the Framers' views (this has been debated enough and I don't see your 'FACTS' in any way swaying ANYONE) and later judicial interpretations on separation of church and state to stand.

And I hope to, well, whoever, that the Framers' ideas of the separation of church and state as consistently interpreted by the courts and enforced by lawmakers remain around long enough to keep people like you from forcing your god on me and any kids I may decide to have.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 20, 2001)

je pense donc je suis lol

(I think therefore I am)....

Lets just lay this religion thing to rest.  People may believe in whatever they want to believe in   Lets just leave it at that...besides we are here to help others with MacOS X, and debate some inteligent problems.

Trying to convince one another that a God exist or does not exist reminds me of jehova's witnesses trying to convert you or something.  Lets just agree to disagree withough being diasgreeable


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 20, 2001)

iThink:


> To be fair and accurate you should be saying that you don't know that what I am saying is factual or not.


In fact I did say that in one of my earlier posts, that I have seen no proof so that is what I base my opinion on, if you have some proof I would love to see it.  As far as Satan being the antithesis of god, that is only in christian religions, in paganism and seen in eastern religions, satan or the equivalent is not "evil" they are just opposed  to the most popular god, but required just the same like the ying and yang, the ruler needs a scapegoat or advisary to balance him out, zues had many gods that played that role, in mayan religions , the sun god had the moon god as an advisary... it is all a matter of perception whether satanism (and "satan") is evil.  I personally don't believe in god and thus satan... so I see it from an outsiders point of view.

APB and Admiral: Please don't take this the wrong way but I like how this conversation is going so to say we should stop and just agree to disagree is counter productive, we are adressing this in the proper forum, and I appreciate iThinks point of view, and I don't want everyone to agree with me, that goes back to the original post, we live in a country where I can say it pisses me off about the seperation of church and state issue and we can have a productive discussion about it, so if you want to step away thats cool, but I really like how the conversation is going and iThink has some valid points and I think i do as well, so I really don't see a problem here.  Again I don't mean any disrespect but thats why I like it here.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 20, 2001)

LOL..
Let it continue, I have no prob, I just would like to see
inteligent arguments (like thus far) and not the "it is because I say so" and then people start flaming.  I rather enjoy the thread


----------



## RacerX (Jun 20, 2001)

I enjoy this too. I love how iThink drops in and then make a quick retreat every couple days after stirring up the waters. The only part that is getting old is iThink's argument as to the definition of what a "Fact" is. The facts are that iThink lacks a mastery of the facts, which is not uncommon in any philosophical discussion, but it have slowed us getting to the interesting stuff (more information on iThinks beliefs and why he/she feels others need to believe as him/her).

 iThinks assertion that the Constitution NEEDS a reference to a deity is countered quite easily with the writings of Kant on ethics and morals. Kant, a firm believer in God, felt that morals and ethics needed to be part of the nature of being human. Working from a primary ideal (the Christian statement: "Do onto others as you would have others do onto you") he was able to derive duty and reason without divine intervention (and the most important finding was that good, ethical and moral acts have no reward, for the moment that you do good to get something for it, it is no longer good).

In the end we all know that iThink is here to dictate his/her beliefs, and my only request would be to have more information on them. That would make this more enjoyable to me.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 20, 2001)

I simply meant it was getting old for me. Have at it.

It is getting old for me because I believe that iThink is confusing facts with opinions at best and delusions at worst. Think about it. His witness - whatever that is - could have been a schizophrenic episode. He won't elaborate (he doesn't have to obviously), but I minored in psych and have seen schizophrenics claim the same sort of thing. I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE SCHIZOPHRENIC! I am only stating that there is more than one possible explanation for what uThink.

For me the dialog consisting of I know god exists cuz I know vs. No and could you please elaborate (which never truly happens - the elaboration that is) is pointless TO ME.

The original topic of separation of C&S is a great topic and I would continue in that discussion. It just seems when I or another bring up FACTS regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, judicial rulings, scholarly research on the Framers' intent, etc..., there is never a response to those points (maybe rarely, but I can't remember one that was accurate FACTUALLY).


----------



## RacerX (Jun 20, 2001)

I don't have a background in that area, but I was under the impression that in many episodes of schizophrenia are accompanied by religious experiences that are more real and far deeper than the normal person could experience. I always thought that an anthropological study of religion would be greatly aided by noting the effect of real religious intervention on ones life (this would be similar to looks at the social ramifications of actual alien contact verses the professed belief in extraterrestrial life). 

Math can be very boring, so I enjoy dabbling in other areas from time to time (computers are a good example of this).


----------



## iThink (Jun 20, 2001)

[Do I exist: I don't really know.]

I think this speaks volumes of why my statements will never be excepted as facts. I think there is more of a problem of being in denial on the opposing end than with me having a problem with the definition of facts.

[And I hope to, well, whoever, that the Framers' ideas of the separation of church and state as consistently interpreted by the courts and enforced by lawmakers remain around long enough to keep people like you from forcing your god on me and any kids I may decide to have.]

Again I am perplexed why you are so fearful that your ears might hear a different point of view than your own. This is usually referred to as closed mindedness. One would think that dialogue from many points of view is the fist step to coming to a knowledge of truth. Let me be emphatic about this one point. I don't care whether you believe me or not. It was never my intention to convert you to my way of thinking. You can trust your lawmakers, and judges, and I'll put my trust in a Higher source. I have first hand experience with these so called secular leaders and more times than not they are liars. I'm sure there are honest and inspired individuals in governement, I have just never met one. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of corrupt religious leaders as well, which strengthens the argument that there is really  only one way to get the truth. Go directly to the source. 

At the risk of being pummeled by comments that make no sense to me, I will use a similar argument. Why should any of us believe the Founding Fathers or anyone else for that matter in anything? Why believe any human philosophy? There is no proof that there is any truth in what they say. Remember that there is no truth or absolutes. Anything goes. Electricity is still a theory even though we know that it exists. As I recall a few years back that the speed of light was for sure the fastest. The things that we claim to be facts can only be proven in the environment in which the experiments are conducted. Who is to say whether those facts will hold water if conducted in a different undiscovered environment where different laws apply. In the end there is no hope for any of us because there are no assurances. Everyone has a theory and opinion. That philosophy sounds pretty dark and hopeless to me. 

[Anyone CAN taste sugar and know it's what we call sweet.]

Likewise anyone can know what I know if they take the initiative and make the effort. God is no respector of persons but one must seek Him. It's called agency.

Is satan the guy you 'witnessed' or was it 'god?')

Trust me on this one. I have done enough good and evil in my day to be able to discern the difference between the two. It's called light and darkness. Can you discern the difference? And no I don't do drugs and have not been abducted by aliens. And no, I didn't know for sure whether God existed before I took the time to contemplate, study, and then sincerely ask. I knew no more on the subject than many of you.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 20, 2001)

We all need to keep an open mind in these discussions.  You have your faith and convictions just as I do and many other here do, but in this setting we are sharing our thoughts and beliefs, not with the intention of converting, but to inform.  I am not sure who posted the thing about:





> And I hope to, well, whoever, that the Framers' ideas of the separation of church and state as consistently interpreted by the courts and enforced by lawmakers remain around long enough to keep people like you from forcing your god on me and any kids I may decide to have.


 but i sort of agree with them, but maybe not put quite so harsh.  It's not that my family and I are close minded, but when it is put in a forum of school, or anything that we are somewhat required to go to (court, dmv, state house, etc...) to favor one religion over another to me is wrong, that is the equivalent of the state saying this god is better than the rest.  Because of our guaranteed rights of freedom of religion, to sanction one belief or another is in violation of that.  Now this is in no way saying that our schools don't need a little push to teach better values (honesty, right from wrong, etc...) but this has to start with the parents at home, so doing it through religion can put children against their parents.  My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with sending your children to private schools if you want them brought up and taught with a faith based schooling, and I know I will get flamed for this one... I... agree... with ... Bush... on the school voucher program, because just as I don't want my tax dollars going to support religion in schools, I don't see why a Christian or other religious person should have to pay both for public schools and private schools just because of their faith, that is also supported by freedom of religion in my eyes.  So I don't think I am closed minded because I don't want your religion in my schools, I think I am open minded because I don't want to send my children to private school, but I also want them to not be subjected to the ten commandments and school prayer or ridiculed because they don't participate in an after school club for prayer.  Children are cruel to their peers, (I am sure a lot of us are geeks here and remember how horrible High School was).  Not to point out one religion over a nother, but my freshman year of highschool I went to a predominately Mormon school and got beat up quite often because I did not go to their church (along with being different).  I am not saying that Mormonism caused them to this, just that as children sometimes when you are different you are targeted, and now to the point... Why make my children stand out just because they don't beleive in your god.  Sorry for that being so long winded  .


----------



## apb3 (Jun 20, 2001)

I love hearing different points of view. If nothing else, it's entertaining. I don't love having those views foisted on others (This thread is about separation of church and state - remember). I disagree with you not due to your own personal BELIEFS (not facts as I have yet to actually get one from you), but because the nature of this thread is the discussion of the separation of church and state. You show (1) a severe misunderstanding of the meaning of this and its interpretation and (2) a tendency to want to repeal or change these principles. Unacceptable to me. Your belief in a god - acceptable to me completely. You may be correct. But I'll stick with my FACTS as they relate to the separation of church and state, not my beliefs or lack thereof. If there is a god or not does not matter to this discussion. It's an interesting aside, but that's all.

If you knew me you would know that I could never be called closed minded in ANY sense of the term. Look to other posts to see some of my views, or maybe these FACTS will upset your worldview and opinion of me.

Re: your "why believe anything" statements, we do the best we can. Reasearch. Science (which evolves by the way; which is why your later statements in that paragraph make no sense - and who told you Electricity is a "theory"? Certain principles of elictricity COULD be considered theories but not electricity itself). Personal experience. Yes, even your beliefs and faith to an extent. But we're talking about, for the most part, the Constitution and its interpretation. It's a document you can read. It's been interpreted by very intelligent people for a long time. Yes, opinions on things political change over time. So what? That's the point of this thread...I think, SoapVox - don't want to put soap...errr...words into your mouth. I don't dislike your posting your opinions on these interpretations - I like it whether you want to believe me or not, but I despise individuals trying to misrepresent their own opinions as facts in any discussion. Deny it all you like, this is what you're doing.

What if What if What if. You miss my point. There are absolutes and we do the best to seek them out. BUT, we use FACTS and concrete evidence and research - not some possibly idiosyncratic episode that cannot be reproduced or proven in any scientific manner or possible psychotic break. Like I've said you are confusing FACTS with your own opinions. Come on! "FACT: God Lives." ?? 

Look up fact in a dictionary.

Caveat:

iThink, I don't know you. While some of this was a bit personal I really mean no true insult to you. We just disagree. I also want it to be PERFECTLY clear - crystal - that I have no qualms with your personal religious or spiritual beliefs. I've said I'm agnostic. Part of me kinda hopes you're right. My parents both died when I was young and I lost 4 men under my command between the Gulf and Sarajevo. I hope there is some heaven or whatever or a god that is taking care of them - I obviously couldn't.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 20, 2001)

I think there is more of a problem of being in denial on the opposing end than with me having a problem with the definition of facts.

iThink, you do realize that you are throwing out denial as a buzz word and are not pointing to any actual statements. I dont personally think that pointing out weaknesses in your arguments are show any form of denial. And I personally have invited you to provide us with proof of these facts of yours. I can think of no greater sin than that of withholding information that would save us, can you?

Again I am perplexed why you are so fearful that your ears might hear a different point of view than your own. This is usually referred to as closed mindedness....

You need to consider your presentation here. Your first post included Facts of which you seem to be the only one privileged to, and then assumed that because you had these facts behind you that you could dictate to us how things really are (I think a little resistance is understandable). Remember that all of us have different points of view here.

At the risk of being pummeled by comments that make no sense to me, I will use a similar argument. Why should any of us believe the Founding Fathers or anyone else for that matter in anything? Why believe any human philosophy?...

This statement show that you believe that other suffer from an inner anarchy that you yourself feel. There are people who I know that cannot control themselves without the concept of someone looking over their shoulder every minute of every day (most have compulsive disorders), and they feel everyone must also have this belief or anarchy shall rain down on us. This is not the case. Many of us are quite capable of living without a deity hanging of us ( you remind me of a character in a Phillip K. Dick novel, Eye in the Sky, a truly great book).

...things that we claim to be facts can only be proven in the environment in which the experiments are conducted...

and on and on. The facts of science are open to peer review, others working to recreate them, and constant modification. Cold Fusion was a good example of science without peer review, and when all was said and done, so was it.

Trust me on this one. I have done enough good and evil in my day to be able to discern the difference between the two...

I have complete faith in that statement, because you have the posturing of a reformed person (dare I say born again?).

In the end, your arguments have lacked the facts that we need to give them a fare hearing. Your presentation is that of being dictatorial rather than helping us see how your way is the correct way (speaking of sweat, have you heard the one about flies and honey?). And again I look forward to your next installment.


----------



## jdog (Jun 20, 2001)

I would just like to point out that iThink stated his "revelation" happened over 20 years ago, which would put it during the 70s.  Is there a connection there? 

-jdog


----------



## apb3 (Jun 20, 2001)

Hell, I was fairly young in the 70's. But boy did I get some 'witnessing' at BU in the 80's....


----------



## RacerX (Jun 20, 2001)

the only things I can remember from that period were EST and the Jonestown Massacre, and Disco (a religious experience for some I've heard  ).


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 20, 2001)

I wonder if I can do some witnessing at UMASS myself lol 

Admiral
--> I dont remember the seventies... I had a split personality...an ovum and a sperm


----------



## iThink (Jun 20, 2001)

[And I hope to, well, whoever, that the Framers' ideas of the separation of church and state as consistently interpreted by the courts and enforced by lawmakers remain around long enough to keep people like you from forcing your god on me and any kids I may decide to have.]

I feel like the conservative guest on Polically Incorrect when I'm tring to make a point and 4 people keeping telling me I'm saying something I'm not. I believe in the full statement of the first amendment. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A STATE SPONSERED RELIGION IN SCHOOLS!!!! Now for the second part of that amendment. I will defend the right of any person or group who chooses individually or collectively to pray in front of me or you at any place (with the exception of private property/ my home) or at any time whether I like it or agree with it. Its called tolerance. Its called "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Contrary to popular belief there is no Consitutional right to shut someone up because it is offensive or we don't agree with them. It's called mutual respect. Other than parents with their children, no one can force any beliefs on anyone. Even then when they become adults they can agree or disagree, ignore completely, change the channel etc.. 

I agree that it is the parents right and duty to teach their children the concepts that they believe will be in their best interest. Notwithstanding my (I'll use your term, Convictions), if you knew me you would know that you could not find a greater defender of freedom. However, I tend to lean towards Jeffersons philosophy that the majority should decide the standard of the community as long as individual rights are not infringed.

But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???

As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony.

Sorry if I got off track from the initial topic with my comments, but I believe they were related and therefore relevent.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 21, 2001)

Finally we agree on something.

I said earlier re: 'the prohibition thereof' clause, that you can walk down the street and pray out loud if you feel the need, bow to mecca or say what you will (within certain laws of safety/keeping of the peace - which I think cops are pretty lenient about.

However, it has been interpreted that there is a Constitutional right by the government to shut you up for using offensive language (at some times an assault or can lead to an assault ie "fighting words"). These words usually get said, but there are repercussions under law and as interpreted by S.C. decisions. Also, ever heard of the FCC? You may not get your physical freedom taken away, but I believe a fine is a kind of taking of freedom.

They have also had the right to shut us up during darker times. Happily, things changed, but not too soon and some of it goes on today. During WWI and WWII, and both conflicts (OK, one was as a 'Peacekeeper' but a guy still died and lots of civilians there wouldn't have called it Peacekeeping) in which I have been engaged, there have been differing degrees of news blackouts. It's called national security (martial law is another example though much less common). I'm no UFO freak, but ever hear of Groom Lake? Work for them and try to talk about it later. It'll most likely result in a jail term. In WWI an II we had the equivalent of thought police running around and getting people locked up for their thoughts and words.

I think everyone has stated in one way or another - I know I have more than once - that I (we) am not disagreeing with your choice of a religion. I cannot recall one post that insulted your religion itself (your claims of Fact, maybe, but never the religion).

We have an adversarial system of jurisprudence. If a witness is lying, it is the job of opposing counsel to prove it. It's the best system I've sen for us imperfect humans. Until we all get into StarFleet and can tell the little "vulcan" ensign is really a Romulan through that sexy computer on board the Enterprise, it's the best we can do. There is also a penalty for perjury which often includes loss of freedom.
Lastly, witness testimony is often the least reliable and noted as such by the courts. Facts speak louder than all the witness testimony combined. The bullet matches the gun found in the possession of the defendant right after the shooting, We have video tape of the heist. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" Man! and I OWN a pair of Bruno Maglis!!!


----------



## RacerX (Jun 21, 2001)

"...I tend to lean towards Jeffersons philosophy that the majority should decide the standard of the community as long as individual rights are not infringed."

I think that you need to do a little more research on Jefferson and the role of the majority. If we were to be governed by the majority, then why does california (the most populous state in the union) have the same number of senate seats as Rhode Island? And why is Bush president? The minority can and should have a strong voice in our society.

"But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???"

Wow, were have you been? No one here claims to have the same religious view as anyone else here. I have no reason to attack your views, but you entered this discussion with some strong statement which (minus the term "Fact") would have been considered and then we would have moved on. Your presentation has brought this attention, not you beliefs. If I were to present my beliefs the way you have I would have gotten the same response.

"As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony."

As someone who is the son of a lawyer, and as someone who has held a position of enforcing those laws, I can tell you that it is understood that eye witness testimony does not carry that much weight. Specially when I have gotten three different statements from three different witnesses at the scene of an accident. If it was that cut and dry, then why are so many people walking the streets free even after a witness identified them and someone who was not identified (but the evidence pointed to) serving time. Our systems works on checks and balances, and even with witnesses a person has the right to mount a defense in this country. If we weight you "Facts" based on your account of testimony from a witness (which we have no direct contact) and the lack of information which you are willing to provide, I can assure you that no court in the land would let you represent your "Facts" as facts.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 21, 2001)

iThink exactly  where do you  stand on  seperation  of  church   and  state?

If you are against state sponsored  religion in our schools,  why did  you come  in  proclaiming  all  those facts?  I think the  main  demate that we started going off on is when you started  saying  your "facts"  but it  sounds like  you  actually agree  with  me  that the religion thing needs to be  kept  out  of  schools.  Is that a correct assumption?


----------



## iThink (Jun 21, 2001)

[I think that you need to do a little more research on Jefferson and the role of the majority. If we were to be governed by the majority, then why does california (the most populous state in the union) have the same number of senate seats as Rhode Island? And why is Bush president? The minority can and should have a strong voice in our society.]

On the contrary, I have researched Jefferson's writings and if I may state my humble opinion, he was an inspired man and probably the most influential of all the Founding Fathers. The Constitutional provision for the election process is an exception. Jefferson's belief in the majority rule did not apply to the inalienable individual rights. I have 6 pages of Jefferson on this particular topic but maybe this will suffice.

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes it's place, and life and property are his who can take them."

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."

"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law."

"This ...[is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law."

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons  in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once discarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated states] is that the will of the majority is to prevail."

[iThink exactly where do you stand on separation of church and state?

Apparently I don't have the necessary skills to make my point clear. Against: State sponsored religion that would mandate a specific religious point of view. For: Individual right to express religious views, prayers, etc., at school, at the courthouse, in the halls of Congress, again with a few exceptions. Someone's personal property right would trump my religious right if I insisted that I be allowed to prayer on his premises without his or her consent. My neighbor is some type of eastern religion (I believe Hindu), and they built some type of prayer room in their home when it was being built. If they invite us over for a dinner they can do their chants or burn incense or whatever they do or want, however if they are my guests in my home then my rules apply. Common sense. Personally they would have a lot of latitude even in my home unless they started to sacrifice the dog or something.

[If you are against state sponsored religion in our schools, why did you come in proclaiming all those facts? I think the main demate that we started going off on is when you started saying your "facts" but it sounds like you actually agree with me that the religion thing needs to be kept out of schools. Is that a correct assumption?]

I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion????? Am I a government official on government property dictating what you shall believe? I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements. You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position. It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted that they had a new baby boy today, are we all supposed to ask for video or photos of the lovemaking session to prove it?  And if the video and photos were produced should we then demand to have them analyzed by the FBI? How about a DNA test? Frankly, if someone stated that as a fact I would give them the benefit of the doubt, congratulate them and go on my way. I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.

Off topic but did everyone download 10.0.4 yet?


----------



## RacerX (Jun 21, 2001)

On the contrary, I have researched Jefferson's writings and if I may state my humble opinion, he was an inspired man and...        ....inalienable individual rights. I have 6 pages of Jefferson on this particular topic but maybe this will suffice.

Interesting quotes, but I dont recognize them. You said that you are referring to a document of 6 pages in length, which document is it? Was it a letter? What was the date? The reason I ask is that any one can use a sub set of ones writings to support an arguments where the complete set would not. I too have spent much time reading thought of many of the men who helped form this country (primarily Jefferson and Franklin) and have no problem with the feelings expressed in your quotes as long as they are not at the exclusion of other feels not supporting your argument. Most of us have a spectrum of feelings on any subject, and Jefferson had some deep and complex beliefs that could not be communicated in this age of the sound bite. If your quotes are in direct response to to a statement or are limited to expressing a single ideal, they may or may not (and in my humble opinion dont) represent his true feeling on the greater subject. In a different argument I could easily find myself echoing those every statement, but then again context is very important.

I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion?????  ...I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements.

The operative word (for me) is claiming, the facts of which you speak (and are apparently unable to express completely) are not common with this group of individuals. As I pointed out many times, your presentation if these claims as facts is were you have peaked my curiosity. I dont see where you find it easy to proclaim facts and then dont have the ability to expand on them (you have been able to mount a noble defense in the area of Jeffersons ideals, I would think this would be even easier).

You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position.

Most important note here: We (I) have no intention of damaging your belief structure. A persons beliefs are VERY important, and I would never want to do any thing to undermine yours.

It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted...  I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.

Ah, but having a daily occurrence being stated as fact is something very different from divine intervention. If someone posted that they had just had contact with aliens, would you take that at face value also? By your statement I would have to conclude that you would. The post could be completely factual in all respects, but without asking for clarification how would you know if that person was speaking of little green men or foreign nationals? I think we have asked for clarification more than evidence, and also your usage of the word Fact in your first post has been at the heart of my interest in this discussion thus far.


And, no I haven't yet installed 10.0.4. I usually wait a couple days before installing updates unless they address specific problems that I have been having with my system. This lets others test the waters first to see if the update does more harm than good.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 22, 2001)

Yeah I installed it and it does seem a little zippier, haven't  had too much time to play  with it.

On  to the subject you state that :





> For: Individual right to express religious views, prayers, etc., at school, at the courthouse, in the halls of Congress, again with a few exceptions. Someone's personal property right would trump my religious right if I insisted that I be allowed to prayer on his premises without his or her consent.


We all pay for the schools, so my biggest conviction is that any representation of religion on "OUR" property  is wrong, if you want to say a little prayer that is one thing, but top set  aside time for a prayer is wrong in my opinion.  For those of us who are non beleivers we sit there in an awkward silence  (I really  hate moments of silence) and the dirty looks people give me and my family when we don't bow our heads is very disturbing.  To make my children feel worse than yours is wrong, so we need to keep all religion out of schools.  This is not to say if your child wants to say a prayer before eating or starting their day there is anything wrong with that, and if our two children want to sit around and debate religion I would be very happy(productive debate is always good), but having a moment of silence before a football game, or the pledge of alegience in the morning I just feel is wrong (I am not anti american, I just don't follow  the part one nation under god).


----------



## iThink (Jun 22, 2001)

[Interesting quotes, but I dont recognize them]

Go to http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/index.html 

It is a compilation of the quotations of Jefferson from majority rule to inalienable rights, but I warn you that you might find that Jeffersons view on where inalienable rights originate a little unsettling considering that they seem to contradict the majority view of this thread. Like this one for example: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

Have fun!


----------



## apb3 (Jun 22, 2001)

Refer to earlier post (mine) stating the reason(s) why - beyond the fact that the Framers believed in a god - they made ONE of the justifications of their new society and their right to do what they were attempting - a god.

Refer to earlier posts by others explaining the TYPE of god about whom they were speaking.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 22, 2001)

iThink: "...I warn you that you might find that Jeffersons view on where inalienable rights originate a little unsettling considering that they seem to contradict the majority view of this thread."

Thomas Jefferson: "Religion. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them on any other subject rather than that of religion. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of Reason than of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine, first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then, as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the laws of Nature. You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, Of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and, 2, Of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out with pretensions to divinity; ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you will feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement: if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven; and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness, of the decision."

Aug. 10, 1787, a letter from Jefferson to his nephew and ward, Peter Carr.

This is again unsurprising. As I stated, the ideals and beliefs of Jefferson are quite deep and passionate. He has always argued his points without apology and with full force. I would be happy to duel quotes with you (actually I LOVE dueling quotes   ), but I couldn't help but notice that you are replying only to the easiest of the questions. Why avoid the other far more important questions raised by your post? This seems odd to me (you argue side points and leave the main points unanswered). A good example was my counter arguement to your arguement about posting "Facts".

And again we have the presentation issue. In your last post you said that you thought that we/I would find the information "little unsettling", why? Nothing presented so far has phased anyone here from what I can see. And in an earlier post you said "...offensive to others is someone elses religious views" when all of us have differing views of religion and do not seem to be taking offension to any one else's views. Throughout your responce you have tried to employ a tactic of implying what our motive are or what our reactions are going to be. This tactic is used by many to get people to fight perseptions of them selves rather than the arguments at hand. Lets stick to the actual arguments here, and respond to the major points rather than the minor ones.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 22, 2001)

The pledge of allegiance says "under god"  

And all this time when in high school I used to say "under guard" 

Boy do I feel like a fool!

Admiral


----------



## RacerX (Jun 22, 2001)

It is fun that it wasn't there originally, and I personally think the placement is damaging to the pledge:

Originally: ...One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

After Ike (ca. 1954): ...One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

To place "under God" between "One Nation" and "Indivisible" weaken the concept "united we stand, divided we fall" that inspired that part of the pledge.


----------



## iThink (Jun 22, 2001)

I think RacerX (or I should say Jefferson) reinforced what I have been saying all along. The only sure way to know the truth is to go to the source of truth, God. You've never heard me argue that everything contained in the bible was necessarily correct or transalated correctly. Nor did you hear me say that everything that Jefferson has said is necessarily true or correct. What I am certain of is that (as I stated earlier), you can find truth in Jeffersons words, in the Bible, the Koran, the Consitution, and on the internet. What we don't know is how much of scripture or any history for that matter has been changed throughout time to suit the purposes of those in power at the time. We don't know whether some of the stories told in the Bible were actually true, fictional to make a point, taken out of context, or changed over the years by evil and corrupt individuals. I think Jefferson would backpeddle on some of his comments if he could see the space shuttle rocketing into space. One of my favorite movie lines is at the beginning of Braveheart, "Heros are hanged by those who write history." 

During the impeachment hearings, I sat down and listened to the historians that will write the Clinton legacy and in my mind it isn't going to be representative of the facts. Of course once again who knows but what we are told. If we depend on Dan Rather for the facts, we'll most likely be wondering in the darkness for the good part of our life.

As to addressing every point of rebuttal I just don't have time. I tried to address them generally.

By the way, does air exist and can you prove it by showing it to me. Not feel it, not descibe the composition, and not color it with something else. Prove to me that it exists by showing me so it can see it with my eyes. Then will I believe.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by iThink _
> *By the way, does air exist and can you prove it by showing it to me. Not feel it, not descibe the composition, and not color it with something else. Prove to me that it exists by showing me so it can see it with my eyes. Then will I believe.  *



Air is a fluid medium, and it follows the laws of fluid dynamics. As a medium air is how I can tell the temperature of an object (be it hot or cold) without touching. In fact all temperature changes that we feel that are not direct radiation (i.e. sun light) are carried by the medium of air. Air is the cool breeze I feel when I step outside (after sitting in front of a computer for too long). And on a grander scale, air is what has destroyed many homes and lives in my state do to tornadoes. Yes, air was one of the first discoveries of science (when the elements that made up the universe were thought to be air, water, earth and fire). Any child who sits next to an open window in a moving car or who has blown out a birthday candle understands that air exist. Even the blind have little trouble realizing that air exist, and they do not have the benefit of seeing anything with their own eyes.

The part of the quote that was most telling was not Jefferson's beliefs, it was the advice about accepting facts. "Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." Have we not done this with your stated "facts"? As for your statement "The only sure way to know the truth is to go to the source of truth, God", I would point out that Jefferson said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God". Do you always claim support from statements that contradict the ideas you are trying to put forth?

As for impeachment, we have some idea of how history may play this out. Nixon was a very successful president in his achievement while in office. As time past, those achievements slowly began to out shine the darkness under which he was force to leave office. I have no doubt that the same shall someday be true for Clinton as well. Those who have studied presidential history have already noted that the failures of the Bush (original) presidency had grown from the seeds of the Reagan years (from what Bush called VooDoo economics in the primaries of the 1980 elections). I only hope that this Bush stops short of undoing what his father helped give to all of us... the end of the Cold War.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 23, 2001)

> By the way, does air exist and can you prove it by showing it to me. Not feel it, not descibe the composition, and not color it with something else. Prove to me that it exists by showing me so it can see it with my eyes. Then will I believe.



 

(1) Do you only believe something exists because you can see it with your eyes? Of course not. There are many things (facts not opinions or beliefs, BTW) that we KNOW exist through indirect and other types of direct observation. Touch,  Olfaction, taste (you brought up sugar - re-read your own posts), Auditory sensation, Arthroscopes, IR Goggles/sensors, RADAR, satellite imagery, ad infinitum all can prove something exists to one degree or another and together often support the factual finding of existence. 
  Can you see radiation? Wanna stand next to a decommissioned warhead someday? I may be able to arrange that. Or how about some depleted uranium shells? Want to spend a couple days in an x-ray machine being invisibly bombarded with these things we cannot see? Have at it. Ever hear of Gravity (just like your flawed 'electricity theory ' example, Gravity is a fact, some aspects of its manifestation or some gravitational hypotheses may be unknown or just guesses - but Gravity IS)? Did ya ever see that? It's effects maybe but not actual gravity. This can go on forever. But I think (hope) you see my point.
  And this doesn't even cover things that we need mechanical devices and/or aides to detect. Listen to radio? Ever see an atom or subatomic particle without the aide of such a device? Can you see the aforementioned x-rays and other radiation without artificial devices? Ugh. Again - I'll even pray to whatever - I hope you see my point.

(2) If you're really interested in KNOWING FOR A FACT that air exists, my wife has volunteered her lab at Harvard Med. She'll put us in touch with the right people (she does genetics work). This may entail a drive to Cambridge as her lab is at Children's Hospital in the Longwood Medical Area (Subway, Green Line, E-Train, Longwood stop; I'll meet you in front of Sparr's. Can't miss it) and she thinks the lab we'll need is across the river.
 Pick a time. Several of the aforementioned methods will prove to you for a fact that air exists. Or we can just tie plastic bags over our heads and prove it exists by the result of it being absent...


----------



## RacerX (Jun 23, 2001)




----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 23, 2001)

can I come for free check ups


----------



## apb3 (Jun 23, 2001)

We even have to pay for our insurance...

But... There is this really big guy with REALLY big hands they use for anal and prostate exams. They say he volunteers to do so...FREE for those he likes... send him your picture.


----------



## scott (Jun 24, 2001)

Let's get a Buddhist, an Irish Catholic, and Irish Protestant, a couple of Muslims and some Jewish in here and see if it really gets hopping.

Then we'll link it to the Hello Everybody, May I Cus? forum.


----------



## iThink (Jun 25, 2001)

I think we finally agree on something. Although no one attemped to prove to me that air exists in the manner that I asked for, my point for asking the question was to get everyone to finally admit that you don't necessarily have to be able to see and define something scientifically to know that it exists as a fact. Thank you for clearing that up and proving my original point. I'm sure you are going to claim that the 2 are not comparable, so I'll take it one step further and ask this question. Does your conscience exist? Can you prove that one to me scientifically? Every normal person is aware of his or her conscience which makes them aware of their existence, but IT CANNOT BE PROVEN to exist scientifically!

Just because Jefferson made the point to question everything, doesn't mean that he didn't come to the conclusion that God existed. He refers to God, and the Creator everywhere in his writings. He constantly refers to moral truth (the foundation for the Constitution), as coming from God. One of the hundreds of quotes by Jefferson once again refering to the Creator as the source who endowed us all with the understanding of moral truth (law): "He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science, For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with the sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to the ploughman and the professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. 

How about this one: "How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our Constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice." -Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814. 

And for all those who are so sure that Jefferson did not lean towards the Christian theology why was he always quoting phrases from the Bible? Who do you think he was refering to when he made this statement? "Our Savior... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." - Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. Hmm?

Can we now be honest and agree that one need not have scientific proof to know for a fact that something is true? Can we at least admit that just because God may choose not to reveal Himself in a visual sense, doesn't mean He cannot make Himself known in another sense.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 25, 2001)

No we don't agree.

I never claimed that one had to SEE something to believe it. In fact I used other examples of the scientific testing method (taste being one, spectroscopy, another) before your 'air' question.

If you were trying to get me to admit that you can know something for a fact without seeing it, you win - actually have admitted (known) that for as long as I remember.

You call it conscience, I call it inner dialogue. I have thoughts all day long. I contemplate many things. I decide if this is moral or not, ethical or not. It's a function of the brain that can also be observed using PET scans and other devices (I think it's main area of location is in the pre-frontal cortex?). This is probably one of those early evolving sciences and details will change over time as we get better detectors, etc... but the FACT remains - this is reproducible scientific evidence.

The brain is a funny machine. Malfunctions a lot, too. I can stimulate - electrically or otherwise - certain areas and make you BELIEVE there is another person standing in the room with you, you're hungry, have a mystical experience, etc... This brings up another debate on what is really real... Go read the differing philosophical views on this type of thing. But this is about Separation of Church and State and your claim of FACTS that are clearly not facts at all.

Short note for the Jefferson stuff...

Most (all) of your quotes come from PERSONAL correspondence between Jeff and others. I think it speaks volumes to the fact that a man with such seemingly strong PERSONAL beliefs in a god would be one of the driving forces (if not THE driving force) behind making sure our PUBLIC life was (is) governed by the Separation Clause.

I (and I don't think anyone else) asked you to prove a god exists VISUALLY. I and some others questioned your calling certain thoughts that are OBVIOUSLY personal beliefs, facts. You may be right about those beliefs as I have said before. You may also be wrong. And in the vein of this thread, those personal beliefs do not belong in any State sanctioned venue.

Let's call a fact a fact. However you want to prove it - just use real, reproducible evidence.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 25, 2001)

> _Originally posted by iThink _
> *I think we finally agree on something. Although no one attemped to prove to me that air exists in the manner that I asked for, my point for asking the question was to get everyone to finally admit that you don't necessarily have to be able to see and define something scientifically to know that it exists as a fact.*



Fine, walk out side while the sun is out and look up, if you see the stars and blackness of space then there is no air, if you see a blue sky the you are seeing air. You argument show only that you are grasping at straws (and several post pointed this out).



> *Thank you for clearing that up and proving my original point.*



Again with the victory out of nothing. I noticing a trend here, you are going to assume you've made a point even if you haven't (this is starting to become very clear as I reread your previous post).



> *Does your conscience exist? Can you prove that one to me scientifically? Every normal person is aware of his or her conscience which makes them aware of their existence, but IT CANNOT BE PROVEN to exist scientifically!*



True, there is NO evidence that I exist, or that I exist here, or that here is real (given that you can not be sure of anything outside of your own thoughts). All I have are logical causal relations between events. That is in fact my only standard for dealing with the universe around me. I live in a causal universe (a universe of cause and effect), and my only measuring stick for God is and effect without a cause (because the cause of that effect would be God). 



> *Just because Jefferson made the point to question everything, doesn't mean that he didn't come to the conclusion that God existed... , 1824. Hmm?*



I never said he didn't come to the conclusion that God exist, and that is very important here. I have NEVER need my beliefs and those of Jefferson's to match. I pointed out that in his opinion every man (and woman) should reach their beliefs by questioning them first. And that we should NEVER let someone run us over with "Facts" without calling for the proof of those "Facts". I would point out that Jefferson spoke TO his audience, and speaking to them in a form that they could relate to doesn't mean that he was a believer on their beliefs. If we held you to that same standard we could quote you into being a scientist (if we took small enough quotes).



> *Can we now be honest and agree that one need not have scientific proof to know for a fact that something is true? Can we at least admit that just because God may choose not to reveal Himself in a visual sense, doesn't mean He cannot make Himself known in another sense.*



Maybe I missed something here, where did we ask for scientific proof? I only require the same proof that you would be required to provide in a court of law. You can in with statements of "Fact" and have yet to show any of us that these "Facts" are anything other than opinions. Let us revisit your original statements, shall we:


> _Originally posted by iThink on 06-16-2001_
> *
> Fact: God lives.
> 
> ...



These statements started this. I have yet to see the proof of the "Fact" that God (or any other deity) lives. Or that said God is good. Or that said God inspires truth. Or that said God is infact the Creator who endowed us (or just some general creator). and so on. Actually the only thing that rings of Fact is your last statement. You made some very strong statements, we asked for you to back them up. If you had replaced "Fact" with "I Believe", your first post could have been the last in this thread. Throwing the term "Fact" out there ask all of us to examine your facts. Not to share with us that which has made it a "Fact" that "God lives" is a crime. All we ask for is that you give us the same mastery of the "Facts" that you proclaimed to have in the beginning. I still feel that if you are able to proclaim these are "Fact" you should be ready to back them up.


----------



## RacerX (Jul 1, 2001)

I hope we didn't drive off iThink. He was quite fun to have around (specially when there wasn't much happening in the Mac OS X world). Though it was strange that he didn't post to any other thread  .


----------



## apb3 (Jul 1, 2001)

yeah. hope so too. I didn't think I was being mean or anything. Hopefully he just got bored with saying the same thing over and over; I just checked for other posts from him as well - none. Maybe he just stumbled upon the church thing during a search...

Or...maybe....it was your alter-ego just keeping things interesting

RacerX was known for his secrets after all...

Now let's talk about The Mammoth Car. Still can't remember how the powerful Mach 5 was able to defeat that behemoth.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jul 1, 2001)

don't forget it's summer and vacation season  
iThink is probably in vacation and will return triumphant ready to tackle more debates  


Admiral


----------

