[avaya]

Okay, I will admit that some of you have it right.

This country WAS founded by religious men who were of the Jesus trait.

This does not, however, make this country a Christian one. It amazes me really. The unbelievable hubris and gall that some of these preachers have in trying to re-write Americna history into one telling us about how religious our founding fathers were and becuase of that this is a Christian country.

Let me tell you something folks, our founding fathers were great men because they knew one thing above all else.

Religion and politics fit together as well as Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint.

To me, if our founding fathers were some of the most reliigous men of their time, then the very fact that they made this country a secular one means even more to me then if they were all paganistic atheists.

It's amazing to me that no one seems upset that we live, daily, with one of the most gross and vile violations of the Constitution ever.

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

And yet, when the government added the words "In God We Trust" to our money in the 1800's and later added the words "Under God" to the Pledge of Alligence in the 1950's this is exactly what they did.

Congress made a law respecting the establishment of reliigon.

My only solace in this is the knowledge that Congress did not do this out of some deep love for religion but as a tactic to show the world they they were better than the Commies who were restricting religious expression.

It's that thought alone that gives me the warm and fuzzy feeling whenever I hear some moronic televangelist wax poetic about how much closer this nation came to god in the 1950's.

[Art Deco]

Originally Posted by avayaFirst Amendment:
"[B

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

And yet, when the government added the words "In God We Trust" to our money in the 1800's and later added the words "Under God" to the Pledge of Alligence in the 1950's this is exactly what they did. Congress made a law respecting the establishment of reliigon.

Listen Buffalo Breath, this lie might pass muster with the dolts you hang out with, but here at TOL we deal in fact not fiction. The establishment clause refers to the establishment of a state religion like that in Great Britain, nothing more. How else can you explain paid chaplains in the House and Senate paid out of tax revenues? They sometimes held church services in the House Chamber attended by Thomas Jefferson.

Nice try...

[avaya]

Originally Posted by Art Deco

Listen Buffalo Breath, this lie might pass muster with the dolts you hang out with, but here at TOL we deal in fact not fiction. The establishment clause refers to the establishment of a state religion like that in Great Britain, nothing more. How else can you explain paid chaplains in the House and Senate paid out of tax revenues? They sometimes held church services in the House Chamber attended by Thomas Jefferson.

Nice try...

Right, so the fact that the majority of our founding fathers were Deists had nothing to do with that, right?

Perhaps you should read some of Madison and Franklin's writing and see just what a huge disdain they had for religion.

As for the lies, I'll leave that to you Deco.

Had the Establishment clause meant what you said it would read "an establishment of A religion" meaning the establishment of one reliigon over another or, as you said, the creation of a national language.

In fact, what the 1st actually says is that no law shall be made "respecting an establishment of religion" and that means religion period. In other words, the government is meant to stay religion neutral, neither being able to deny nor refute religion.

Now, as to the remaing stupidity about chaplains opening parayers and what not.

That is not done by law you silly little child. Anyone who wises to not be present during the prayer may leave. Also, the 1st does not say that the senators may not be religious.

Simply put, having the chaplain is not the same as making a law that establishes religion.

However, making it the law to note on our money that "In God We Trust" and the this is to be one nation "Under God" most certainly is a law establishing religion.

Again, for the detail impaired, not "A" religion but religion as a whole.

As for the nature of this post I find it neccessary to post things like this from time to time in order to counter all the stupidity I come across on a nearly daily basis when some religious zealot constantly tells me that this is a Christian nation founded by Christians.

The Puritans may have been Christians but they had as much to do with founding this nation as South Africa has had to do with snow making.

Oh, and anytime truthman wuold like to let me know what that "misinformation" is, I'll be more than happy to rebut.

Should I even remember to come back and look.

Most of you guys are pretty easy to forget.

[BillyBob]

avaya is a stupid commie who knows nothing about the Constitution or our heritage.

[The Berean]

Originally Posted by BillyBob

avaya is a stupid commie who knows nothing about the Constitution or our heritage.

BillyBob,

Have you noticed an increase of attempted infiltration on TOL recently? But, they are still easy to spot.

[avaya]

Originally Posted by The Berean

BillyBob,

Have you noticed an increase of attempted infiltration on TOL recently? But, they are still easy to spot.

This I especially love.

Completely ignore anything resembling a rebuttal based on fact and instead focus solely on the ad hominem attack.

Wonderful tactic.

I typically expect this from the hillbilly. I am sad to see it spreading.

I also find it to be the height of hubris that you think you can ascertain my political idelogy from a single post.

Well, let me shed a little light your way. I voted for Bush in 04 but I'm unsure who I'll be voting for in 08. I'm starting to think that Terry Schiavo would be a better alternative as we would at least know she was brain dead from the start. I'm neither right nor left so I guess that makes me a middle-ist?

I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and no recreating history to suit the needs of the day. I support states rights and a very limited federal government. I prefer a free market over an all knowing government.

I believe in an honest pay for a solid days work. No life-long handouts.

I completely believe in a complete and utter separation of religion and state becuase when ever those two mic everything goes to crap. Just look at the middle east now or Europe in the 1700's.

And I believe in a government that is afraid of it's citizens instead of the other way around. (Sorry to be stealing from a movie but it sorta works for me).

There, does that give you a tiny glimpse of what I'm about?

Or do you still think I'm a commie? If you think I support that crap you are a true

[Mr. 5020]

Originally Posted by avaya

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

And yet, when the government added the words "In God We Trust" to our money in the 1800's and later added the words "Under God" to the Pledge of Alligence in the 1950's this is exactly what they did.

By making those additions to the currency and the pledge, the government did not respect an establishment of religion. The word "God" applies to all religions, so the government did not respect any one particular religion, nor did it exclude any.

So, in a lot of words, what I'm saying is this: you're wrong.