# Karl Rove



## sevendogs

For Republicans, politics is ahead of national security. Proper punishemnt for Karl Rove would be sending him to jail. I do not thing we should join Democrats, but every decent person in USA should be anti-Republican.


----------



## Bore.224

Define decent person? We are also realistically a 2 party country if you are anti Republican what do you have left? Also how do you come to the conclushon that politics are ahead of national security for Republicans, and how you think Hillary Clinton could improve on all this.


----------



## Gohon

Only surprise here is it took this long for someone to start the shouting. What do you really know about this story with Carl Rove??????? I suspect, like most of us, not a damn thing. Personally all I know is the usual suspects on both sides, in their normal manner are blowing more smoke in Washington. The Grand Jury is meeting today.............. don't you think the prudent thing to do is at least wait and see what comes out of that.


----------



## always_outdoors

All politicians are dirty. whether they D or R.


----------



## BigDaddy

Guys,

Karl Rove is ruthless, and some of the tactics that he has used to get Republicans in office are downright shameful. He is also a political genius, and it is not surprising that lots of Democrats would like to get him out of the picture between now and the next election.

This being said, I think that this story is being blown way out of proportion based on what I have gathered. Therefore, I suggest that we wait to light the bonfire around the stake until we learn a little more about what Rove has done.

If he really leaked information about a covert operative, I hope they throw the book at him.


----------



## Gohon

> If he really leaked information about a covert operative, I hope they throw the book at him.


So do I but from what I have gathered so far, she worked out of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia where she drove her car and parked it in the parking lot everyday. Went to public parties in Washington with her husband all the time and her husband had a personal web site with his and her picture where he said she worked for the CIA. Doesn't sound very covert to me. I think most people are smart enough to realize what this is all about.

As for Carl Rove being ruthless and shameful, that would be expected from the losing side but the winning side sees him simply as aggressive, honest, and dedicated. Betcha Kerry would have given him a life time supply of ketchup for his help last year.


----------



## Plainsman

I't looks as if everyone is ready to hang him, and I was so stupid I didn't even know he was guilty yet. It's very disappointing to always be slow like that. I remember when O.J. was on trial, some knew he was guilty, and others knew he was innocent. Darn I didn't know, and worse yet, I still don't.

Then when Clinton got in trouble with his little humidor I didn't know if he was guilty or not. Same thing that time most people knew he was guilty, some knew he was innocent, and there was dumb me in the middle without a clue.

Sevendogs, how do you get that insight. Old MT had a knack like that, he knew things the CIA didn't know about covert actions in foreign lands. Darn I wish I was smart like that. It's a good thing there are people who "KNOW" what's going on or I would still be in the dark on so many things. You know maybe you guys could call the federal investigators. Just think of all the tax money you can save by setting them straight without going through that expensive investigation.


----------



## sevendogs

Bore.224 said:


> Define decent person? We are also realistically a 2 party country if you are anti Republican what do you have left? Also how do you come to the conclushon that politics are ahead of national security for Republicans, and how you think Hillary Clinton could improve on all this.


Leaving alone Hillary, even Pelosi would be better then Bush. Why? Because he rides on support of heavily indoctrinated religious right of America. Those people using the same method of thinking like Taliban or otehr relgious fanatics.


----------



## Plainsman

So sevendogs how many Christian right suicide bombers have killed people this year? Did the Christian holy Jihad start and no one told me? So help me understand this you were asked to define decent people, and the first people you condemn are Christians. I think we get the picture. Personally I don't know any clerics errrr pastors that carry an Uzi under their robe.

Any Christian liberals out there that would like to share your opinion?


----------



## Gohon

I think most people kind of form a image in their mind how someone looks and lives by they way they post a message and what they say. Having said that I did form a image of sevendogs in my mind but now I'm not so sure. Just out of curiosity sevendogs and this is just because I'm curious mind you but, were you born in the United States?


----------



## tail chaser

I see what 7dogs is saying. I don't consider Bush a religous fanatic, but I think he has the support of religous fanatics and has seeked that support. In doing so he is afraid to rule against them for fear of loosing that support even though it might go against what he believes all for the sake of the party. The seperation of church and state is a fine line and I think we are crosssing it more and more with party politcs. Organizing in the church has always gone on in the US but it was based more on issues than party politics. This is how most hospitals were created in the midwest. Party politics and how to vote will not be part of any church I attend and if it is I will continue to look for a church that won't do that.

TC


----------



## tail chaser

Gohon I to form an image of how a person looks and acts. Do you have grand kids? and if so do you make them address you as SIR? do you sit down for dinner or is it chow? Do you have a 24 hour clock?

All in good fun! I couldn't resist 

TC


----------



## jamartinmg2

sevendogs said:


> For Republicans, politics is ahead of national security. Proper punishemnt for Karl Rove would be sending him to jail. I do not thing we should join Democrats, but every decent person in USA should be anti-Republican.


I love it.... let's put him in jail even before its proved he has done something wrong. Seven, I'd remind you this is America and not Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union. :-? What was that line that the general, (Gereral Burkhalter) on the old sitcom Hogan's Heroes, used to say? "We vil give you a fair trial followed immediately by your execution."


----------



## Gohon

> Gohon I to form an image of how a person looks and acts. Do you have grand kids? and if so do you make them address you as SIR? do you sit down for dinner or is it chow? Do you have a 24 hour clock?


Yes I have grandchildren and no they call me grandpa, but if they didn't want to call me grandpa I would insist they call me Sir. I do insist young people address me as Mr. or Sir simply as a matter of courtesy. I do not allow my nephews and nieces to use my first name. I myself address people I don't know as Sir or Ma'am if I don't know their name. Even those younger than myself. I still address my uncles and aunts as uncle or aunt so and so and refuse to call them by their first name as some I know. Dinner is served in our house at exactly 6:00 P.M. should you like to stop by, and yes I have a 24 hour clock and wrist watch. Just make sense to use a time system that works. Don't know why you couldn't resist........... I'm embarrassed by nothing I just said.

Now I have a question for you....... just what is religious fanatics.....oh, you mean those people that go to church and pray. Those that want others to believe in their fashion and are always talking religion. For a minute I thought we had a squad of church members going out and blowing up towers and buses full of people. Good luck in finding that church that has no leanings towards a political party.............. you do understand there is no such thing don't you. Do you honestly believe no church has a right to hold political views and no right to convey those beliefs to their members? Do you have any idea what is meant in the constitution by separation of church and state? The separation of church and state is not a fine line. It is very clear if you read it as written but when you attempt to construe it to mean something totally opposite then it is meaningless which I'm sure is the goal of the .....what would you call them....... fanatical left........naw.....that won't do....... ,maybe radical left......no that is a loser also.........well hell I'll just have to blame that on religion also..........not sure how to go about that yet but I'll ask a local far left wing Democrat........ they know how to blame everything on religion now days.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

*DEMOCRATS FEAR CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN THEY FEAR AL QAIEDA.*


----------



## g/o

12


----------



## Plainsman

tail chaser said:


> I see what 7dogs is saying. I don't consider Bush a religous fanatic, but I think he has the support of religous fanatics and has seeked that support. In doing so he is afraid to rule against them for fear of loosing that support even though it might go against what he believes all for the sake of the party. The seperation of church and state is a fine line and I think we are crosssing it more and more with party politcs. Organizing in the church has always gone on in the US but it was based more on issues than party politics. This is how most hospitals were created in the midwest. Party politics and how to vote will not be part of any church I attend and if it is I will continue to look for a church that won't do that.
> 
> TC


If you look at one extreme to the other from left to right of course Bush would have the support of the extreme right, just as Kerry would have the support of the extreme left. Some people think this is a revelation. Bush would have the extreme religious and extreme of other types. Kerry would have the support of the socialist, communist, and other extreme left. No surprise if anyone puts slight cerebral exercise to it. This makes neither man guilty of supporting these fanatic groups, but that is what some try to insinuate. Very small minds. Also, liberals are afraid to vote against those who support them. That also should be no revelation.

It is clear you do not understand the intent of separation of church and state. Or you simply use it as a weapon against religion. Keep in mind separation of church and state is not in the constitution, it was simply a letter expressing one mans thought at the time. Many today try pass it off as a constitutional matter in hopes those less educated will believe it. To me that is another example of dishonesty of the left.

Lastly I guess it is no big deal if you party is more important than your church, but it is a big deal if you party is more important to you than your religion.


----------



## sevendogs

Gohon said:


> Only surprise here is it took this long for someone to start the shouting. What do you really know about this story with Carl Rove??????? I suspect, like most of us, not a damn thing. Personally all I know is the usual suspects on both sides, in their normal manner are blowing more smoke in Washington. The Grand Jury is meeting today.............. don't you think the prudent thing to do is at least wait and see what comes out of that.


Watch the news.


----------



## sevendogs

Gohon said:


> If he really leaked information about a covert operative, I hope they throw the book at him.
> 
> 
> 
> So do I but from what I have gathered so far, she worked out of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia where she drove her car and parked it in the parking lot everyday. Went to public parties in Washington with her husband all the time and her husband had a personal web site with his and her picture where he said she worked for the CIA. Doesn't sound very covert to me. I think most people are smart enough to realize what this is all about.
> 
> As for Carl Rove being ruthless and shameful, that would be expected from the losing side but the winning side sees him simply as aggressive, honest, and dedicated. Betcha Kerry would have given him a life time supply of ketchup for his help last year.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you are not current, or do not want to be current. Watch the News.


----------



## Gohon

> I am sorry, but you are not current


Then by all means bring us all up to what you think is current. In any event since you apparently don't have a clue what your talking about, the information I mentioned has been available to everyone since Robert Novak broke the story months ago. You are aware that Novak is the first person to actually mention this woman by name aren't you...... of course you don't.


----------



## tail chaser

Plainsman, Once again I'm glad to see constructive debate, thanks.

tail chaser wrote: 


> I see what 7dogs is saying. I don't consider Bush a religious fanatic, but I think he has the support of religious fanatics and has seeked that support. In doing so he is afraid to rule against them for fear of loosing that support even though it might go against what he believes all for the sake of the party. The separation of church and state is a fine line and I think we are crossing it more and more with party politics. Organizing in the church has always gone on in the US but it was based more on issues than party politics. This is how most hospitals were created in the Midwest. Party politics and how to vote will not be part of any church I attend and if it is I will continue to look for a church that won't do that.


Plainsman:


> If you look at one extreme to the other from left to right of course Bush would have the support of the extreme right, just as Kerry would have the support of the extreme left. Some people think this is a revelation. Bush would have the extreme religious and extreme of other types. Kerry would have the support of the socialist, communist, and other extreme left. No surprise if anyone puts slight cerebral exercise to it. This makes neither man guilty of supporting these fanatic groups, but that is what some try to insinuate. Very small minds. Also, liberals are afraid to vote against those who support them. That also should be no revelation


.

I don't disagree at all, you explain this quite clearly.

What I question is the motivation of the extreme left vs. the extreme right.
Socialists want better for everybody, and yes at the expense of some i.e.. The wealthy. Would you agree? I'm sure you are aware but some might not be of the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is an economic system communism is a type of government. With that being said I doubt the US has a future as a communist country, its not even part of the equation. If it is then we are in deeper than I thought. Now back to better for everybody, is this what the extreme right is for? I can't help but get the impression they are more interested in pushing their agenda then helping fellow citizens, of course I'm speaking of the extreme!!!!! Right. Personally I don't have a problem with a persons religious beliefs but don't force it upon me, let me choose.

Public perception of what is moral and correct is very easy to take astray, and it gets out of control on its own often, notice I don't say manipulate because I don't believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy. Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, slavery, are all examples of things that some thought acceptable, and then some didn't and fought for change. The far religious right thinks things are out of control and are wrong as of right now. I think there are some things that are problems at the present time I just don't agree with how to solve it/them.

In my opinion much worse than the religious right (not even close) is the greedy Corporate fanatics, again I'm talking of the extreme right. I'm a business owner and believe in capitalism but there are some that don't give a rats behind about their fellow countryman and legislation for this type of business environment is making it easier on them and harder on every day citizens. Recently bankruptcy restrictions for citizens were tightened up but what about what's moral and correct for businesses? I suggest you take a close look at "Water Monitor of Jamestown" and what they did, everybody should look into it. These people, and this company are crooks plain and simple they stole from the city and county and it was all legal because laws were created to do just such a thing. Sad. Do you think it was the left that created this environment?

Plainsman:


> It is clear you do not understand the intent of separation of church and state. Or you simply use it as a weapon against religion. Keep in mind separation of church and state is not in the constitution, it was simply a letter expressing one mans thought at the time. Many today try pass it off as a constitutional matter in hopes those less educated will believe it. To me that is another example of dishonesty of the left.


As for the separation of church and state: If you check to see what I said you will see its my opinion I never referenced the constitution, law or anything else. Its my opinion and I dare say the opinion of many, yes one man said it that doesn't mean only one man can believe in it. I attend church to practice my religion; I do not attend church to practice politics. Why do you attend church, to practice politics? You have that right just don't expect to see me in the same church. I don't use it as a weapon against religion. I just refuse to use religion as a political weapon. Because religion is a belief just as people believed in witches, slavery, and sadly that certain people were not worthy humans.

You see just because I'm not of the extreme right does not mean I'm not moral.

TC


----------



## tail chaser

The Goose Hunting Machine said:



> DEMOCRATS FEAR CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN THEY FEAR AL QAIEDA.


Its sad really I was looking forward to good political discussion and here you make MT sound like a genius.

Your blanket statement makes as much sense as me saying all Republicans are white neocons that own machine guns and are filthy rich.

Public perception can be a dangerous tool in the hands of the wrong people. Grow up, pull your head out of your year, If what you said is true than perhaps only Republicans should be allowed to be in the military?
Do you think its possible that a Democrat has died while fighting Alqaieda?
Do you think a Democrat has died while defending this country and you? 
Are you saying Democrats can't be Christian?

Maybe in your little world Democrats eat small children, worship the devil and are plotting the downfall of the US? Oh ya and they kick dogs. Well I guess your right I'm going to register as a Republican now. Yup sounds like the party of smart rational thought to me....

Tail Chaser

Proud to be a Christian Democrat and a "Granola Head" according to some of you.


----------



## Plainsman

Crip TC if we are going to debate you have to say something I disagree with. (In reference to you post where you quote me).

I have only one comment. Most of the separation of church and state I agree with your assessment. As I said in another post, and will repeat here, I would not tolerate a pastor shoving something down my throat that I didn't agree with myself. Can't disagree with you there. I would tolerate a pastors opinion on individual ideals. His interpretation on abortion, gay marriage etc. This doesn't mean I will agree.

My beef is many are using separation of church and state as a weapon to stifle Christianity. For example, I see no problem with the ten commandments in a court room. It stands over the entrance to the supreme court.

When I was watching the passion of the Christ I wondered to myself: If Jesus and Larry Flint were standing before the supreme court, and the American Civil Liberties union was cheering in the background, crucify him, crucify him, I wonder which one they would be talking about.

I understand what goose hunting machine was saying. I am sure that if he thinks about it he was referring to that radical percentage that have more influence than their numbers would indicate. Not democrat, but far left radical liberal.


----------



## Gohon

> Maybe in your little world Democrats eat small children, worship the devil and are plotting the downfall of the US? Oh ya and they kick dogs.


Well that does it...............I'm perfectly willing to put up with a lot of things, but........................ kicking a dog is a little to much.


----------



## tail chaser

Plainsman I do understand what you are saying and agree with you on a pastor shoving something at me. He/she can have individual ideas beleifs what have you. Actually they should that would make them a stronger person. I have to keep in mind it is only a few ministers/pastors here in ND that wil tell someone how to vote without attaching an issue to it, then won't listen to your side of the discussion, thats what I think is wrong.

Plainsman I don't know if I'm becomeing more conservative or you are becoming more liberal? ha-ha.

What could we disagree on????????????
Do you like red heads or brunettes?
Pointer or flusher?

TC


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman I don't know if I'm becomeing more conservative or you are becoming more liberal? ha-ha.


Ya, that's funny. Speaking for myself I can debate with you without feeling defensive. It's actually very enjoyable, because I like other opinions without the silly Bush lied or some other off the wall with no backup.

Redhead, brunette, they are all pretty good, but don't forget blonds. All the jokes aside they are pretty good, but mine can't point a sharptail worth squat.


----------



## tail chaser

I know what you mean with the Bush/Kerry lead in. Yes I have my opinion on Bush as well as Kerry but without issues what good is debate? A few in this forum don't get that, they can't justify why they think the way they do. They waste all thier energy discussing what they feel is right and can't say why. I think purple is the best color in the world. Whats his name is the best race car driver. Brits are the best upland dog. I could go on.....butt WHY? WHY? WHY? please tell me. What I find really scary is that some who think just because they talk about current events (not here) or recognize a name or story about politics/govt. This qualifies them as political active yet they still didn't vote! Left or right politically speaking the country is still dumb. we have a long way to go. Wasn't the turnout in the blu thumb elections better than those here in the US? I say blue thumb because most are likly to make that connection rather than the name of the actual country. Something to think about.

I left out blondes beacause I like them the most! Thought I could fool you on that one!

TC


----------



## sevendogs

Plainsman said:


> So sevendogs how many Christian right suicide bombers have killed people this year? Did the Christian holy Jihad start and no one told me? So help me understand this you were asked to define decent people, and the first people you condemn are Christians. I think we get the picture. Personally I don't know any clerics errrr pastors that carry an Uzi under their robe.
> 
> Any Christian liberals out there that would like to share your opinion?


Because Bush squandered the Iraq war, the human life toll will surpass Sadam's achievements pretty soon. Was it worthy to start? Where is cheap gas? Where is stability and democratic Iraq? Do you support our troops? I guess, you do and keep a Walmart sold sticker on your car. It is a easy way to support them. Look at the less then good equipment our soldiers use for personbal protection and look how their families at home live. I did not like the papa Bush, but he at least had enough wisdom. Now, worlwide terrorism is thriving, while we are bogged in Iraq.


----------



## Plainsman

7dogs

A am afraid I don't understand what your saying. How do you squander a war? Tens of thousands have not died, not innocent anyway, and not our boys. There might not be cheap gas, we didn't go to war so you could have cheap gas. My son complained about the equipment when he was in the army, but that was when Clinton was in office. I too wish our soldiers and their families had it better. Terrorism isn't thriving because of Bush, it is thriving because of the last 20 years none of us took it serious enough.


----------



## tail chaser

7dogs:


> Do you support our troops? I guess, you do and keep a Walmart sold sticker on your car. It is an easy way to support them.


Now those seem like fighting words. I love it :beer:

Wal-Mart sucks!

I'm glad the emergency supplemental for veterans funding passed. It wasn't that long ago we were discussing if there was a short fall in funding or not. I'm not trying to say I told you so but...
Plainsman correctly pointed out the cut I mentioned was a cut in proposed funding. Either way there was a short fall and we as a country were not supporting our troops when it comes to funding why? I bet those yellow ribbons make a veteran who needs medication feel all warm and fuzzy.

TC


----------



## Gohon

tail chaser said:


> I'm glad the emergency supplemental for veterans funding passed. It wasn't that long ago we were discussing if there was a short fall in funding or not. I'm not trying to say I told you so but...


Are you a veteran TC? You seem to think you are well qualified to know what a veteran feels and thinks. have you ever volunteered any of your time to a veterans program or even been in a VA hospital? I was just wondering if you had any real world experience with veterans and the VA system and knew anything about their operation, expenses, or any of the waste that goes on there. Especially since in my observation you seem perfectly satisfied with simply throwing more money towards something to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy.

Anyway, just out of curiosity when was it reported that the bill for funding was passed. Reason I ask is because as of 6/30/2005 the bill was referred to House committee. Even if it came out of committee in the last 20 days and was passed in the house it still has to go to the Senate for approval, then back to the house and then to the President. BTW, the bill is for medical funding only........ nothing else. If you are as interested in veterans as you say the bill is H.R.3136 in case you would want to take the time to actually follow it. Of course there could be another bill under the same heading I'm not aware of.


----------



## Plainsman

TC

In the light of current events (the supreme court nomination ) lets talk about legislation from the bench, and a little bit more about socialism.

Are you familiar with the arguments the framers of the nation had about right to vote? They argued if they should let everyone vote, or only people who owned property. This did not mean land only, it meant any kind of personal property. Those who argued the case for property owners only voting gave this reason: if everyone gets to vote then politicians will take away from those who have and give to those that don't have. They will do this to endear themselves with the poor, or lazy, or poor and lazy. This is the path of socialism that they were afraid of. It will grow like cancer if not kept in check.

A few posts back you said


> Socialists want better for everybody


. I agreed they do. Here is how I "think" we stand right now. In the absence of any social programs we give that a score of one, and if we give a score of ten to full fledged socialism then I think we in America are standing at about a five. I would agree that we need some social programs, but I would be more comfortable if our country went back to about a three. This is where the liberals and conservatives part company. I am sure the average liberal would be comfortable at about an eight, and a conservative at about one or two. We have gone to far, and politicians indeed buy votes with welfare programs for the lazy. Welfare for the needy is just fine, but it is being abused because it is so extensive that it is extremely easy to abuse.

That brings me to the supreme court nomination. Liberals will fight if with every once they have even though this man has many influential democrats as acquaintances and even friends. They will do so because this man will interpret the constitution which will cut into their socialistic advancements by liberal judges who in the past legislated from the bench.

Did any of you see Charles Schummer (spelling?) last night. He said: these people who get lifetime appointments don't get a free ride, they must be scrutinized. He then said: There can be no free ride for people that are in for a lifetime and make law. A senator that doesn't know that the three branches of government have different responsibilities, and the supreme court can not constitutionally make law. There job is to interpret the laws made by congress and signed by the president. They must not make law. Pitiful when a U. S. senator is so ignorant.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

tail chaser said:


> The Goose Hunting Machine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEMOCRATS FEAR CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN THEY FEAR AL QAIEDA.
> 
> 
> 
> Its sad really I was looking forward to good political discussion and here you make MT sound like a genius.
> 
> Your blanket statement makes as much sense as me saying all Republicans are white neocons that own machine guns and are filthy rich.
Click to expand...

Come on now Tail Chaser...you oughta know me better than that 
Look at current events:

The left is trying to tear down the 10 commandments in court rooms and state capitals. The ACLU (Another Christian Liberty Undone) is always fighting against "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. "Easter Break" from school is now "Spring break," as is the same with Christmas Break becoming "winter break". Look at the left taking Nativity scenes away during Christmas from public properties. I remember in elementary we were encouraged to sing Christmas songs; now this is all but completely gone from our schools. These are just some of the examples of the left attacking Christianity; does the left attack Hanukah or Ramadan as it does Christianity?

The political correctness has gotten completely out of control when we cannot say "Merry Christmas" without fear of being sued! We must remember, like it or not, America is founded on Christianity and democracy. Christians are in the majority, yet they must always succumb to the minority.

Now in reference to Al Qaieda: Teddy (insert margaritaville song here) can slam our troops fighting terrorism over seas for the treatment of POWs. Let's not forget the Nicholas Berg beheading video or the American's that were mutilated and drug through the streets in Iraq only to be strung from a Bridge. Yet, they condemn our own troops for their treatment of POW's. In a personal story, I have a family friend that is an Army Ranger in Afghanistan. His unit captured a high operative from Al Qaieda that had a wooden leg. He was shipped to Guantanamo (the POW) where he was given a prosthetic leg...I know, inhumane treatment. In another story, POW's that are being released from Guantanamo are begging and pleading not to go back to where they came from because it is better to be in prison where they are.

In addition to the left not fearing Al Qaieda (or should we say take serious?) is again with the ACLU fighting against the Patriot Act. Why? It helps protect us from terrorism. Why on earth would we want to undo that? Not once has the Patriot Act infringed on ANYONES personal/constitutional rights; yet we still have much of the left fighting against it. WHY? Isn't it ironic that the left is terrified of the Patriot Act infringing on personal/constitutional liberties yet they are themselves attempting to infringe on the majorities right to say "One nation under God?"

A wise man once said:

"We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief.

All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.

I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.

Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under. If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3 1/2 years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.

There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder."
-- Ronald Reagan

Jeff Given


----------



## BigDaddy

Goose Huntin' Machine wrote:



> The political correctness has gotten completely out of control when we cannot say "Merry Christmas" without fear of being sued! We must remember, like it or not, America is founded on Christianity and democracy. Christians are in the majority, yet they must always succumb to the minority.


This immediately brought to mind a statement from Gohon on another thread about the supreme court:



> One last point .......... we have a Republic because the founding fathers wanted the people to rule and in a Republic the people rule and minorities are protected from government. Sadly we are slowly and unwittingly moving to a Democracy where majority rules and the minority will be the losers.


We can't have it both ways... Our Constitution (and its amendments) guarantee certain civil liberties that need to be protected. I will be the first in line to defend a person's right to worship and express themselves, or to not worship.

We are a far more heterogeneous society than we were in the "mom and apple pie" days of the 1950s. In many communities, Christians are the minority, but the majority. Wouldn't you want your civil liberties defended in those situations?


----------



## Gohon

> We can't have it both ways... Our Constitution (and its amendments) guarantee certain civil liberties that need to be protected. I will be the first in line to defend a person's right to worship and express themselves, or to not worship.


You're not going to get it both ways. The problem is certain groups of political minorities have discovered they can rule through the courts, effectively turning the Republic on it's head. The minority thus becomes the ruling majority and the peoples majority become the lawful minority.


----------



## Plainsman

> I will be the first in line to defend a person's right to worship and express themselves, or to not worship.
> 
> We are a far more heterogeneous society than we were in the "mom and apple pie" days of the 1950s. In many communities, Christians are the minority, but the majority. Wouldn't you want your civil liberties defended in those situations?


I appreciate that attitude BigDaddy. However, don't you see current government incrementally hamstringing Christian rights? Ask a person what the first amendment covers, and you have a new subject for Jay Leno to ask on the street. I would venture to guess greater than 90 percent will answer freedom of speech. Some may say freedom of the press, very few will know it also covers freedom of religion. Within that phrase is where our government is violating the constitution. It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Is it illegal for a judge to have the ten commandments on display in his courtroom? Not if we have honest supreme court judges who do not try to legislate from the bench. If the judge is another religion can he display something? It may make me slightly nervous, but it would be his right. Does religion have to stay out of government? Absolutely not, government is told in the first amendment to stay out of religion. Does this mean I do not support separation of church and state? No I absolutely support it, but in the correct context.

I don't want to force my religion on anyone, because you don't convince people by force anyway. I also do not want anyone to try force theirs on me. I think most of us are saying the same thing here, but misinterpreting our constitution, and the intent of separation of church and state as it is intended.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

Here is just another example of the left making the majority succumb to the mercy of the minority.

http://nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtop ... 731#123731

Jeff Given


----------



## BigDaddy

Plainsman wrote:



> I appreciate that attitude BigDaddy. However, don't you see current government incrementally hamstringing Christian rights?


I am a devout Christian who attends services weekly and serves as vice president of my church council. Let me say that I have NEVER felt that my government was hamstringing my rights or in any way impeding my ability to worship.

Let me also say that I pray at home when I wake up, before I go to sleep, and before each meal. I have never felt compelled to pray in a school or classroom setting or in a court. Why? Because my religious beliefs are my business, and I have never felt compelled to force them on anybody else.

The first amendment reads as follows:



> 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.


There is something fundamentally different between an individual posting religious documents in their workplace or practicing their individual beliefs, and a governement agency posting religious documents.

How is a court posting a religious document like the Ten Commandments not endorsing a particular religion? The court is a branch of the U.S. government, and posting a religious document in a court clearly serves as an endorsement of that document by the court. If you were a Buddhist or Hindu going into that court in a case against a Christian or Jew, wouldn't you think that the odds were stacked against you? How would you feel as a Christian going into a court with the Koran hanging from the wall?

Again, I have no problem with an individual hanging religious documents in their workplace. I do have a problem with a government entity hanging religious documents.


----------



## Gohon

> I have no problem with an individual hanging religious documents in their workplace.





> The court is a branch of the U.S. government, and posting a religious document in a court clearly serves as an endorsement of that document by the court.


Come on, make up your mind....... you do, you don't.... you do, you don't. the judge in a court room is in* his *work place.

"The foundation of our Constitution, our entire legal system, and most of the attitudes of our culture is the Judeo-Christian value system found in Scripture, including the Ten Commandments. There is ample historical evidence to support this proposition. It is no accident that many of the Ten Commandments are codified in law, (such as murder, theft, lying) and, formerly, many others were as well (such as swearing, adultery, Sunday work). While there has been a whittling away at these laws, it is undeniable that for most of our history both the states and the national government incorporated the rules of the Ten Commandments into laws".

Why do you find it such a threat to yourself when the reminder of our foundation is displayed for all to see? Maybe some of you would feel better if we take a lesson from the Taliban and allow the Ten commandments to be displayed but cover it with a Burka.....................



> I have never felt compelled to pray in a school or classroom setting or in a court.


Then don't, but don't be so hypocritical that you feel you have the right to stop someone else from doing so if they wish. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## BigDaddy

> Come on, make up your mind....... you do, you don't.... you do, you don't. the judge in a court room is in his work place.


Gohon,

As usual, you leaped to make a hasty reply before carefully reading my post and understanding it. Put your personal religious beliefs aside, think with an open mind, and try to debate things with respect adn logic.

Again, I stress that there is a something distinctly different between an individual practicing their religion and posting religious items and the government posting those items or forcing citizens to participate in those practices. If an individual judge wants to post a cross or the Ten Commandments in their courtroom, in their office, or as a lapel pin, I don't care since that is a personal expression of their religion.

However, most of the cases of the Ten Commandments involve a plaque or statue monument that exists in a hallway, courtyard, or some other public setting. These are not monuments that have been posted into an individual's workspace. As such, they are not protected under the First Amendment because they are not free speech or the individual free exercise of a religion.

Now onto prayer in public schools and a response to another statement of yours:


> Then don't, but don't be so hypocritical that you feel you have the right to stop someone else from doing so if they wish. You can't have it both ways.


Public schools are a government entity because they are supported by public funds. Therefore, they are an extension of the government.

If a student or teacher wants to say a little prayer to themselves in a public school, go ahead. I don't care. I also don't care if class is halted to allow each student to pray or take a quite moment to themselves, allowing each student to pray individually if they see fit.

However, I do care if the class is stopped and the teacher or a student leads the class in a Christian, Buddhist, or some other prayer. Since the public school is a government entity, such a publically-led prayer is clearly an endorsement of that religion. This is why I also oppose forcing kids to sing religious songs at Christmas.

Last, this idea that our Constitution is based on Christianity is hogwash. Go through the list of the Ten Commandments and show me how many laws you can find that are specific to Christianity. We are not a theocracy, although some would want us to be. Instead, our laws are in place to guarantee certain civil rights and to establish an orderly society. Laws against murder, adultery, theft, and slander can be found on the books in most ever society, regardless of the prevailing religion.


----------



## Gohon

> As usual, you leaped to make a hasty reply before carefully reading my post and understanding it. Put your personal religious beliefs aside, think with an open mind, and try to debate things with respect adn logic.


I didn't leap into anything and FYI I'm agnostic so personal religious beliefs enter into nothing. Logic is a two way street but I get the feeling if it is not your logic then it doesn't exist for others.



> Again, I stress that there is a something distinctly different between an individual practicing their religion and posting religious items and the government posting those items or forcing citizens to participate in those practices.


Now we both know that forcing someone to participate in a religious function is against the constitution This is often thrown out as a red herring when this practice does not exist but still it doesn't stop those trying to put fear into the equation.



> If an individual judge wants to post a cross or the Ten Commandments in their courtroom, in their office, or as a lapel pin, I don't care since that is a personal expression of their religion.


Again.... make up your mind..... didn't you say "How would you feel as a Christian going into a court with the Koran hanging from the wall?" Your still trying to have it both ways.



> However, most of the cases of the Ten Commandments involve a plaque or statue monument that exists in a hallway, courtyard, or some other public setting. These are not monuments that have been posted into an individual's workspace. As such, they are not protected under the First Amendment because they are not free speech or the individual free exercise of a religion.


But burning a flag in a public square is free speech? That's the problem with your reasoning...... you want to be the one deciding what is or what is not free speech or seperation of church and state, which I will address at the end.



> However, I do care if the class is stopped and the teacher or a student leads the class in a Christian, Buddhist, or some other prayer. Since the public school is a government entity, such a publically-led prayer is clearly an endorsement of that religion. This is why I also oppose forcing kids to sing religious songs at Christmas.


With all due respect this is bull **** and you know it. Do they not say a prayer at every opening session of congress? Are they endorsing a certain religion there?



> Last, this idea that our Constitution is based on Christianity is hogwash. Go through the list of the Ten Commandments and show me how many laws you can find that are specific to Christianity.


You have got to be kidding right............ I know you are not really being serious here.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity&#8230;to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

" The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code."
John Quincy Adams.

As a final note let me add that the phrase "separation of church and state" parroted by those seeking a secular society does not appear anywhere in our constitution. No BigDaddy, I didn't leap into anything.........


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

Big dog...let me get this straight. You think class can be stopped for individual prayer so long as it is not group prayer? Doesn't that support religion? What about the atheist or the agnostic kid in the class? What if in a court proceeding the Judge wants to stop the trial to pray to his God?

I remember in high school sports before every game we had a team prayer. These prayers were in no way endorsing one religion over the other. We had atheists on the team and they still knelt and respected the majorities preferences to have prayer. I guess those days are gone...

To deny the country is not founded on Christianity is purely hogwash.

I await the day the liberal left breaks into Arlington National Cemetery and begins Hack-Sawing crosses off of the tombstones since, after all, it is government land :eyeroll:

Since the government should have no affiliation with religion in any way what so ever, why don't we get our mail 365 days a year 7 days a week?


----------



## BigDaddy

Let me take things on one at a time.

Gohon wrote:



> Again.... make up your mind..... didn't you say "How would you feel as a Christian going into a court with the Koran hanging from the wall?" Your still trying to have it both ways.


The key differentiator here is whether the posting of a religious document is an individual display or not. I contend that a judge has the right to display the Ten Commandments, the Book of Mormon, the Jain Agamas Siddantas Vedas, or a statue of Buddha if that is a personal expression. This right of personal expression is protected by the First Amendment, even though I think that a judge would be viewed with less objectivity if they did so.

In contrast, having a monument of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lobby or carved into the front of a judge's bench is not an individual expression.

Next Gohon wrote:


> But burning a flag in a public square is free speech? That's the problem with your reasoning...... you want to be the one deciding what is or what is not free speech or seperation of church and state, which I will address at the end.


Again, burning of a flag in a public square is free speech if it is an individual expression. Using this reasoning, it would also be your free speech to hold a copy of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lobby. However, the government carving those Ten Commandments into a granite wall is clearly an endorsement of the document and therefore an endorsement of the religion(s) for which the document has theological meaning.

Gohon wrote:


> With all due respect this is bull &$#* and you know it. Do they not say a prayer at every opening session of congress? Are they endorsing a certain religion there?


Yes, opening Congress with a prayer is an endorsement of that religion. This is quite different than the Speaker simply announcing that each member will be given a few minutes to pray if they want to. This is also why many school districts have wisely discontinued the practice of opening graduation ceremonies and sporting events with a prayer.



> Quote:
> Last, this idea that our Constitution is based on Christianity is hogwash. Go through the list of the Ten Commandments and show me how many laws you can find that are specific to Christianity.
> 
> You have got to be kidding right............ I know you are not really being serious here.


Here are the Ten Commandments that I was taught:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5. Honor thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7.7 ; 13.9 thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's

Now let's see.... I'll give you that there are laws referencing commandments 6, 8, and 9. In certain places, there are also "blue laws" that indirectly support commandment 4. You can also find laws in some places that speak to number 7.

However, there are no laws that I know of that require commandment 1, 2, 5, or 10. I also contend that while there are profanity laws, they speak to all profanity, not just those dealing with God's name. Therefore, I contend that there are laws dealing directly with commandment 3. Therefore, using even a liberal interpretation of the law, half the Ten Commandments are addressed in our laws. That's my point.

Goose Huntin Machine wrote:


> I remember in high school sports before every game we had a team prayer. These prayers were in no way endorsing one religion over the other. We had atheists on the team and they still knelt and respected the majorities preferences to have prayer. I guess those days are gone...


Yep, those days are gone.

Goose Huntin Machine also wrote:



> Big dog...let me get this straight. You think class can be stopped for individual prayer so long as it is not group prayer? Doesn't that support religion? What about the atheist or the agnostic kid in the class? What if in a court proceeding the Judge wants to stop the trial to pray to his God?


I would have no problem with a teacher stopping a class to allow for students to individually pray. This would be especially true in those schools that have a Muslim population that wanted to do their afternoon prayer. Students could pray to their own god if they wanted to or simply sit quietly. This is not the endorsement of any particular religion because nobody is leading a prayer or worship in any particular religion. Agnostic or atheist students are also excused from mandatory participation.

Last, Gohon wrote:



> Since the government should have no affiliation with religion in any way what so ever, why don't we get our mail 365 days a year 7 days a week?


Why can't you go to your bank on a Sunday afternoon? The answer is because the employees get their weekends off. I would have no problem with the US Postal Service operating seven days a week, but we had be ready for higher taxes to pay for it. Although we can point to "Sundays off" as having its roots in Christianity, this doesn't explain government agencies being closed Saturdays. Furthermore, labor laws in many countries, even non-Christian countries, give at least one day a week off.


----------



## BigDaddy

Oops, I missed one. Goose Huntin Machine wrote:



> I await the day the liberal left breaks into Arlington National Cemetery and begins Hack-Sawing crosses off of the tombstones since, after all, it is government land


I do not condone any form of free expression that damages property, causes a disturbance, or endangers the safety of the citizenry. This should be obvious.

Next?


----------



## Gohon

> Next


Next what? You didn't clarify or correct anything at all. Maybe you need to simply go back and read your own three previous posts. You have constantly contradicted yourself while going in circles. As was stated before, The foundation of our Constitution, our entire legal system, and most of the attitudes of our culture is based on Judeo-Christian values and those beliefs are based on the Bible and the Ten commandments. You keep making statements then turning around and making small exceptions to what you said. Again, you can't have it both ways...... make up your mind.

Oh, might want to be careful when attempting to answer two different quotes in one post&#8230;&#8230;.. your mixing quotes.


----------



## BigDaddy

Gohon,

I could continue this debate, you obviously have not read my posts. You allege that our Constitution and legal system are based on Judeo-Christian values. Therefore, Judeo-Christian documents like the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in courthouses and other government facilities.

I argued that display of religious documents would be allowed if it is an individual expression, but the First Amendment does not allow the display outside of that context.


----------



## Gohon

BigDaddy,

I have read your posts but I'm surprised that you seem to think because you said it then it must be correct, or at least that is the impression I'm getting. I have not said the Ten Commandments *should* be allowed to be displayed in court houses but have simply pointed out they *can* be displayed and it is not a violation of the First Amendment. 
Without question the Supreme Court is the ruling authority of the land but I would caution you not to put all your eggs in that basket. Congress has a habit to correcting bad decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the court reversing itself on some occasions. Don't you find it odd that the Supreme Court would rule against the Ten Commandments, which are nothing more than a set of rules carved on a stone, that they be removed from display in a court yard but rule against a atheist law suit to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Which one of those two cases promotes the highest degree of religion?

If you don't believe that our Constitution and legal system are based on Judeo-Christian values then please explain why the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" or why the word Creator" is used.

*1st Amendment:

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

Now read that carefully, very carefully then convince me the Supreme Court was correct is ordering the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to remove the Ten Commandments on display.

Question = What law was created by the display of the Commandments?
Answer = None

Question = Whose right for free exercise was prohibited?
Answer = The judge who erected the monument.

My belief is the Ten Commandments in this case is nothing more than the Betsy Ross flag on display to show where this country came from and what motivated it's found fathers.


----------



## BigDaddy

> I have read your posts but I'm surprised that you seem to think because you said it then it must be correct, or at least that is the impression I'm getting.


Gohon, luckily my interpretations of the First Amendment are not simply my interpretation, but that of the Supreme Court. The concept of "separation of church and state" that we hear tossed about is not found in the Constitution, but it is found in Court records who have interpreted the First Amendment. There are three cases that I would refer you to.

The first is Lemon vs. Kurtman in 1971 in which the Court ruled that an action is unconstitutional if: A) it lacks a secular purpose, B) the practice promotes or inhibits religion, or C) the practice excessively involves government with a religion.

The second case is Lee vs. Weisman from 1992. In this case, the Court ruled that a religious practice is unconstitutional if others are coerced to participate. The Court defined coercion happens when "the government directs a formal religious exercise in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

The third case is Allegheny County vs. ACLU from 1987. In this case, the Court ruled that a practice is unconstitutional if it endorses a particular religion or religious practice.

Clearly, a municipality or government hanging a religious document in a courthouse is an endorsement of that religion by the government.

You are correct that I should not put all my faith in the Court to maintain its interpretation of the Constitution. This is the beauty of our government and our checks and balances. The Court could reverse its positions on this issue, although it is usually hesitant to do so unless it is responding to a statutory change. The Congress could also amend the First Amendment to clarify which religious practices are allowed and which aren't. This would eliminate a signficant amount of debate and leeway for different interpretation.


----------



## Gohon

With all due respect lets take a look at these and apply them to the case where the Ten Commandments were ordered removed from the court house in Alabama since that is the base of this debate.



> The first is Lemon vs. Kurtman in 1971 in which the Court ruled that an action is unconstitutional if: A) it lacks a secular purpose, B) the practice promotes or inhibits religion, or C) the practice excessively involves government with a religion.


Since the monument simply implies where our laws were based from, (A) does not apply. No promotion of religion was ordered or intended so (B) also does not apply. (C) is easy as the government was not involved until brought in by the ACLU.



> The second case is Lee vs. Weisman from 1992. In this case, the Court ruled that a religious practice is unconstitutional if others are coerced to participate. The Court defined coercion happens when "the government directs a formal religious exercise in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."


Don't know why this case is here as it is connected with nothing we have discussed. No one was coerced or ordered to participate in anything.



> The third case is Allegheny County vs. ACLU from 1987. In this case, the Court ruled that a practice is unconstitutional if it endorses a particular religion or religious practice.


Allowing a monument of the Ten Commandments on public property is not an endorsement. Throughout the south you will find statues of Southern leaders of the civil war period on government property. Is that a endorsement of slavery? The post office every year puts out stamps with pictures of Christ, Christmas trees and the likes on postage stamps, is that an endorsement of Christianity? You can't get more government than the US Postal Service.



> Clearly, a municipality or government hanging a religious document in a courthouse is an endorsement of that religion by the government.


No it is not clear at all and in all fairness the Supreme court has never really addressed that. Case in point is the Alabama case that they refused to hear, thus side stepping the issue. You say the word government as if it were a living breathing soul that has rights. The government was never intended to have rights. That was reserved for the people but sadly through the back doors and courts I think we will one day awake to hear the term "for the good of the Mother Land" used in this country. Your right about one thing as pointed out in the first case you cite, this government ( Supreme Court) wants a secular purpose applied to everything and unfortunately the goal behind that is a secular nation devoid of any religion. When that day arrives we will be nothing more than another France or Canada with no where to go but down.



> The Congress could also amend the First Amendment to clarify which religious practices are allowed and which aren't.


I'm sure there are those that would like nothing better than for the fools in congress to be able to start re-writing our Constitution. In my view I think the Constitution is just fine as is. All we need is for proper interpretation of same.


----------



## Longshot

BigDaddy

Could you please clarify something for me. We are taking the 10 Commandment out of court rooms. Why were they there in the first place? Why is it that most speeches made by the founding fathers of this country and the beginning Presidents so many times reflect or quote religious beliefs (Christianity). No disrespect, but I think your in denial for some reason.


----------



## BigDaddy

Longshot,

While many people portray the founding fathers as bible-toting Christians that wanted to establish a Christian nation, I don't believe that this is the case. Many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, were deists, meaning that they believed in a supreme being, but did not practice their religion in any organized sense. Some historians refer to Jefferson and Adams as being universalists, implying a liberal interpretation of religion and differing religious beliefs. While I have no doubt that the majority of founding fathers believed in God (or some higher being), I do argue that they did not intend for the United States to be governed as a Christian theocracy.

Jefferson is regarded the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most important figures in the establishment of our government. If one reads his biographies and letters, you will learn that he was a true deist.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson reflecting his views on the role of religion and government:



> Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Jefferson felt strongly that there needed to be a clear separation of church and state:



> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


Last, many think that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. In fact, they wanted the U.S. to be a nation made up of multiple religion (or at least one where any person felt free to practice their religion). In addition to the U.S. Constitution, Jefferson played a huge role in developing laws for Virginia. Here is a quote on his preamble to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom in which he stressed the need to include ALL religions:



> Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


In summary, I do not deny that the founding fathers were religious people. Some even identified themselves as Christians and not simply deists. However, this does not mean that they intended our nation to be a theocracy.


----------



## racer66

Canada's still looking to increase their population.


----------



## Plainsman

BigDaddy, I understand your concern with the government pushing a religion, and I share that concern. However, the government is supposed to stay entirely out of it. If a judge displays the ten commandments in front of the court he has that right even if I disagree. If a teacher displays it on their desk, that is their business. I think that when government says these people can not display the ten commandments they are actually violating the constitution because they violate the portion that says "'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I see the far left misinterpreting the constitution to curtail Christianity in particular. A secular government is fine, but we are not required to have a secular society, and that is what the far left is pushing for. Destroy religion and anything you want to do is just fine.


----------



## Gohon

Longshot to be a deists, one would believe the world was created by a supreme power then abandoned. Fact is Jefferson was raised as an Anglican and always maintained some sort of affiliation with the Anglican Church. He later in life took a interest in the Unitarian church and in fact attend regular Unitarian service conducted by Joseph Priestley and exchanged many letters on the subject with John Adams, who was also Unitarian.

Jefferson considered Jesus the teacher of a sublime and flawless ethic. Writing in 1803 to the Universalist physician Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote,


> "To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."


You will note Jefferson did call himself a Christian. Jefferson also once wrote.........



> "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. *Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government*. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428


Bold print in the quote is mine .................... this tells me the Federal government has no right in any religious matter what so ever. That right belongs to the state only.



> "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429


Now for the record let me set something in order. I have never claimed, or said or portrayed the founding fathers as bible-toting Christians. Truth is I have never met or spoke to anyone that has ever expressed that to me. However, I am convinced this country was founded and the Constitution, and amendments were written with religion used as a base for those documents. If you really want to know what Thomas Jefferson thought and said on the subject of religion and government, just do a little searching and you will easily come to see that sound bites, without what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story" simply do not tell the whole story.


----------



## BigDaddy

Plainsman:

You wrote:



> If a judge displays the ten commandments in front of the court he has that right even if I disagree. If a teacher displays it on their desk, that is their business. I think that when government says these people can not display the ten commandments they are actually violating the constitution because they violate the portion that says "'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


We are in complete agreement here. If a judge, teacher, or any other government employee displays a religious item in their workplace as an individual expression of their beliefs, nobody should be able to tell them not too. I am absolutely not opposed to individual expressions of religion.

I am opposed to a group of citizens deciding to build a monument or permanently display a religious monument or document in a public space simply because the majority of citizens in that area practice that particular faith. That, without a doubt, implies that the government endorses that religion.


----------



## Plainsman

I can see your side BigDaddy, there is an ominous side to government officially displaying religious effigies. We as Christians may be the minority someday. We practice birth control, and many others do not. We built this nation, but we someday may be literally screwed out of it.

It does bother me that items like the ten commandments (in Alabama I think) that have been in place for so long are removed in the name of separation of church and state. I don't think the government should pay for it, or take sides in any way, but I do think if a few local citizens want to pay for it and put it on display on country or state land it is different. The federal government should not become so active that it supports or encourages a secular society. It should take no stand pro or anti any religion.

I do however believe that this nation was built by mostly Christian people proposing Christian values that formed our laws. Not all laws, but most. This should remain part of our nations legacy. It should not be removed from our currency, the building housing our supreme court, or removed from the pledge of allegiance, and other like displays of our heritage. People of all faiths and no faith need to understand the history of this nation. How it formed it's values, and why we are where we are today.


----------

