Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by solomons path

 

I am not threatened by other faiths. You just came up with that all by yourself. I was practicing yoga at age 17 and took religion and philosophy courses in college. I have already said I embrace the faiths of other religions, but perhaps you missed those earlier posts of mine.
I merely seek to point out the inconsistencies of those who are pushing the secular humanist agenda and the social engineers running the schools and deciding curriculum. I am truly sorry you fail to understand the more poignant things I am bringing to the table here which consists in understanding where much of this stuff originated. I have done my homework on this and you have not.
Again, it is atheists who are threatened by the placement of the Ten Commandments in public places. How incredibly ironic that no one had a problem with it during the first hundred years.

There have been bunches of lawsuits where seculars are demanding the removal of the Ten Commandments from schoolhouses, courthouses and town halls, etc.
So where is really this line between seculars and atheists? As so many atheists are offended by the Ten Commandments.
Clearly someone put monuments to the Ten Commandments in all these places and it is atheists who want them removed.
I think if you are going to be really fair, you should demand the White House take down all that Islamic stuff off the govt website.
But that is not what the Progressives are interested in.

It is atheists who want the Ten Commandments removed. That is what the relevance is, in regards to your question.

edit on 13-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I'll post this again as it cleary states the intent of the two men responsible for drafting the Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams, founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[14] James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights",[15] also often wrote of the "perfect separation",[16] "line of separation",[17] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States",[18] and "total separation of the church from the state".[19] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by grainofsand

 

There's a guillotine in the future of us Jesus followers.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I'll post this again as it cleary states the intent of the two men responsible for drafting the Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams, founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[14] James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights",[15] also often wrote of the "perfect separation",[16] "line of separation",[17] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States",[18] and "total separation of the church from the state".[19] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of that yes, but there is no wording in the Constitution which says there is separation of church and state, and please tell me why Mr Obama has a White House Chaplain and a posting of
■Muslim Congressional Jummah Prayer Service on a dedicated webpage just for the WH Chaplain?
The truth is because the Constititution does not forbid the practice of religion.
Speaking of which, secular humanists declared their ideology to be a faith but changed their minds when challenged in a court of law so they could continue indoctrinating schoolchildren with it.

If there is a WH sponsored Christian service, why not Muslim, and Jewish too?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

So where does it say there is separation of Church and State? You have loosely interpreted this Amendment to fit your worldview.
Do you understand that it means that Congress cannot create a State religion and it cannot prohibit the practice of religion?

Where in all this does it say an alphabet agency created by Congress may abridge the right of public schools to include religious ideas in it's curriculum or prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments anywhere?
Why is it alright to have public school field trips to a mosque then?

According to that treaty, it says the US was not founded on Christianity, and I haven't said that it was, but you are using this as a foundation for your supposed separation of church and state. It just says what we all know, that the Constitution allows for freedom of religion.

So I am guessing you think the White House Chaplain is also unConstitutional

No metaphor in American letters has had a more profound influence on law and policy than Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Today, this figure of speech is accepted by many Americans as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church-state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life.

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.