Evidence for God from Science

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is at it again...

Gross misinterpretation of Amendment I, United States Constitution.

Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Patrick Elliot said: “There are a number of traditions that should be stopped and those are ones that violate the constitution,” he said. “So no matter how long they’ve been perpetuating this illegal display, now is the time to stop it. Now that they are aware of it.”

Article Quoted Link

What part of prohibiting the free exercise thereof don't they understand?

Again another proof how such groups attempt to design laws and interpretation of laws, to justify, the extermination of Christianity.

United States Constitution

Amendment I

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.

-
-
-

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, technically they're right.

A public park is govt owned. The govt cannot put up a manger, because that would be promoting a religion. The govt can't promote a religion.

What am I missing?

Atheists are doing everything they can to remove Christian symbols from government places while at the same time trying to re-write history like a self fulfilling prophecy.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Atheists are doing everything they can to remove Christian symbols from government places while at the same time trying to re-write history like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, SOME atheists are trying to remove Christianity. Not all.

And some Christians would be happy if the US was a theocracy.

Not all.


Atheists are not the enemy of Christians.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Atheists are doing everything they can to remove Christian symbols from government places while at the same time trying to re-write history like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, SOME atheists are trying to remove Christianity. Not all.

And some Christians would be happy if the US was a theocracy.

Not all.


Atheists are not the enemy of Christians.

Thank you.

As far as the FFRF "misinterpreting" things, that's up to the courts. If their interpretation is wrong (according to the courts, which are Constitutionally empowered to make that judgement), then they'll lose.

It's really silly. The government is there for the people, and if a large populous of people are this way or that way, then why can't the government put on something for those people? Likewise, if a large populous of a community were Muslim, why not put on something for example, Ramadan -- or should that also be sidelined?

It is my opinion, that positive Atheists -- those who like to exert their beliefs -- will really only be satisfied with some form of Communism. They're not interested in Democracy, but rather those who are quite active and vocal often want to place and enforce their ideology onto the greater community, and they'll use any means.

We see it every time the government is made to drop this a that "symbol". I mean, who gives a rats if there's a cross here or manger there. Bill Maher even said something to such effect. Your Atheist for f sakes. Why do you care? Or some such similar remark.

Furthermore, there are non-Christian people who enjoy such stuff. Christmas carols and the like, many of which have very Christian lyrics. It could remind them of their childhood, some nostalgia, or of something higher than us whether or not they believe in Christ or whatever.

So no, I don't buy into the entirely religious thing. Christmas is often spiritualised, and such symbols take on other meanings to other people. So meaning applied, can be well, quite subjective when talking this or that person.

Kurieuo wrote:It's really silly. The government is there for the people, and if a large populous of people are this way or that way, then why can't the government put on something for those people? Likewise, if a large populous of a community were Muslim, why not put on something for example, Ramadan -- or should that also be sidelined?

It is my opinion, that positive Atheists -- those who like to exert their beliefs -- will really only be satisfied with some form of Communism. They're not interested in Democracy, but rather those who are quite active and vocal often want to place and enforce their ideology onto the greater community, and they'll use any means.

We see it every time the government is made to drop this a that "symbol". I mean, who gives a rats if there's a cross here or manger there. Bill Maher even said something to such effect. Your Atheist for f sakes. Why do you care? Or some such similar remark.

Furthermore, there are non-Christian people who enjoy such stuff. Christmas carols and the like, many of which have very Christian lyrics. It could remind them of their childhood, some nostalgia, or of something higher than us whether or not they believe in Christ or whatever.

So no, I don't buy into the entirely religious thing. Christmas is often spiritualised, and such symbols take on other meanings to other people. So meaning applied, can be well, quite subjective when talking this or that person.

Frosty, Santa Claus, and Christmas trees, are one thing. But we're talking about a manger.

You can't get more offensive to atheists, than a manger, and what it symbolizes.

The vocal, militant atheists, like the ones who speak up and want Christian displays removed, probably are offended by Jesus Christ. I don't think that's too much of an exaggeration to say that.

If the display were Santa Claus, and his reindeer, do you think there'd be an issue?

The manger was moved to private property. It's still there for all to see. What's the big deal?

The deal is in the undertones and what is being infringed upon, which I believe is in actuality people's freedom.

Separation of church and state is a myth, a mirage, used as a ploy to instate a godless ideology as the reigning belief system. There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to such things, so the government will never in actually be able to separate itself from such, and it shouldn't, because they are actually comprised of people themselves and noone can be objective except God.

Further, if the people believe this way or that way, then the government ought to be there to serve the people. Idealistic perhaps, but that's what I see when I step back and drop all the baggage I see clouds this issue.

Things like this go further than words hurting, in the words once sung, "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will ever hurt me." Now it's, not just even words but the mere sight?

Re: a manger, I hope she doesn't mind me mentioning her here since she doesn't post, but there are those like Audie who in personal conversation it came up actually enjoys the whole carol thing, "Hail hail to the new born king, may our voices sing him our praises."

Perhaps some strange desire for it to be true, maybe the nostalgic effect of when she was younger. And, we know, she is by no means Christian nor believes in God. One of the most bold and headstrong Atheists this board has had, and allowed, in quite a while.

So can it even be said a manger, even with Jesus in and singing praises to the new born king, has strictly religious meaning to people? No, I don't think so if non-Christians draw their own meaning from such. Yes, there is a root meaning, but there are many derived meanings also which are by no means just for Christians.

Kurieuo wrote:
Separation of church and state is a myth, a mirage, used as a ploy to instate a godless ideology as the reigning belief system...

It's not a myth:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat ... ted_States

The interpretation is up for debate.

No, it is a myth in essence.

Let me elaborate, it is depending upon how "church" be defined, which has largely illogically evolved into any belief in God, Christian-flavoured beliefs in particular.

When I worked in government, to not show bias to a particular online search engine, we once had to list multiple search engines the public could use. Or for extracting .zip files or opening PDF documents, we had to list multiple software options.

If applied in the whole context of the "religion and state" vein as I often see injected by secular thought in the US (or some European country like France), then NOTHING should be advertised -- no this or that search engines, and no software promoted for extracting .zip files or opening PDF documents.

According to such a mentality, the only fair position in the separation of church (aka re-defined as "religion" ??) and state, is a position of nothingness. In another manner of speaking, government should be specifically "a-search" (without search) or "a-software" (without zip/pdf software) aka: Atheism.

And so, an Atheistic ideology becomes the reigning paradigm, when in fact a government should in actuality give no privileged position to this or that, while it could endorse those it sees as constructive to society and oppose those seen as destructive.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Atheists are doing everything they can to remove Christian symbols from government places while at the same time trying to re-write history like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, SOME atheists are trying to remove Christianity. Not all.

And some Christians would be happy if the US was a theocracy.

Not all.


Atheists are not the enemy of Christians.

A Christian theocracy would not be a Christian nation. Freedom is at the core of Christianity,to have the freedom to accept or reject Christ.It would be against everything the bible teaches about faith to force or make somebody be a Christian,however I'm against the removal of ten commandments,nativities,prayer,etc from government property because it is part of our Christian heritage to have them there.I guess this is one area where we'll disagree. I would be against a Christian theocracy.It is the minority vocal atheists on-line that give the majority of atheists a bad name. I do not really care if a person chooses to not be a Christian but when they start removing our Christian heritage then I'm against it.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why a gnome on public property is harmful.

For man to make a law forbidding certain things, there has to be a just reason for doing so. I don't know how a gnome on public land can harm somebody, create a hazardous situation, or simply lead to human unhappiness.

Now, I fully understand that it is illegal to place a gnome on public property. I do not need to have that fact pounded in my head for the 3786th time. My main question is how is the presence of a garden gnome harmful?

I'm not sure where you're going with this...

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:
Separation of church and state is a myth, a mirage, used as a ploy to instate a godless ideology as the reigning belief system...

It's not a myth:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat ... ted_States

The interpretation is up for debate.

What's odd, is that before 1960, and the past 200 plus years of the USA - Christianity was embraced and accepted as a whole. I read countless charters and older textbooks during teachers conferences passed around that held no separation of church from state as it is currently taught and upheld. Few are presented below... there is more...

Look at this link:History of the United States 1832 see chapter one and what do you see written?

Look at this link: Bible Readings for School 1897 and skim through the book. What do you notice?

Next look at these quotes...

The 1811 edition of The American Preceptor under the heading “A Short Address To Parents,” on page 224 reads:
Link here for you to read

5... "Give your hearts wholly to the Lord who made you." Lay the foundation of your lives here, on the firm ground of Christian faith; and build upon it whatever is just and good, worthy and noble, till the structure be complete in moral beauty.

6. The world, into which your children are entering, lies in wait for them with variety of temptations. Unfavorable sentiments of religion will soon be suggested to them, and all the snares of luxury, false honor and interest, spread in their way, which, with most of their rank, are too successful, and to many, fatal.

7. Happy the few, who in any part of life become sensible of their errors, and with painful resolution tread back the wrong steps which they have taken!

8. But happiest of men is he, who by an even course of right conduct, from the first, as far as human frailty permits, hath at once avoided the miseries of sin, the sorrows of repentance, and the difficulties of virtue; who not only can think of his present state with composure, but reflect on his past behaviour with thankful approbation; and look forward with unmixed joy to that important future hour, when he shall appear before God, and humbly offer to him a whole life spent in his service

Then...

The 1857 edition of The Elementary Spelling Book:

Let all your words be sincere, and never deceive. – Never practice deceit, for this is sinful. – A mediator is a third person who interposes to adjust a dispute between parties at variance. Christ is the mediator between an offended God and offending man. (The Elementary Spelling Book, pp. 80,82)
http://www.archive.org/stream/elementar ... 2/mode/1up

Little over 107 years ago...

1908 edition of The Elementary Spelling Book reads:
The Holy Bible is the book of God.
The Elementary Spelling Book, 1908, p. 26

Again on pages 98-99...
The Elementary Spelling Book, 1908, p.98,99 reads

Legislation is the enacting of laws, and a legislator is one who makes laws.

God is the divine legislator. He proclaimed his ten commandments, from mount Sinai.

In free governments, the people choose their legislators.

We have legislators for each state, who make laws for the state where they live. The town in which they meet to legislate, is called the seat of government. These legislators, when they are assembled to make laws, are called the legislature.

The people should choose their best and wisest men for their legislators.

lt is the duty of every good man, to inspect the moral conduct of the man who is offered as a legislator at our yearly elections. If the people wish for good laws, they may have them, by electing good men.

The legislative councils of the United States should feel their dependence on the will of a free and virtuous people.
Our farmers, mechanics and merchants, compose the strength of our nation. Let them be wise and virtuous, and watchful of their liberties.

From 1803...

....Humanity is, therefore, the characteristic of Christianity ; it is the badge and ornament of its professors ; it is the particular and frequent command of our Saviour, "As ye would that others should do unto you, even so do ye unto them."

The New Instructor, 1803, p. 188).

These were things allowed to be taught in schools until around the 1955-1970 time period. The Separation of church and state in the United States was once clearly taught that there should be NO First Church of the USA which is far different from the hyperbole from FFRF and modern concepts.

In other words, NO First Church of the USA, meant that there should never be one main line established and sanctioned denomination church in America that excludes and persecutes all other christian groups. No one monopolized denomination ruling the roost as the Church of England and Roman Catholic and Lutheran in Europe had. That was the purpose for the separation clause that it could not stop the free exercise of religion.

If it wasn't and as the moderns folks pontificate, then why didn't they practice this way back when at the founding of this country?

Why do spelling books and a host of other materials suggest that Christianity with its many variety of churches were indeed allowed to influence schools and morality for well over 200 years?

Let's look at the liberal progress approx to learning in the USA and how stupid many students really are and stuck on making more and more psychotic policies of PC and other cr_p...

For example, the students in Missouri protesting Racism, etc, do not even know wast it is. I challenge them to prove the existence of colored only bathrooms, dressing rooms, water fountains, and classes on campus. The left makes racist out of minorities and induced Anglo Saxon guilt to serve a political agenda of gaining control without realizing that they are Americans too and will lose all their perks, blessings, and privileges once the USA is totally fundamental transformed. They will not possess a country anymore.

Next look at this headline as an example and the article:

Black Activist Allegedly Punches Christian Preacher in the Mouth Inside Mizzou ‘Free Speech Zone’ — Then He Grabs the Microphone…

This the fruit of FFRF and other activist groups in action: Link to article here

All in reaction to the myth of a defending against a Christian Theocracy which is mere propagandized hyperbole. The USA, even back then was not a Christian Theocracy. Christianity was at least back then accepted as the salt and glue to stabilize and hold in check an ever corruptible humanity necessary for a free people to self govern themselves effectively.

FFRP and the other activist groups like them are no different than the inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition... if they get their way...
-
-
-