sweet mother of fail. I here by declare the former comment placed here worthy of epic double facepalm.

>> ^RadHazG:

I thought murder had to be premeditated? As in, they forced her to run with the specific intention of killing her as opposed to being the cruel black hearted inhuman harpies they are.


I think this must be the wrong thread.

He's demonstrating the seperation of comment and video.

To many tabs children : let this be a warning.

The mention of God is all over the writings of the founding fathers, so...

if you have a problem with that you're simply not understanding.

The founding fathers were interested in prohibiting gov't from establishing a state religion, as they did in England.

They wanted to keep the gov't out of religion. They did not want the gov't sponsoring or imposing a religion as that would be a restriction on freedom.

What Santorum said here was that people of faith should be able to influence public policy, which is another way of saying that we have freedom of religion.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? Why take a soundbite and interpret it in such a way that the meaning is turned totally backwards?

Nobody said a person of faith can't have a voice in the public square. I don't understand the constant misunderstanding of this basic concept.

Having no official state religion has allowed diversity of belief to flourish, while not having the church tell government what to do, or rule through a monarch. But that doesn't seem good enough for the recently formed big tent of all flavors of "christians" on the right. They unite around a few big issues, and demand we all submit to what they believe.

>> ^lantern53:

The mention of God is all over the writings of the founding fathers, so...
if you have a problem with that you're simply not understanding.
The founding fathers were interested in prohibiting gov't from establishing a state religion, as they did in England.
They wanted to keep the gov't out of religion. They did not want the gov't sponsoring or imposing a religion as that would be a restriction on freedom.
What Santorum said here was that people of faith should be able to influence public policy, which is another way of saying that we have freedom of religion.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? Why take a soundbite and interpret it in such a way that the meaning is turned totally backwards?


I think you are missing Santorum's point, as he is missing the point of the Establishment clause.

You are correct in so far as what the founding fathers intended with the separation of church and state. Where I think you are mistaken is Santorum's intent. He is interpreting valid criticism of religion's role in government as potential limitation of free speech.

It's a matter of degrees. He can say he believes in god and thinks we should all follow god's teachings until the cows come home (or until Jesus returns, whatever). But, when he states, as an elected official, that government should create and enforce policy based on specific religious ideas, that's where he's wrong. And, I don't think I'm stretching too much when I say this is a common Republican (at least during campaign season) tactic. Look at how they are running to the far right with the contraception/healthcare issue. This time around, Santorum is the most outspokenly religious of the bunch.

Santorum has said "sex is supposed to be within marriage."
He has stated that his views on why homosexual marriage are informed by the bible.

Like it or not, not many Americans can justify a pro-life stance, anti-homosexual policy or even war in the middle east without invoking the Christian god. Politicians still do it and are successful but that doesn't mean it's how our government is supposed to run.

Oh, and a side point on the founders' god. It's a generic god, a deist god, not necessarily Christian. While some may have been what we consider "normal" Christians, in the Constitution they invoked god in such a way that it wasn't connected to any one dogma. I think if you understand the intent of the Establishment clause, that's the only way those references make sense.

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?

Who was their God?

And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?

Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.

If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Santorum is a TYRANT.
Santorum is a DECEIVER and a LIAR.

This man twists words to support his tyrannical ideology. His mind has been consumed by the religion virus.

Rick Santorum and people like him is why AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE PROTECTION of separation of church and state.

Burn them all and let their god deal with them.

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


what lukinstone is referring to is that many of the original founders were deists and is not contended by historians.many writings of jefferson in particular... to be specific.

your final point is so chock full of WTF i wouldnt even know where to begin but i do heartily agree that santorum has the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe and also has the right to base those beliefs on his religious inclinations
BUT....
i have a serious problem with those who identify with being a conservative, who chant the mantra of freedom and liberty and who then turn around and find it totally acceptable to legislate MY freedom and MY liberty simply based on their religious convictions.

that, my friend..is the epitome of hypocrisy.

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.

The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.

Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.

You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.

As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.

Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.

And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.

What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"

Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.

Try again.

>> ^lantern53:

If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


That is one of the single most retarded statements I've ever read. I was going to respond with a glib "if you think married people have sex, you've never been married", but this is just too fucking ridiculously stupid to let slip.

So here's the genuine answer: sex is part of an adult relationship. Adult relationships require work and compromise on both sides about all aspects of the relationship. Money, cleaning, home maintenance, free time; all these things are potential sources of grief. Sex is just another aspect of that. Being married or not is totally irrelevant. That's not to say relationships aren't worth it, just that if you go into a relationship believing there'll be no grief over anything or that getting married will ever solve a problem, you're an idiot.

Two of the traits I consider sickest in a person are a negative attitude towards sex, or sexual repression, and a distrust of education.

Okay, it's not quite up there with "likes to rub his dick on stinging nettles", but we're operating in the same area. They're so destructive, and they indicate a very scared and underdeveloped human being.

What I can't understand is how anyone fails to see that religious fundamentalism OF ANY FORM OR FLAVOR does not belong in government or as the basis of law. We so easily look at Iran and see how their theocratic regime is evil, but fail to recognize it on our own shores.

I used to have premarital sex all the time, to the horrible result that I eventually married one of the girls I was having sex with. We have a child now and are quite happy... oh, wait. What?

Republicans always have a perverse definition of freedom.

Freedom of Religion: I have the right to impose my beliefs on my employees, and customers.

Freedom of Speech: I have the right to purchase all the newspapers, television stations, internet providers, etc. and make sure all anyone hears is my voice. Also, I can bribe politicians.

Freedom to bear arms: I reserve the right to shoot politicians who don't subscribe to my beliefs.

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

Economic freedom: I have the right to pollute, defraud people, and sell unsafe products without ever being held responsible for the damage I inflict on people.

Good on Rick for being honest about this.

@NetRunner
"You hate us for our Freedom" - George W. Bush

>> ^rex84:

What I can't understand is how anyone fails to see that religious fundamentalism OF ANY FORM OR FLAVOR does not belong in government or as the basis of law. We so easily look at Iran and see how their theocratic regime is evil, but fail to recognize it on our own shores.


I like to think that most of us actually -do- recognize and abhor fundamentalism here.

OTOH, I also liked to think that there was no possible way that GWB could get enough people to support him to win a second election...and you see where that got me.

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.

Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.

Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.

My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.

You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.

I'm a big believer in experience, myself.

@lantern53

So what is your point. Just because one of two behavioral options may have more potential problems associated with it is no reason by itself why I should avoid that option. It's just a factor to consider when making a decision. And remember, if one person jumps to a conclusion about your meaning they may have a comprehension problem but if everyone jumps to conclusions then you have an expression problem.

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

This video shows Santorum doesn't even know what "separation of church and state" means. He's acting as if it means religious persons are not allowed to run for office or participate in political campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth. The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits any kind of religious test for public office (redundantly to Article IV's explicit No Religious Test clause).

onlygoldandsilvercanbelegaltenderronpaul2012goodnight!

half of all marriages end in divorce. the other half end in death. (rimshot)


What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"

"...the America that made the greatest country in the history of the world"

These type of comments always seem to stem from overzealous patriotism, obnoxious hubris or political pandering to voters. It's a big world out there, I always wonder how well travelled the people who make such claims are.

Am I too late for the argument?

Santorum is flogging a dead horse.
Nobody ever said that religious people can't be in politics.
But flogging that dead horse sure does make you look more religious.

as my cousin-in-law said today, good people don't constantly tell you how good you are.
And it's the questionable ones that do so.

Christians have boring artifacts. If he picked a more controversial religion he could have giant pentagram carpets installed across the entire center of the oval office.

>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

>> ^lantern53:
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.

Yeah, and my point was that statement is bullshit. Forget about providing evidence to back up your spurious claim, you haven't even elaborated how or why sex outside marriage causes any more problems than sex within marriage.

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense, and even then, a happily unmarried but loving couple will make better parents than a marriage that's falling apart.

And then I googled "santorum."

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

3 million teens contract an STD every year

25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.

In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.

Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy

Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,

In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.

Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.

A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex

That's just scratching the surface.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^lantern53:
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
Yeah, and my point was that statement is bullshit. Forget about providing evidence to back up your spurious claim, you haven't even elaborated how or why sex outside marriage causes any more problems than sex within marriage.
I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense, and even then, a happily unmarried but loving couple will make better parents than a marriage that's falling apart.

>> ^shinyblurry:

3 million teens contract an STD every year

Irrelevant. That is a problem of bad safe sex practices, caused mostly by idiotic christian idealists who preach abstinence. Funny how states that preach abstinence have the highest rates of stds.

>> ^shinyblurry:



25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

Well first off, you're equating "premarital sex" with "teen sex". I didn't get married until I was 30. Most people these days are getting married later, so pre-marital sex can be easily between mature adults.
Besides, I don't really believe you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.


Yep, and there's a reason we have age of consent laws. You will get no argument from me that 12 year olds should not be having sex. Doesn't mean they shouldn't learn about it though.
>> ^shinyblurry:



Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy
Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,
In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.
Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.


Clearly you missed the part where I said:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense.

Again, if you and your ilk weren't so hung up on teaching safe sex practices, this issue would be a lot less of a problem.

>> ^shinyblurry:


A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex
That's just scratching the surface.


Again, irrelevant. "premarital sex" != "teen sex". The issue is not at what age you lost your virginity, it's whether or not premarital sex causes "grief".

Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data, I'd wager that part of the reason they feel bad about it is precisely because of the bullshit story that has been pushed onto kids from day one that you will have sex, a chorus of angels will sing and you'll live happily ever after with your partner at the time. Life doesn't always work like that.

edit: fixed quote tags

Lots of religious discussion in the last half dozen years or so. Maybe notice it more because I'm older, but it seems more prevalent.

I saw a quote somewhere else by Napoleon Bonaparte, so I looked up his quotes and found two I thought were interestingly applicable to the current climate.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte

We're coming off of the biggest financial crime of our lifetimes, with no one being punished. And they aren't even trying to stop it from happening again, they are fortifying the regulations that made it possible for it to happen in the first place and attempting to add more craziness with SOPA/PIPA to solidify control over the only location everyone can have a say and organize -- the internet.

So, I have to call into question all of this religious posturing that is becoming the forefront of the debates and "hot topics" in most traditional media coverage. Anything regarding rights of gays = religion based arguments, abortion = religion based, etc......everyone is affected by the economic meltdown and financial theft that occurred. And they address it by skipping back to "Those damn gaaaaaaayyyyss" or "ABORTION --- RAWRRR" and anytime they can't flip over to those we get the piracy! and It's your fault for buying a house during the bubble! oh and OWS rapes people so you can't believe in any of that.

And the OWS argument makes me laugh, because they'll have you believe the whole movement is made up to allow rape to occur and it's a legitimate reason to call their ethics and argument into question. But when Gingrich was asked a question in the debate allowing him to respond to his cheating on his wives and leaving at least one of them in a bad situation, it was applauded when he refused to answer and how that was bad form to question his morality based on those acts. When you could say, he just wants to be President so he can get more on the side with the secret service to facilitate or some other overly dismissive thing they do to the OWS.

The whole process is insulting, they speak of stability but create controversy to take focus away from issues that going unaddressed whom 70% or more of the citizenry agrees needs to be addressed. And I suspect it's not because they don't see there's issues, it's because they want those issues to remain....it makes it easier to stay rich if you can exploit them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data

Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.

http://www.troubledteens.com/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html

Santorum isn't Obama. Santy could win if he just stressed that point, and so could a cinder block.

>> ^jwray:

That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.

From the paper you linked, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence:

In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html


And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:

"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "

Booyah! Research sources ftw!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jwray:
That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.
From the paper you linked, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence:

In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract.

Full Text of Oklahoma’s Right to Work State Law: (“RTW States O”).
Oklahoma. Constitution. Article. 23, § 1A provides:
A. As used in this section, "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.

B. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to:
Resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization;
Become or remain a member of a labor organization;
Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization;
Pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or
Be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.



Full Text of Texas’s Right to Work State Law: (“RTW States T”).
§ 101.004. Contract for Withholding Union Dues from Employee's Compensation Void Without Employee's Consent
A contract that permits or requires the retention of part of an employee's compensation to pay dues or assessments on the employee's part to a labor union is void unless the employee delivers to the employer the employee's written consent to the retention of those sums. (Enacted 1993.)

§ 101.052. Denial of Employment Based on Labor Union Membership Prohibited
A person may not be denied employment based on membership or nonmembership in a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)

§ 101.053. Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void
A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment:
(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or
(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union.

Okay, so the problem isn't "fictitious" it's widespread, but in your opinion could easily be solved by the unions if only they weren't so ignorant of the law.

Except, both the union and anti-union sites I've found say that unions are required to represent everyone due to federal labor laws. They don't specify which statute contains that requirement, and IANAL, but I'm guessing it's the Wagner Act, specifically the part about "Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization."

After all, saying "pay your dues, or you don't get our benefits" would be pretty coercive, especially if the union just negotiated for better safety equipment...

>> ^jwray:

That's incidental and avoidable consequence of the law, not part of the actual law. Right to work laws do not say that union contracts have to apply to all employees regardless of whether they're in the union or not. Many union contracts just happen to have been written without considering that. Employers would easily agree to changing the terms of union contracts to be inapplicable to non-union workers.

Santorum believes church and state should be whipped together into a frothy amalgam.

We certainly don't need any law to prevent employers from paying nonunion workers less than union workers since it is against their interest to provide an incentive for union membership. Likewise the laws against discriminating against union members are what enabled unions to browbeat employers into agreeing to closed-shop contracts. Unequal pay for an unequal value proposition is fair. If category X were overpaid relative to the actual value of their contribution to the business then no sane businessperson would hire X. We don't need any wage-discrimination laws because the free market will handle it. Implement socialism through eliminating sales and payroll taxes which disproportionately affect the poor, and and providing single-payer healthcare and education, not by fucking over the market with price controls on labor.

You've set up the problem wrong:

People don't choose between having sex outside or inside a marriage on a given day. They only have the choice to have sex or not have sex, period. And to that point, not having sex, outside of marriage or in, causes more problems than having sex because sex is awesome for relationships.

If your sex is destroying your relationships, then you're doing it wrong.>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.

Very well done. Kudos to your researchivity.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html

And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:
"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "
Booyah! Research sources ftw!

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.

Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.

Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.

Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.

And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.

Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

What is the union of premarital sex workers stance on this?

TL;DR

(wow...when you guys get going...)

Oops. Thought I had been more clear than that in my previous explanation. In fact on rereading it I'm fairly convinced that I was. I'll restate my position in different terms to maybe clear up the confusion.

I suspect the kernel of our misunderstanding lies in your previous post. Thank you for helping me to crystallize my view.
"Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away. "

A-Obama uses religion for political reasons.
B-Santorum would implement policy for religious reasons.

I don't think I can make it much more clear than that. I would immensely prefer that religion be mishandled in the pursuit of politics, than the country be mishandled in the pursuit of religion. If that means I'm a hypocrite, than I proudly am.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.
Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.
Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.
Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.
And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.
Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

...

@shinyblurry

I can go one more round, just don't have time today...hope that's intriguing...

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Yes, you are correct. This was the point I was trying to make that, in light of what the founders said and did, that the way the establishment clause has been interpreted in recent decades could not be accurate. The founders had no issue with government endorsement of Christianity; in fact they frequently endorsed it. On that point the evidence is overwhelming.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

I don't think the founders intended any of this. The constitution was written 11 years later, after many of those state constitutions were written. Written by the same people who had written the state constitutions. Considering that there was no action to enforce the interpretation we have today, but that we see quite the opposite, I don't see any justification for thinking they did intend it. The establishment clause was never actually applied this way until the 1960, which in itself was based on a supreme court decision in 1947 involving a school district using public funds to transport kids to a private religious school.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

I think it's important to understand that it wasn't written out of fear of Christian theism, as some people are trying to say today. It was understood that Christian theism was the default doctrinal state religion. Neither did the founders write it to be inclusive of other doctrinal religions, like Islam and Hinduism, or something like atheism. They wrote it, as you are saying, to prevent any federal takeover of a particular denomination of Christian theism. It was written for denominational religion, not doctrinal religion. A fight between denominations could have torn this country apart. It scarcely needed to said though that Christian theism was the default doctrinal religion of this country.

>> ^Barbar:

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone: