Please help me refute the email below........

[Th1onein]

Dear truth seeker,
You clearly have a well -defined opinion on the subject of religion in our country, but I can not help but wonder from what facts you derive your position. I can not help but to think that the original intent of the founding fathers has been lost on you, as it has been on much of the political left. I am curious if you can tell me where these four quotes come from and who wrote them? If you can not, be honest with yourself and know that your opinions are without understanding....
"Supreme Judge of the World"(notice the capitalizations)
"Laws of Nature and Nature's God"
"with a firm reliance upon the protection of divine providence"
"Creator"
If any politition today were to propose legislation that contained verbage such as this, the ACLU would send their brightest and best screaming down the halls of the local courthouse declaring a serious and dangerous breach of the Constitution. They would suggest, as you have, that this was government promoting religion, a clear violation of the first Amendment. But you see, when Thomas Jefferson included those quotes in the Declaration of Independence he was not promoting any religion, he was laying the foundation for a national philosophy. Notice in these passages that Jefferson never mentions any religion or God, there is no specificity. Jefferson and his compatriots were very mindful to limit their discussions of God to descriptions only. In this they have not endorsed any religion, they have only defined their philosophical belief in a supreme being, just as George Washington did with this statement... "It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason wihout arriving at a Supreme Being." In this quote our first president makes a definitive assertion about God in a purely philosophical manner, and in no way endorsed any specific religion. This is all that FDR did and this is all that was intended for the new Memorial, merely a reaffirmation of the philosophy given to us by our Founding Fathers.
PS...Did you know that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution? And that the prominent usage of it did not begin for approxiametely 165 years after the Constitution was written?

[frankly_fedup2]

1. What did you post that started the debate??? (nm)

nt

[Th1onein]

It is in response to an email that I sent about the FDR Memorial

Some fundie was griping that someone had taken off the words "so help me God" (FDR) from the WWII Memorial and said that it was "shameful." I told her I didn't think it was shameful so much as it was silly to cut FDR's sentence off. I told her what was shameful was certain people trying to foist their religious beliefs on everyone else when this country was founded on freedom of religion.

[derrald]

17. They didnt snip any words

The "They snipped words" argument is just the latest in horseshit from the "Why are we white christian males so oppressed, boohoo?" Crowd:

Send this link
http://snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp

Tell them to stop exploiting FDR for their own self-victimization and to stop whining for God's sake.

[Th1onein]

41. God bless DU! I love you guys!

I am in a hotbed of rightwingers. This is as I think it should be, though. It is all well and good to come here and meet with, and talk with, people who believe the same way that I do. Very comforting. But it is up to all of us to cultivate relationship with rightwingers, so that we MIGHT make them see some sense.

Thank God for you and your help!

Melanie

[theivoryqueen]

2. okay - first: these founding pops were living in a world without ac/dc

they were in the dark ages, as far as scientific breakthroughs go - so of course they had no better explanation than "god did it". As we progress into deeper understandings of how our universe works, we are supposed to be leaving primitive and outdated beliefs behind... unless we cling to them for other, more personal reasons. In which case, we are not obliged, as a society, to indulge less intelligent rhetoric and stubborness.

[SalParadise]

5. That argument won't was w/the wingnuts.

These people are still living in the dark ages.

It's best to point out that they weren't christians at all, as in my post below.

[Union Thug]

12. Agreed...

Who cares what the founding fathers believed, anyway? They owned slaves, btw, does that make slavery somehow protected policy?

I don't give a tinker's damn. The soviets had it right.. throw out this stupidity of religion and make the world a better place.

[frankly_fedup2]

21. Question . . .

What is a "tinker?"

[merh]

34. they traveled around, mending pots and pans (eom)

[Dorian Gray]

33. Yep, the Soviets did a great job making the world a better place. <eom>

[SalParadise]

3. This should help

What escapes so many of the wingnuts is that our "Founding Fathers" were DEISTS.

Google "founding fathers deism" & you'll get a lot of good stuff.

Here's a freebie for you: http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html

[NMDemDist2]

4. i have no problem with any of the above verbiage

it's the "Jesus" that has to be watched.

The above would include Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as well as Hindu,Buddhism and probably agnostics as well.

As long as we are keeping the "Supreme Being" clearly non denominational and I see no problems. It is when we have "faith based" initiatives that only give our tax payer $$ to Christian organizations we are on a very slippery slope.

[Bronco69]

6. Here is one part I think I can refute.

"PS...Did you know that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution?"

He is right, that exact phrase is not in the constitution, but it is paraphrased in the Bible where it says, "Render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." The Bible clearly tells us that religion has no place in government, and government has no place in religion. These people don't want to govern by Biblical laws, they want to govern by their INTERPRETATION of Biblical laws. One look at a theocracy and you can see what that will get you. Just my humble opinion.

[frankly_fedup2]

8. Separation of Church and State is more clear in the . . .

First Ammendment, not the Second.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another.

Nuff said.

[frankly_fedup2]

9. DUH . . .

I don't know why I brought the second amendment into it. I guess because that amendment is the FAV of the Republican party and it just hangs in my mind. Yeah, that's right, it's because of the Republicans that I made that mistake. Yeah, sounds good to me. They messed up my post. They are evil.

[theivoryqueen]

10. no sweat - first post dead on

the word implicit is in the constitution

[frankly_fedup2]

I lost my URL for that . . .

Give me a minute or two so I'm no plagerizing!!!

[frankly_fedup2]

20. Sorry. Here is the URL

Great site for those who cannot understand what the Constitution means and/or a Republican and/or the Bush Administration . . . OOPS . . . too late for Dubya . . . he doesn't read.

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=topics&STEMMER=en&WORDS=religion+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match>

[merh]

13. It was the Declaration of Independence wasn't it....

"Laws of Nature and Nature's God"

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America, 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation. 

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. 

[merh]

15. Seems to me their whole argument seems to be based on their

definition of God. Which of course, flies in the face of that little phrase from 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.

Our founding fathers appreciated human differences and that is why, in the Declaration, they stated "that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR"

Our Constitution requires a separation between government and religion: our First Amendment provides that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

site that discusses the Constitutional Principle:
Separation of Church and State -- http://members.tripod.com/~candst/

[merh]

16. "that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR"

as opposed to OUR CREATOR.

[frankly_fedup2]

25. Well, all minorities seemed to be left out in that . . .

including WOMEN.

[merh]

27. All men were created equal

means all people, all races, it just wouldn't read as well if it were written "All human beings are created equal.."

They talked funny back then.

[Gold Metal Flake]

28. "that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR"

As opposed to THE creator.

[frankly_fedup2]

24. Well that proves our point over and over and over . . .

we have several sources. Also, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

So how much more do they need?

Tell them you will pray for them. It usually ticks them off; however, I sincerely do pray for them sometimes.

[frankly_fedup2]

23. You are 100% right on this one . . .

If the religious right had their way, Christianity would be the ONLY religion in this country, the Government would give all the "Christian" churches all they need to spread Christianity, and if (God forbid . . . no pun intended) someone wants to practice any other religion than what the mainstream religion, they will be penalized, jailed, executed.

Deja Vu' or what? I mean, isn't that what Afghanistan is, a theocracy. As well as Iraq. They are not going to allow the Muslim religion to not pay a big part in their countries constitution.

So I guess if these so-called "Christians" had their way . . . one can only think of the horrors "ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD."

[merh]

30. Actually, if you want to shut the religious right down, you

just need to quote some of the things Jesus (Christ) professed in the New Testament.

Love thy brother as they self.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Turn the other check (that one gets them every time.)

Then suggest that they read Matthew chapters 23. It warns of hypocrites.

[Zen Democrat]

7. This website covers it all ... Read Madison and Jefferson especially.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

[Uber Llama]

11. Listen to this...

"The United States is in no capacity founded on the Christian religion." This was said by our country's biggest opponent, that emeny of freedom and democracy, six-star general George Washington, in 1796, in the Treaty of Tripoli

[frankly_fedup2]

19. There's another great one for reference. I have a

question though. . . was Washington the only 6-star general we have ever had????

[LostInAnomie]

14. Separation of church and state not in the constitution

He's right. A few other things aren't in the constitution that we take for granted: separation of powers, fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, religious freedom, etc.

They are all simple phrases that encompass a broad idea that are outlined by the the constitution and the bill of rights.

Have him explain what is meant by the establishment clause in the constitution. And, don't accept the answer that is sure to come that in is only supposed to mean the government can't make laws governing religion. The "respecting" in "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" cuts both ways.

[alvis]

18. Interesting

I'm not sure what to make of this. First point I would like to make is that while "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution, it is in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. Most assuredly not in use 165 years after the Constitution was written. "Prominent usage" looks like weasel words to get out of it. As far as not being "a Christian Nation" that is in the Treaty of Tripoli by Madison. And the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

I recommend the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. As well as the Jeffersonian bible. The Jeffersonian bible is basically the Gospels with any supernatural events cut out. I must admit I haven't read that, but that is basically what it is.

As for the Washington quote: "It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason wihout arriving at a Supreme Being."

I haven't taken a look to see if it is accurate or not, but this is basically an argument from authority. Washington never had the benefit of knowledge of Cosmic Background Radiation or images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Perhaps he would think differently about that. From what I've read, Washington was most likely a Deist, as were many of the Founding Fathers.

Well, this has been a Vodka fueled rant. be sure to check out http://www.infidels.org there's a lot of information regarding Church/State separation.

[merh]

22. Who cares if the Declaration of Independence is a "legal document"

or not. It is a historic document, one that presumably sets forth the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Just because I find it meaningful and relevant to the issue of separation of church and state, doesn't mean I am basing my views on legality, but rather on our nations principles.

Besides it was cited as a source of one of the the lines questioned in the original post "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". That line is in the Declaration of Independence.

[alvis]

26. I do.

It's not the Law of the Land like the Constitution is. Our nation was partly based on the principle that slavery was legal and that all others that were not free persons were three fifths of a person. This has changed due to law and principles. I am citing Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitition.

Do you think our nation's principle's weren't written into the Constitution? Or subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers?

[merh]

32. And before there was the Constitution there was the

Declaration of Independence. We seem to be arguing the same thing.
And, like I said, I was providing the creator of this post with a source, as requested.

If you look at the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a vacuum and not in historical contest, then it is easy to misconstrue them.

[alvis]

35. Absolutely.

But the Bill of Rights were the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was to declare our break from England.

I am not looking at these documents in a vacuum. But also into the context of other writings by the founding Fathers, such as the Jeffersonian Bible, the works of Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, The Treaty of Tripoli as well as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.

I believe that the USA was founded upon the principles of a secular nation. As noted in the Constituion and other writings by our Founding Fathers.

[merh]

36. Yeah, me too. As I said, we are arguing the same point.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, its writers recognized that views differed, that is why they wrote THEIR CREATOR as opposed to MY CREATOR, OUR CREATOR, THE CREATOR. Each to his or her own.

[alvis]

37. Agreed then. nt

[frankly_fedup2]

29. This should be clear enough as well.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

~ John Adams (1735-1826)

[alvis]

31. I think you're right.

I think it was Adams, and not Madison.

(Note to self, "fact check!")

[wurzel]

38. The problem is not and never has been "Religion".

The problem is and always has been "Church".

[merh]

39. Religion = church

Faith and Spirituality are personal, where religions and churches are structured and governed by doctrines as opposed to faith and/or spirituality (IMHO).

[wurzel]

43. Oh no it doesn't!

Religion is personal faith and spirituality toward God (or what ever name you choose). No "Church" needed. Church is about dogma and shared belief. two very different and sometime even contradictory things.

[struggle4progress]

40. Tell them that you take a really literal approach ...

to the commandment against "Taking the name in vain." Explain that you believe religious displays for political purposes are blasphemous. Then express concern for their immortal souls.

[Delano]

42. IF the constitution endorsed an sort of supreme being...

I'd be 100% in favor of an amendment to strike any such reference from the constitution. Using the government to enforce universal moral and ethical values is fine. Using it to enforce a particular religion's values is unacceptable, PERIOD.