Offshoot thread from 'Just Some Quotes'

[GarthP2000]

Ron, (branching off from 'Just Some Quotes')

Snopes has an agenda and everything they put out is NOT accurate.

I love it when folks pull the 'they have an agenda' argument, as it's often thrown about in a desperate attempt to play down/dismiss any opposing argument that is shown to prove effective. Of course they have an 'agenda'. So do I. ... So do you, hmmmm? ;) Also keep in mind that just because someone 'has an agenda' doesn't sutomatically disqualify their point offhand, and that people who try to get as much mileage out of the 'he has an agenda' routine are usually intellectually dishonest and/or mentally bankrupt, particularly when they won't hold themselves to the same 'standard'.

The quotes, in and of themselves, are the opinions of the individual speaking them, and had little to do with the founding of the nation.

Actually, they have more to do with the founding of the nation, particularly the ones where the fathers _aren't_ speaking to the crowd, but are part of what they actually believe in, often (but not always) found in personal letters, letters that at the time aren't subject to public scrutiny, and would thus cost them an election or two.

I think if you found an HONEST source, you'd find the Patrick Henry quote to be accurate,

Looked, and haven't found it. Sorry Charlie. On the contrary, the quote was of a dubious source, and was seized upon by the likes of David Barton (Yet Another With an 'Aganda' ;)) and was used enthusiastically to show all that this country was indeed a 'Christian nation'. Upon continued scrutiny and questioning did Barton admit that the quote was undocumented. Honest as George Washington, huh?

Belief in a supreme being is central to the founding of our nation in that natural rights MUST come from a higher source than the state.

Interesting as this central point wasn't dealt with nor made an important point in the writing of the Constitution, and it was only addressed once in the Declaration of Independance ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men was endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"), and that was put in there by Thomas Jefferson, and his God wasn't of the Judaeo-Christian variety. He was Deist. Ie., 'nature's God', an impersonal 'creative force' as it were who made the earth and then stepped back and let it go its way. His theology has more in common with a 'tree hugging' environmentalists than with a lot of orthodox churches.

Also, there have been many back then who helped start this country who believed (and still do, me being among them) that the rights that are an intrinsic part of every human being don't have to be 'ordained' or bequeathed by some power, be it by God, or by the State; you made that distinction (and it shows in your clear demarcation as 'Socialism' being on the side of 'the State'. Believe me Ron, the Church can be (and often has been) just as statist as any Stalin hugging Socialist/Communist. Also keep in mind that Socialism deals with an economic model.

Thus, the Bill of Rights is, in theory, inviolate

... and they are _still_ amendments to the Constitution, no more and no less than all the other amendments which are just as inviolate. :)

Our country's founding has to do with many a reason, but one of the biggest and most foundational reasons is freedom of religion/conscience/opinion. And whatever our founding father's personal religious beliefs were, they (most of them anyway) realized, from having seen for themselves what the mixture of church and state resulted in Europe, and that to ensure that freedom, they made a clear distinction and demarcation between church and state, and embedded that into the Constitution. Ie., the Constitution makes NO provision to include 'God in the public square', as in Europe, God (via 'The Orthodox Church') was _already_ in the public square, and a lot of good that did, considering what/how/why human beings imparted 'God's Laws' to its citizenry, especially to those who weren't of the 'Right Church'.

This is why the socialist left seeks to destroy God in the public forum.

Then explain to me please why the whole range of people fighting for the separation of church and state go all the way from left wing Socialist to right wing Libertarian to tail feathers Green Party? :) So Ron, spare me the "It's all coming from the Big Bad Socialist Left" routine please. It gets old.

Without God, there are no unalienable rights, and without unalianable rights, there can be no individual liberty leaving the people open to socialist economic and social mechanisms.

One can have 'unalienable rights' w/o having a God in the mixture (Hhmmmm. Interesting that the Declaration of Independence that that phrase appears in was juxtaposed against a country that wasn't 'atheist' at all, and also acknowledged God as the source of all rights: Merry Ol' England! ). And it doesn't require a God for people to be against 'socialist economic and social mechanisms'. Plenty of Libertarian atheists around to prove that point.

Unfortunately for the fundie zealots, there is no provision to impose their views on others.

Thus the effect of the separation between church and state.

Unfortunately for the secular socialist atheist ACLU zealots, there is no prvision for separating men from God.

Like how can they separate men from God in the first place, hmmmm? Also see what I said above re: the mindless coupling of atheists/socialists. Same applies to including the ACLU as well.

[Hills Bro]

this really belongs in the political forum. Yes?

[GarthP2000]

Hills (long time dude :))

You're correct, I wager. I just didn't want Ron to miss it.

B)