America is a Christian nation

I agree.......Any parent who lets their child die because they refuse to get them treatment should be arrested for murder.

 

So refusing blood transfusion is not failed provision of basic necessities? The case is: child will die because of blood loss. So?

 

And you're an authority on Christian conduct? We have a long and proud tradition of lampooning idiotic behavior, so don't assume we're all Mormons. I also reject the notion that there's any link between circumcision and other issues such as blood transfusions. Circumcisions save lives.

 

Mmmm, great way to kick off a discussion of public policy: outright bigotry. What has that gotten us in the past? This is why I can't trust a federal government to make decisions for families. They're going to be riddled with bigots, through and through, and what's more dangerous - a religious ostracide making decisions for his family, or a bigot making decisions for all?

A blood transfusion is now a basic necessity? I don't know how that great generation grew up without their basic necessities.

 

there is only one way to interpret the constitution by knowing the intentions of the writers of the constitution and yes we do know their intent. It is the left that has continuously corrupted the constitution in a grab for more centralized power in the federal government.

 

I repeat, no one is trying to take away your faith, that is a private choice, you can still believe with out the government forcing everyone else to believe what you believe can't you?

if you consider a poster saying there is no god trying to take away your beliefs, then would not you telling them there is a god be trying to take away their beliefs

private citizens voicing their beliefs is not the same as a theocracy, that is religious freedom for all, which is only possible with a wall of separation from government and religion
.

 

Like it or not, America is a secular nation built on the blood sweat and tears of those who fled here to escape religious persecution.

 

we do know, cause Jesus was intentionally never mentioned

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

""Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." "

 

Calling religion a fantasy does not make it one. Your argument, then by default, falls flat on its face.

Typical liberal thought process, everything is "free" until it reaches the line you want to draw.

I believe in free speech, but only as long as what you say suits my personal ideals. How silly does that sound?

And speaking of religion, in this country it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I wish these godless groups would get it in their head that just as much as we have to tolerate their opinions and slogans, so must they ours. That means if a company wants a cross on their logo, or a town wants to put up a manger scene at Christmas, then so be it. Lefties want to gnash their teeth about acceptance of Muslims, but then turn around and cry about a cross or some other Christian symbol somewhere else. Hypocritical if you ask me.

Since when it is the medical profession's right to force a person, or legal guardian to make a decision that over rides their beliefs?

We see it in the laws dealing with the elderly as well. My wife and I are struggling with it concerning her ailing, elderly parents. They have no quality of life, they all but bed ridden, yet they are not allowed to decide for themselves if they want to live or die. We can't bring them home to die in peace because the family isn't able to provide 24 hour care and if they come home and die, then we are liable for abuse, so says the lawyer we are consulting. The end result is going to be they are both going to be forced to sign up for medicare (which they can't do until until every last penny of their money gets spent on the nursing home), then the government will take the house, THEN they can get some care until they pass. We aren't allowed to bring them home and provide any care, otherwise we are liable when/if the pass.

I'm very much right-wing, but the pro-life issue is one where I part ways on that train of thought. It's America and the adults should have the choice. If their religion says no drugs, no blood transfusions, then that's their belief, their choice. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

it's both

" freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (they will not support any religion, the religion must support itself), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (the people shall be free to believe whatever they want)

the only religion I know that has any right to complain is the Peyote religion, as laws are preventing them from sharing their religion with others... which violates the constitution

faith based initiatives is also unconstitutional, maybe if Romney wins and starts giving all the money to his religion people will see just how wrong it is

as for private companies wanting to put a cross in their logo.. nothing stopping them - now if you want to hang the ten commandments in a public court house then no, that crosses the line, see the difference?

I do believe in death with dignity, think Oregon is the only state that allows that, I have actually thought of retiring there for that very reason


.

 

Those people who fled religious persecution were very much religious themselves. Quit rewriting history. In some circles, that's called lying.

 

they were forced to be Christians for generations by their government, hard for most people raised in that kinda environment to change beliefs, so instead they reinvented Christianity or became deists, ect....

what they did know is they never wanted a government like that to rule here, thus the very first amendment....


.

 

If my post is beyond your comprehension, ask for help. Making veiled accusations of lying makes you look dumb.

I was merely stating the obvious. That our founders intended for this be a secular nation because they themselves knew the misery of persecution.

 

Ok, I'm sure you're able to demonstrate that. Where did they ever even use the word "secular" or are you confusing freedom of religion with secularism? Did you know that several states had official state religions and this was not in violation of the Constitution? I said that your assertion that the Puritans fled the Anglican Church to establish a secular society was a lie. It still is.

 

Ok, I'm sure you're able to demonstrate that. Where did they ever even use the word "secular" or are you confusing freedom of religion with secularism? Did you know that several states had official state religions and this was not in violation of the Constitution? I said that your assertion that the Puritans fled the Anglican Church to establish a secular society was a lie. It still is.

 

PF keeps double submitting my posts. I thought I'd make yet another post to point that out.

 

many states outlawed Christmas too, doesn't mean we should outlaw Christmas, not to mention killing Indians and slavery and the likes, we have evolved into what were are as a country

I think we can all see that society has benefited from the wall of separation, it's what allows Americans to be free to believe what they want to believe, with no government trying to tell them what to believe

in a theocracy, not believing what the government believe is considered a threat to said government, which allows much evil to be done in the name of a god


.

 

Oh geez, now you're flailing wildly in the wind. Here's some common knowledge to help you along.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

 

http://www.wallofseparation.us/the-origins-of-wall-of-separation/

 

You might have saved yourself the effort. Wikipedia is common knowledge, and that's the problem. Common knowledge isn't truth and is often at variance with the facts. Religious piety and references to our Creator are so interwoven in our founding documents and the sentiments of our founders and their generation as to be inseparable. You haven't addressed the issue that several states had official state religions, a bold refutation of your claims and a fact that can't be done away with by throwing a wiki link at it. You need to up your game because you're dealing with someone far more intelligent than you.

 

Riight! Because you know better. Of course you do!

Why don't you address the link that talks about religious persecution in the US prior to our independence?

Better yet, why don't you just bring yourself to see the misery that religion has brought throughout history? That's the real problem for you I'd bet.

 

Oh, official state religion? LOL! You are making mypoint for me! A nation with freedom of religion is not contradicted by a state with an official religion!

Still, that (*)(*)(*)(*) don't fly today now does it?

 

Re-reading this, it seems as if you believe only atheists can be persecuted. Maybe this is your problem? Note that I never said anybody was atheist.

 

I'm glad you're so willing to display how ignorant you are for the whole world to see. It definitely clears up any confusion. It's clear you have no idea about the purpose of the Constitution as a check on federal power. It didn't pertain to the states rights to exercise sovereignty within their borders, it imposed restrictions on the central government that didn't apply to the states. It was the federal government that could not establish an official religion, shockingly enough, because it infringed on the rights of states to do just that. It all works to refute your absurd notion that we were founded as a secularist nation. Religion both in private and public life was very much a priority to that generation, regardless of your efforts to revision history.

 

LMAO! Why don't you stick to what I've said? You get one more chance, champ.

A nation with freedom of religion is not contradicted by a state with an official religion!

Now, boy genius, where did I say the states were restricted?

Seriously, you get one last chance. Do keep up this time.