and neither do I.  AJ  you're way out of line.  You don't seem to have much reading credibility these days.  How many times have I said that I am not trying to establish a Federal Religion?  How many times have I said that the Constitution is perfect as written?  How many times have I spoken about "freedom of" vs "freedom from?" 

You need to do some historical reading....not revisionist history mind you....not somebody's opinion mind you....go back and read the founding father's own writings.  We are fortunate that we have a vast library of historical evidence to wade through.  Dead men, in this case, do indeed still speak. 

Oh, and while you're at it......I got this advice from a person who spends a very large amount of time sifting thru these historical records.  She said this to me when I told her about this debate: 

My suggestion is to go to the 1828 dictionary and learn the definition of deist then and then look at the modern version of the meaning deist.  And another suggestion is to learn as much as you can about the so called ‘deist’ Thomas Jefferson and ask people why he wrote a version of the bible using only Jesus’ words and quote them the quotes that Jefferson stated about Jesus.  Lastly – have fun educating the public!

The Federal Government left it up to the States.  That's where it should be left up to....... exactly as intended.  What's happened is the Federal Government grew and grew and grew and the States virtually have no rights anymore when it comes to the big stuff.  The Federal Government should stay out of religion all together. 

The only reason we should have the Federal Government is to build roads and protect its citizens.  The rest should be left up to the States. 

I'm not saying you are, what I am saying is that your statement implies that our nation is conceived out of Christian principles, and it isn't. Enlightenment principles, KFC.

By the way:

1828 Webster's dictionary, entry for deist.

DEIST, n. One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.

Yup, that still sounds like Jefferson. Oh, and I do read his writings, and I also read other founding writings. I'm assuming you forgot that I've mentioned my fascination and, in some cases, fanatical interest, in history.

Also, mind explaining to me what your definition of revisionist history is?

First off, I should apologize for the terminology. I tend to use the word Christian, as an all encompassing and generic term for religion.

Secondly, the passage in the dictionary would have both god and God.

Thirdly, the entry clearly defines the difference between a Supreme God, and a god. The former being, more than likely, the Christian god. (As well as juidaic, et al.)Lets take a look at this again:

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.  -- The term SB is primarily a Christ./Islam, Hindu and Deist reference. It means, the one, or The God.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.  - Again, as I previously stated.

3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. -- More than likely this references polytheism

4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. -- general use, laymans term and possible polytheism reference.

5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.

7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.

8. ( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater . a. the upper balcony in a theater.

b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

***

In the English language, the rules state that one must capitalize God, because of it being a proper noun, specificying an existance; implying an existance, and going back to the previously mentioned faiths. Why capitalize the G in the word god when it really isn't in existance? It, by the rules of grammar, is considered a specific person, place, or thing.

You see? Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough

I understand what you are suggesting and using your logic then sincce it is in caps it proved the existance of God. Seriously, the founding fathers clearly did not want a national religion like in the UK that was the purpose of the clause, The only mention of seperation of church and state came from the courts not the constitution.

Judas Priest, the minute someone feels they need to use definitions (and especially when they can't EDIT OUT THE HTML so they don't look like an internet retard), their point is null.

Therefore, whatever your name was new face of Lucas, your point gets killed by your reliance on 'definitions'.  It just means you ain't got nothin' to say.

/bye

I'm glad someone understands what I'm attempting to get across; admittedly, I can be atrocious at it sometimes.

Actually, I believe Jefferson mentions a separation between church and state; I'll have to look it up.

You go try to explain points to them, oh high and mighty. Seriously, if your intention was to make a vitrolic comment, with no apparent constructive nature to it then fine, but why waste the time and effort? It serves no purpose other than, seemingly, stroking an ego. I could be wrong though.

Btw, it isn't like you're revealing anything shocking, KFC, TW and some others know who I am. Some have known for some time. 

~A

Edit:

I want to apologize; my temper go the best of me. It shouldn't have. I'm just tired of the baggage of my past mistakes hanging around like it is. It's annoying to say the least; I mean, God forbid someone mature and grow after being an arse. Anyways, I apologize again - I was in the wrong.

As a Christian it is normal to screw up, it is better when one learns from ones mistakes and adjusts. I am not aware of your past and could care less. The past is only a learning tool for the furture. Some learn others don't.

Indeed, as a human being, a falliable, often quick to anything human being...

I'm with SC on the definitions AJ.  Overkill was what came to my mind. 

I'll save you the trouble.  He mentioned it in a letter.....yes just a letter to a member of the Danbury Baptist Church.  Pretty interesting that the seculars have to go past the 55 men who are considered the Founding Fathers (those involved in the constitution) and take what Jefferson said in a letter to change the landscape of our country these last 50 or so years.  A lot has happened in 50 years around here because of that one eight worded sentence.....in a letter....mind you. 

he's not a Christian.  But we all screw up anyhow Christian or otherwise.  There was only one perfect being who walked this earth and he was crucified. 

Jefferson was a founding father, and helped influence the constitution through his correspondance. Go check the LOC, they even say it there. (But they're evil secularists right? )

Hey, it didn't seem like anyone was getting my points, so I went to the Amoeba level.

Yeah, see what being perfect can cause? Crucifiction! No thanks, I'll take being falliable any day.

In my opinion there is a common misconsception that freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion. The original meaning was that you can believe what you want to believe, that the state won't arrest you or execute you for not following the religion that the ruling body deems as correct. The Bible has been deemed to be a solely religious text and has often been banned from schools even when just reviewed as a work of literature because somehow the teacher is "forcing" their beliefs on the students, even though evolution is still taught in most every ciriculum which is also a belief. Sorry, but it seems to me that it's not separation of church and state that people want, but the absense of any token of Christianity. I'm sure if they eventually get rid of them all there will be some other religion targeted next.

There is no such misconception. Freedom of religion IS freedom from religion as well.

When or where exactly was the Bible chosen as a work of literature in a school without any religious imperative and deemed inappropriate?

Evolution is not a belief. Where are you getting that nonsense?

Beliefs are statements that cannot be tested and have to be taken on faith, like

"There is a god."

"There is no god."

"There are many gods."

Evolution is a scientific principle and a theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain reality with no regard to beliefs. Scientific theories include

"One species evolves into several species over long periods of time."

Notice the complete absense of any statement about god in that sentence. It's not a belief. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution, they test and accept evolution. However, testing a god is impossible and hence we take the existence of a god or gods (or the non-existence of gods) as a matter of faith.

You might be shocked to learn that gravity (things fall towards the planet whether there is a god or not) is also taught in schools. Again, gravity is not a belief.

Religion is that which you believe and Hindus don't and that which Hindus believe and you don't. Science is that which does not depend on beliefs and can be tested. Science should be taught in school to Christians and Hindus and religion, any of them, should be taught at home as BELIEF SYSTEMS, not as sciences.

It's mainly about Christianity because it's the Christians who are trying to have their religion taught as scientific fact in schools. Hindus and Jews are simply less demanding in that regard.

And your statement implying that anyone is about to "get rid" of them is just laughable. THAT, my friend, almost happened to the Jews, NOT the Christians, THE JEWS. Don't claim other people's suffering as your own and do not pretend that not being privileged is the same as being targeted for something bad.

NEITHER Christianity NOR any other religion should be promoted by government.

What's so fecking difficult about that?

well not according to some.  The founding fathers are usually the ones referred to as those who wrote, debated and signed the Constitution.  There were 55 men involved.   Jefferson was not one of them. 

Show me where Jefferson had ANYTHING to do with the writing of the Constitution.  Don't give me some modern day opinion.  We've got gads of historical information.  I can't find anything that has Jefferson contributing at all.  He was in Europe and even if he did correspond....how many letters could he get to the colonies in say a two year time period which is about the time it took to put the Constitution together? 

Doesn't matter if it has religious imperative or not.  It should be allowed in schools.

The Christian concensus of our nation's school system and textbooks is evidenced by the widespread acceptance of Rev. William McGuffey's readers (I saw one) which bcame a mainstay in public education 50 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified.  This attests to the fact that the educated citizenry of which all the Founding Fathers were members were very familiar with Christian truth. 

The McGuffy Reader was a book that all the schoolchildren learned to read from.  It was filled with references to scripture.   

While in some classrooms an occasional college might import old world "Enlightenment" theories hostile to traditional Christian teachings, there is no evidence that they were widespread at the time.  Even Harvard Colege, one of the first to adopt this theory did not hire its first humanist president until 27 years later. 

It was the Christians who brought us our first printing press and our country's first 126 colleges including Harvard, Princeton and Yale.....all colleges for the express purpose to train up ministers.  In fact here's the inscription which still remins to this day on the wall by the old iron gate at the main entrance to the campus:

"After God had carried us safe to New England and we had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, reared convenient places for God's worship and settled the civil government, one of the next things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers lie in the dust." 

Harvard, Princeton and Yale started out as evangelical collegs producing a majority of the nation's school teachers and ministers who were very familiar with and taught Biblical truth and Judeo-Christian moral absolutes in the classroom. 

Try doing that today.