And this is where we differ on the the constitution.

I think it should be followed.

You think we can violate it if only we know of other people who have.

Okay. so when the Constitution states that you have the freedom of religion that means that you have the right to never hear about or be influenced by any sort of religion in anyway. Wow, you know that would kind of go against our other freedoms like freedom of speech. If you feel that way on religion then how do you feel about the right to bear arms. I mean if you're taking it that absolute then that should mean that all of us have the unwavering right to carry a gun around at all times, yes?

Evolution is a theory, it is not fact. http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm is one of many sites that points out what the theory has had problems overcoming to become fact. Evolution is a belief.

be·lief
   /b?'lif/
–noun
1.     something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.     confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.     confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.     a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

It is believed and the theory still does not provide rigorous proof. In fact there are still as many it's possibles as there are well it might not be possibles. The difference between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution... you can prove the effects of gravity, you can't prove evolution. They have yet to find one solid piece of evidence that links apes to men. Everything found to date has been thrown out and the fact that there is no evidence is dauntingly huge. If the theory that we gradually mutated, evolved, whatever you want to call it, from apes was true then why are apes still here number one and number two why can we find evidence of everything else around that timeline but what should have been one of the biggest changes on the face of the Earth? Faith is blind.

Wait, you just said that freedom of religion IS freedom FROM religion. Which would mean getting rid of religion, yes? The only way to make sure that you have freedom from religion is to get rid of religion. Now, if this isn't what you meant then you might want to revisit my statement that freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion. Something to help with your confusion a bit, http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/freedomfrom.htm. I would also like you to tell me exactly where I stated that Christianity should be promoted by the government. Please, I'm not seeing it so any enlightment would be appreciated. I claimed no one's "suffering" as my own and never even mentioned the Jewish Torah.

I do remember when I was going through high school, however, that there was an AP English teacher at the school that used the Torah, Bible, Karan and other religious texts as study material for his class. Everything was fine all year until the students were actually assigned the Bible to study. Parents were outraged. Why? Because somehow studying the Bible was supposed to be pushing his religion on his students even though there were other religious texts that were not even mentioned that the students had been asked to study and which the parents showed no concern about. If I could find the article that the city newspaper had published I would, but unfortunately their archive only goes back to 2006. I looked and will continue looking, but I do remember this coming up several times in the 90's in the news. I'll continue searching for exact references for you on where it has been looked down upon severely. Looking back I shouldn't have used the word banned because it has never been officially banned and I do appologize for that.

The bible along with all other religious texts should have the opportunity to be studied as a work of literature, because that is what they are. Evolution should be taught as a theory and all it's ramifications good and bad, not presented as a fact when it is not one.

KFC, I provided a link in either this thread or another that showed that Jeffereson was influential with the Constitution - which you subsequently ignored. I remember providing other evidence to support my claim - again, you ignorned. I'm sorry, but I am not going to repeat myself yet again, just because you've shown that you willingly ignore such points.

So do I.  No difference.  I'm not saying anything the founding fathers didn't say and believe. 

Think about it.  AFTER the Constitution was completed most of the 10 Commandments were written into the law without violating the Constitution.  For instance, the observance of Sunday as a day of worship, a Christian custom based on the 4th Commandment.  This was a legal weekly holiday for 175 years after the drafting of the Constitution.  Not until 1961 (everything happened in the 60's) when a secularized Supreme Court voted to strike down "blue laws" was Sunday designated a secular day of rest.  But in the process these laws were acknowledged as Christian in origin. 

The Constitution is our road map for how to run our country.  It didn't have to have a religious declaration to it because the Declaration had it...and was the charter for our country.

There is a way to identify the Christian consensus that had a proufound influence on the Fathers who wrote,debated and signed the Constitution in 1787.  All you have to do is examine some of the official documents in those days and years after.  Here's just a sampling.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787-it states:  "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."  Forever?  Really?  Nope!

All 50 State Constitutions-Go and check out their preambles.  I've already furnished them for AJ. 

The Declaration of Independence-This has references and recognition of God and is considered our charter.  Just in case you're not famiiar:

".......the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them......"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal......"

".....they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights......"

"......with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Protection....."

The National Anthem-Francis Scott Key was an attorney from Washington and a dedicted Chrstian. 

The Printing of Bibles by the First Congress-the first act of Congress was the printing of 20,000 bibles for the Indians.  Imagine that!  No the ACLU hadn't been formed yet.  Today they would scream "separation of church and state." 

A Frenchman's Appraisal of Religion in America-this happened 50 years after the Constitution was written.  His name was Alexis de Tocqueville, a French Scholar and statesman and when he came to visit America he was very impressed with the Christian heritage displayed.  His observations are well known and written for us all to read today.  He said for one thing:

"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.  In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions (enlightenment).  But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it.  Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.  I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion-for who can search the human heart?-But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.  This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society." 

So now we are more like France than ever as we too are following the way of "enlightenment," which is really a form of darkness and offers no light whatsoever, and instead we are finding ourselves deceptively heading back into bondage.  I'm sure the Founding Fathers and the Pilgrims would be horrified to see what direction this country is now taking as we march out of our Christian heritage and into the darkness. 

We're more like France now because that's exactly where we're heading.  We will become an extension of Europe as this globalism starts to take shape.  There will be no more independance as we will now be united as some sort of one world order.

Wow! From sensationalist one way to sensationalist the other way in this thread. How in the world did you make the jump from removing parts of out nation's heritage to the big brother theory? Now I'm all for keeping the heritage there and preserving the original documentation, mottos, etc, but forcing it down people's throats or saying that just because they don't believe what you believe that we're going into darkness is preposterous. What happened to the Bible in there? Now I remember it saying that we weren't supposed to force our religion on others. This is the same sort of radicalism that spawns the responses that were given by others here.

Freedom of religion was one big basis for how this country was setup. Freedom of religion allows people to choose what they want to believe for themselves. This was added to the Constitution because of the my way or the highway view on religion that was present in England at that time. They didn't like it so they wanted to change it. Please don't act like Christians somehow have the right to do the same thing today that this country was trying to avoid.

at least.  Maybe even show how important the bible was not only to our founders but also to the Nation as a whole.  Show the kids where in the bible they will see the scripture that's plasted all over our monuments and historical buildings and why those particular scriptures were chosen.  There's alot of education that is not being done because of the fear of "separation of church and state."  We are NOT educating our kids because of fear.  Fear of what?  They might discover God between the pages of the Holy Bible?   How is that different than the RCC who tried to shut Galilao up during the dark ages? 

If I remember right, it was somebody's opinion.  I don't want opinions.  I want facts. 

Have I or anyone else said anything about force?  Not that I know of.  No it's quite the opposite.  The Christians have been forced to put away their bibles in the schools and the workplace where before it was not only accepted but expected.  Children are NOT allowed to speak about Jesus today or bring up anything religious in school for fear of "separation of church and state"  even though our children of yesteryear were taught their ABC's out of this same book.  Even though our very first act of Congress was to print bibles and the goal everywhere in this country was to stay biblically literate.  How far we've gone from those days.  Not better in my opinion. 

Long story....but it involves reading prophecy and knowing scripture and how it's going to progress.   Many have written about this over the years way before it was even remotely possible to do such a thing.  I've been expecting alot of this for over 30 years now way before it made sense.  It makes sense now.   Read Rev 17 and 18 for one thing.  It's about Religious Babylon and Political Babylon.  Religious Babylon will be riding on the back of  Political Babylon just before all hell breaks loose.  Basically meaning government and religion will be bed fellows during end times and before government will throw religion of its back (this is the time of of the AC).  We're heading in that direction pretty quickly now. 

We're not.  Not at all.  You've got it wrong.  *sigh* again I keep saying........I don't want a theocracy run government....because I know that's not going to work.  I don't know one Christian who does.   I think the Constitution is perfect as written. 

Okay, now I'm completely confused..... you realize that you're quoting me and talking to someone else? *blink, blink*

yes, and I made corrections.  Sorry.  You weren't supposed to see that.....

From what I saw you were adamant in the fact that Christianity should be taught about in school. Now, while I'm against teaching any religion in schools I do think that it would be beneficial for several religions to be reviewed in schools together. Not many today honestly go out in search of what they truely believe, unfortunately. Belief is part of who we are as a society and it's amazing in truth how most religious books show the same messages. I think if more people realized this then society would be much better for it.

In my opinion we all create our own "belief" so to speak. We all take the things that we are presented with in life and compile them to find out what we each take to be true. What we decide to call our belief, and we all have one whether you say you do or not, is completely up to us. A budhist and a christian can believe exactly the same things on most all subjects, but they disagree on which religion they consider themselves.

I hope that you can see what I did, that your post came across too strongly the other way. This sort of overcompensating has caused the other side to do the same and so on and so forth till it's become a terrible mess.

I'll forgive the slip this time, hehe. I did kind of seem to slip to the otherside there rather quickly, but it's all part of what I believe.

Yes, there's alot of "fear" out there.  Fear that one side is going to convert the other.  I'm not into that.  You just don't know me yet.  I'm talking to those here that know me better.  It's kind of hard to see where exactly I'm coming from if you don't know my fundamental beliefs first I guess.  I'm a history and religious junkie so to speak.  Two of my favorite subjects......... beside........talking about my new baby grandchildren.   You may want to check out my site.  I've got another on this subject there as well.  So going back and forth I can't remember what I said where sort of like AJ said earlier here. 

Oh, don't get me wrong....I would love to see the bible put back in schools the way it was when our country was first started.  But I know today that can't be done. But we've gone overboard trying to ditch it IMO.   Our world has gone in a whole total direction that is not the way our founders intended.  From all I've read much prayer was done (including one three hour stint) before, during and after the writing of this Constitution so I do know divine guidance was present and God knew exactly how things would progress.  The Founding Fathers put alot of stock in the scriptures as I keep demonstrating with their own writings.  If they, as very learned men, thought scriptures were so important for the education of our children, why don't we?

I like to inform, but I don't get bent out of shape because I think everything is going exactly as planned. I know who's in control.  I read the  Holy Book (actually daily) and I know the end of the story. 

I would just love it that others had the opportunity to discuss and read it together as well.  School would be a great place to do this and can be done without forcing anyone to any certain belief system. 

First, dark ages? Galileo lived in the 1600's-- after the Protestant Revolution and if you want to call that the dark ages, then fine by me.

And oh, here's the history of what happened with Galileo, the CC and Scripture....you, KFC a firm proponent of the literal reading of Scripture should know.

In 1616, Galileo was charged with adding new data to Copernicus' heliocentric theory which seemed to contradict the plain words of the Holy Bible, namely Joshua 10:13.  The Church advisors didn't base their judgment on the scientific data nor did they condemn Copernicus. In obedience to the ruling, Galileo promised to teach Copernicanism as a mere hypothesis. But, in 1632, he published a work advocating Copernicanism and on that he went beyond the field of science but rather acted as a philosopher. In a letter to the Benedictine Fr. Castelli, Galileo proposed to modify the traditional interpretation of various texts of Scripture that mentioned the movements of the sun and earth. On that account, Galileo received a disciplinary ruling and was allowed to live comfortably in his estate near Florence where he continued some of his most famous work.

Galilieo's mistake was not heeding the advice of his friends who told him to "stay out of the sacristy". He wanted to meet the theologians on their own ground and presented himself as a rebel. The Church's motive was to defend a truth of Divine Revelation and was right in keeping the general law of exegisis, that Scriptural texts are to be taken in the literal sense unless there is a good reason for the contrary.

The Chruch eventually adjusted her more literal interpretation of Scripture using the wise teaching of St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine that in describing the phenomena of nature, the Holy Bible speaks according to appearances.

Uh no KFC, it was the Library of Congress. Now, I'm pretty sure they get their facts straight since they're one of, if not the most, pre-eminent library's and archives in the entire US. In fact, historical fact, is that he was one of the people that pushed for the Bill of Rights to be included Hmm, interesting no? Additionally, the term founding fathers, mind you, was originally mentioned by President Harding during his 1918 Washington Birthday address. Notably, founding fathers, as it really means, is not exclusive of those who did not sign the constitution. They include anyone, so yes, Jefferson was a founding father.

That being said, just because someone doesn't sign something does not mean they had nothing to do with it. When you go to sign a financial statement of sorts, does everyone involved sign it? No. So, what about Rhode Island? They didn't sign the constitution. Does that make them not a state or one of the original colonies?

Mer??? It seems I've forgotten as well.

MOMMIE4LIFE POSTS

As far as the First Amendment religion clause, Catholics in the 1700s certiainly didn't enjoy "religious freedom". The leading Founders were dogmatic opponents of what they perceived of institutional religion they called Popery. The fledgling US Senate went so far as to unanimously declare in its treaty with the Muslims of Tripoli in 1797, and approved by Pres. John Adams, that the government of the US of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion and has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen. " 

In Maryland, Catholics were prohibited from voting, holding public office, practicing law, and educating their children.