(February 2, 2016 at 5:43 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Well, according to the way I was raised, and to some fundamentalist friends who still talk to me now (ha) it simply means to return the nation to a time when it was almost entirely Protestant Christian.  A lot of folks still believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation.  They want a time when "god's laws" and "the laws of the land" are the same.   (They never were, but never mind that.)  Mostly, though, they're angry because the church has lost power and control and influence over the lives of everyday citizens, and they want it BACK.

They are identical to the Taliban nuts.

(February 2, 2016 at 6:13 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Well fuck him and you!

In case you forgot, dickhead, the founding fathers wrote your fucking god out of the constitution.

that not true. The simply stated that congress could write no law that endorsed one religion over another. that does not mean it is forbidden for religious rights or acts be taken by members of the government.

We demand voodoo ceremonies at all government meetings.

(February 2, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Drich Wrote: just because their wasn't a test of religion, did not forbad the practice of it in government buildings or held by governmental officials. (or even presidents) for that matter. (watch the video 8 mins long)

That's not the point. The point is, if the founding fathers had wanted the country to be governed in some religious manner, they would have explicitly included a religious test for office, or at least they would have not mentioned it at all. Instead, they explicitly said that there will not be a religious test...that's important!

(I've watched the video, I will respond to it lower down).

Quote:Which simply means we will never have "the church of the united states as their was/is a church of england.

Agreed, but again, if the founding fathers wanted the country to be governed in some religious manner, why would they not make that religion the official religion of the USA? Why would they instead go the complete opposite route and declare that Congress could never do that?

Quote:This little bit here.. Also keeps people from telling government officials they can not exercise their religion even in an official capacity.

No argument here. Elected officials are free to practice their religion, even base their decisions off of their religious faith, but they cannot force religion onto people, nor can they create laws which favor one religion over another.

Quote:If that were even remotly true then why is their so much history that shows religion specifically a generic form of Christianity being up held through out our nations history right up to the last 30 or 40 years?

Again watch the video.

That's an easy question to answer: because for that time, Christianity was the major religion and the vast majority of the population were Christians. What happened in the last 30 / 40 years is that people became less religious, or converted to other religions, and then started to point out that some aspects of government were in violation of the Constitution (for instance, mandatory school prayer).

You see to have the cause and effect backwards. The founding fathers didn't set up a Christian government which then later became less Christian. The founding fathers set up a secular government, in an overwhelmingly Christian country, and which remained overwhelmingly Christian until a few decades ago.

Now, onto the video. I watched it, then I did some searching.

1) The claim that in 1782 the Congress printed the 1st English Bible is factually inaccurate at best.

In fact, Robert Aitken printed the 1st English Bible. He did this before even approaching Congress. In fact, Congress were looking to import Bibles from Holland at the time (due to a shortage of Bibles in the US). Aitken then approached Congress and asked them to review his version of the Bible and approve it's production. They did so, but here's the important part: they never paid for it, nor did they actually print it. Aitken did all the work, and just got Congress to approve the locally produced Bible as an alternative to importing them from overseas.

Moreover, the Bible was never intended by Congress to be used in schools. That was Aitken's idea, which he told to Congress in one of his letters, however there is no statement from Congress that affirms this was their intention.

Sources: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthroc...f-schools/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_(publisher)

2) The 1830 paintings cannot be said to be the founding fathers' idea, given that by 1830 most of the founding fathers were dead. According to Wikipedia, the last founding father to die was Madison in 1836.

3) The use of the Capitol building as a church is *mostly* true, however it's use is exaggerated in the video. The Capitol building did not literally "become a church" on Sundays. It was still the US Capitol building, still used for government work, etc. The Capitol building was never a church in any official respect.

Besides, the religious services were acceptable to Jefferson "because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary", not because he wanted the US to have an official religion.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...igious_use

(February 2, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 3:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm intrigued how you can reconcile this view with the Constitution, which states:

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, Clause 3)

just because their wasn't a test of religion, did not forbad the practice of it in government buildings or held by governmental officials. (or even presidents) for that matter. (watch the video 8 mins long)

Quote:Additionally, the 1st Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Which simply means we will never have "the church of the united states as their was/is a church of england.

Quote:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This little bit here.. Also keeps people from telling government officials they can not exercise their religion even in an official capacity.

Quote:It seems, then, that the founding fathers made it quite explicit that "God" should not be involved in how we govern ourselves, but rather that public officials did not have to be religious, and that the government of the United States could not declare any official religion.

What makes you think otherwise?

If that were even remotly true then why is their so much history that shows religion specifically a generic form of Christianity being up held through out our nations history right up to the last 30 or 40 years?

Again watch the video.

Do you think you're in Costa Rica?


"TITLE VI RELIGION Sole Chapter
ARTICLE 75. The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the religion of the State, which contributes to its preservation, without preventing the free exercise in the Republic of other forms of worship that do not contravene universal morality or good customs. (As amended with regard to its number by Article 1, Law N° 5703, June 6, 1975)."
http://www.parliament.am/library/sahmana...tarika.pdf

(February 2, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Many Christian Conservatives misinterpret the Establishment Clause, assuming it only means that the state cannot create it's own church.  They tend to agree with Rehnquist and Scalia on the Establishment Clause because they consider themselves special.  They think that it's fine for this country to be a theocracy, so long as it is a Christian Theocracy (Change it to a Muslim Theocracy, and they will flip out).  However, the majority of Supreme Court Justices consider Neutrality as the guiding principle of the Establishment Clause.  An endorsement of religion is considered to be going against the Establishment clause (no matter how much the Christians don't like that, since they are currently the majority) John Addams certainly felt that the United States was not founded upon the Christian Religion.  As seen in the Treaty of Tripoli.  

When all else fails, they point to the Declaration of Independence -- which is not a legally binding document.  The constitution itself makes no mention of god or creator.  And rightfully so.  I quite imagine that the Christians would not be the least bit pleased if another religion became the majority, and pushed upon them their values and beliefs.

These constitution fetishists, for want of another word, fail to realize that the constitution has evolved since it was written.  It was not, to steal one of drippy's favorites, "carved in stone."

As Justice Black wrote in 1947:

Quote:The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

One needs to be careful of "legal opinions" given by clowns who think the earth is 6,000 years old.

I'm surrounded by people who think like this.            

(February 2, 2016 at 9:39 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I'm surrounded by people who think like this.            

Because even stupid, ignorant people are allowed to have their opinions.

So...... Drippy's real name is "Alice?"

(February 2, 2016 at 4:49 pm)athrock Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 3:19 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: [hide]
I heard a Christian man prying over lunch. I didn’t hear everything he said,     but he started asking god about stuff that had little to do with food.  I made out something about “Lord help them restore this great nation.” I missed who “them” is.

It struck me as odd because it sounds like the same thing the tea baggers say when they talk about taking the nation back. Take it back from where? Restore it from what to wheat?

I know they’re not talking about police brutality, fascism, political corruption, poverty, social inequality or capital graft. They never had a problem with these things before.

So what are they talking about?[/hid]

Oh, gee, I dunno...maybe they want to see our nation restored to when...

Quote:...drugs were something prescribed by a doctor. 

There were prescription drugs in the 1700s?  Really?  You went to the apothecary and ordered anything you wanted.  In the 1800 and early 1900 laudanum was choice and there were many addicts.  Alcohol has always been with us.  And then there were opium dens.  In the 40s and 50s it was Valium.  Just when was this drug free paradise?

Quote:...Coke was a soft drink that started in Atlanta and conquered the world.

Coke contained cocaine. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp  And even today Coke is hardly a health drink.

Quote:...kids might sneak a drink of alcohol but not enough that their parents would notice. 

And when exactly was that?  Read a few novels from other time periods and you'll realize that that time period never existed.

Quote:...couples waited until they were married before they had sex. 

 Again.  When was this?  Illegitimate births have always been with us as well as shot gun marriages.  That necessarily means sex before marriage.  What's new is acceptance of sex before marriage.  I'm fine with that.

Quote:...couples got married before living together.

And lived unhappily afterwords and divorced in droves in the late 70s and 80s.

Quote:...cars had fins and the AM radio was its most important part. 

*giggle*  I think I can do without the fins or the AM thanks.

Quote:...you could gas up dad's car for a date at the hop for only a couple of dollars.

 We call it inflation.  Moral change won't fix it.

Quote:...gas stations washed your windshield and checked your fluids for just a couple of pennies more.

 So labor was cheap.  This was a good thing?

Quote:...becoming an Eagle Scout was something that got your name in the paper.

 This is not a governmental issue.  Take it up with the scouts, who are by-the-way, a British import.

Quote:...making straight A's was something to be proud of instead of something to hide to avoid being ostracized.

Hadn't noticed this trend.  In fact, the 50's words "grind" and "egghead" have practically vanished, the earlier word "blue stocking" is gone completely, and the 1990s words "nerd" and "geek" are in.  A much larger percentage of students go on to college and graduate degrees than ever before. Perhaps intelligence and educations is valued more rather than less?  In fact, monetarily it is.  Labor is much cheaper than intellect of late. Wasn't so much the case pre 1970.

Quote:...everyone who had a gun used it for hunting and not for protection.

You got me there.  Though again, we're only going back as far as the 50's and then only in the suburbs.  Ever heard of claim jumping?  Wild wild West?  

Quote:...you didn't know anyone whose parents were divorced. 

Yep.  But after the mass of divorces in the 70s and 80s, divorce is on the down swing.  I caulk it up to premarital sex and living together first. And while I knew many kids with divorced parents, the one I felt sorry for were the ones whose parents were fighting.

Quote:...you didn't mind being home by dark because all your friends had a curfew, too. 

All the kids I know have a curfew, where are you living?

Quote:...you knew all your neighbors and offered to get the mail and the paper for them when they went on vacation. 

And you think the government should solve this.  It's a product of suburbia.

Quote:...fishing with Grandpa meant hearing about "the Big One", but you didn't hear about HIS medals until after he died because he never mentioned them. 

Seems about right.  My grampa was like that, except you didn't hear about the fish either.  Frankly, the people who want to restore the nation are the ones who seem to want to talk about medals.

Quote:...a covered dish supper at the church was something everyone looked forward to. 

Because they could afford little other entertainment.  Sorry, but really no thanks.

Quote:...you could listen to the hottest new music on your radio with your grandmother in the car and not get embarrassed by the lyrics. 

Grandmothers are growing up.

Quote:...you could actually understand all the words of all the songs. 

You are on a campaign to destroy rock and roll?  Rap you apparently can understand more of than you want to.

Quote:...the best bands all had "and his orchestra" in their name. 

I like swing.  It isn't the only good music in the world. And it didn't make our country great.

Quote:...someone could talk about "Our Gang" and they meant Alfalfa, Spanky and Buckwheat and not the Bloods or the Crips.

 The Bloods and Crips?  I thought you wanted the 1950s back.  That's 1950s and early 60s.  Those gangs are gone.  We have other gangs.  Before either we had the mafia. The mafia was enabled by prohibition here.  The drug gangs are enabled by the war on drugs.  Be careful what you ask for.

Quote:...there wasn't anything nostalgic about a Norman Rockwell painting because your hometown and everyone you knew looked just like that. 

Rockwell thought otherwise.  He knew he was painting an idealized world.  How come you don't?

Quote:...you knew what your friends were watching on TV because everyone home was watching the same show. 

All yes TV that great blessing to nation intercourse.

Quote:...the Tonight Show had guests like Frank, Dean, and Sammy and you didn't need to wonder what their last names were.

And Sammy sharing the stage with Frank and Dean was controversial.  Hint, there was that thing called racism.  Oh, and why does it matter whether we know our celebrities by their first or last names?

Quote:...you knew the answer to the question, "Hey kids, what time is it?"

Um?  Where did this come from?  I'm not even sure I know what you mean.

(February 2, 2016 at 6:01 pm)athrock Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 5:30 pm)GodCherry Wrote: Response to the things you posted:

I teach my children to respect all people, including adults, but I also teach them to question authority.  I don't want my kids trusting completely in anyone.  Some adults are dangerous.


There was never a time when adults waited for marriage to have sex and a lot of people are choosing not to get married at all these days because marriage doesn't work for everyone.

Divorce is a very good remedy for a bad marriage.  I think the biggest tragedy was with women were forced to stay in bad, miserable and abusive marriages due to financial subservience.

Both of my female children get/got straight As.  My eldest works now in a STEM field...my youngest will be going to university soon in a STEM field.  They are highly proud of their accomplishments and their intelligence.  I don't know any highly intelligent kid who isn't proud of getting good grades.

Modern music....some of its great...some of it isn't.  Nothing has changed.  I understand a lot of music on the radio...there are some very talented young people around.

I really enjoy the variety on TV.  I don't want to watch the same thing as everyone else.  I don't want to do anything the same as everyone else.

Bottom Line:

Your version of past reality doesn't address all reason that the past didn't work for a large majority of people.  Namely women, minorities, homosexuals, other belief systems, etc.

You have a nostalgic view of a past that actually never really existed.  

When members of my family remember "the past" they remember a time when my black father, who fought and died for his country in Vietnam, couldn't even get a hotel room with my mother...the woman he was married to....because she was white.  He had to sleep in the car while he was on leave.  My eldest brother still remembers when, after my father got killed, my mother tried to look for a home in a burb and the real estate agent told my brother (who was 6 at the time) that dark kids would never be living in that neighborhood.

I know older women who remember a time when women didn't have the power to exercise their most basic reproductive rights and had zero power to request fair pay for fair work.

I know older homosexuals who remember a time when they were persecuted just because they loved someone.

To me, your version of the past is fake and the reality is that it was a dark, dismal time for many people.  

There's a lot of things that I don't like about the present but I would NEVER want to go back to where we were before.  What it wish for is more progress towards treating everyone better...not a time when a certain group of people enjoyed privileges at the expense of others.

I cannot agree with some of what you wrote (abortion on demand is NOT healthcare, for example), but most if not all of what I wrote could be desirable to anyone regardless of race, color, ethnic origin, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation. 

I'm an equal opportunity poster. 

Ever listen to Elvis and Johnny Cash? They're not pg 13 as you think. Johnny literally named a cocaine. And he was big then.