A Little History Lesson

This is for everyone, but especially for those who believe the lie of “Separation of Church and State”.

Our United States Capitol building Rotunda contains this painting.

Protestant pilgrims are shown on the deck of the ship Speedwell before their departure for the New World from Delft Haven, Holland, on July 22, 1620. William Brewster, holding the Bible, and pastor John Robinson lead Governor Carver, William Bradford, Miles Standish, and their families in prayer. The prominence of women and children suggests the importance of the family in the community. At the left side of the painting is a rainbow, which symbolizes hope and divine protection.

That Bible is the focal point of the entire painting.

Why?

The faith of the Pilgrims, and God’s blessing of them, was central to the founding of this country.  That Bible is believed to be the first Bible ever brought to America.

The version of that Bible, long out of print, is now available once again.

In the quote above, it says that the rainbow symbolizes hope and divine protection. Here’s what the New King James Version of the Bible says the rainbow symbolizes:

I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.

Genesis 9:13-16

William Bradford, pictured in that painting in the Capitol Rotunda, wrote the single most complete authority for the story of the Pilgrims and the early years of the Colony they founded.

I challenge anyone who thinks that our founders believed in “Separation of Church and State” to research both Bradford’s journal and the Mayflower Compact

Plus, do you really believe that there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution?

The truth is easy to find, for those who seek it.

Footnote: For the connection between the Speedwell and the Mayflowerread this.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Christian Nation and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to A Little History Lesson

  1. Pingback: Encouragement From President Ronald Reagan « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  2. pricegutshall says:

    There is no mention of God in the Constitution. The founders were deists. And the first amendment clearly prohibits the Government from endorsing a religion, which means that religion should not be present in governmental activities, events, and places.

  3. pricegutshall,

    You’re living in the Matrix. You repeat what you’ve been told, but you’ve been told lies. An examination of primary source materials reveals the truth…

    The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1892:

    Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It’s impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation… we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

    Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
    The United States Supreme Court,
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

    The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said:

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    You think there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution?

    Many of the signers of the Constitution were also signers of the Declaration of Independence, which had very clear references to our Creator and “Divine Providence“. When the Declaration was signed, the Liberty Bell was rung. Do you know what is written on the Liberty Bell?

    Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

    Do you know where that saying comes from?
    The Holy Bible.
    Lest there be any doubt that those words were taken driectly from the Holy Bible, the Liberty Bell explicitly cites the reference: “LEV XXV v.X”

    You say:

    And the first amendment clearly prohibits the Government from endorsing a religion

    Sorry champ. The first amendment clearly prohibits the Government from establishing religion, not endorsing religion.

    The words “establishment” and “endorsement” have very different meanings.

    If I “establish” a restaurant that is totally different than if I “endorse” a restaurant.

    If I “establish” a restaurant, I create it, I own it, and I operate it.

    If I “endorse” a restaurant, I am just a customer who likes it enough to tell someone else about it.

    Read the 1st Amendment…you will not find the words “Separation”, “Church”, “State”, or “endorse”/”endorsement” in it:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The First Amendment restricts Congress, not churches or other religious institutions. The first Amendment prevents Congress from making any law respecting an “establishment” of religion. Our Government is not allowed to create, own, or operate a religion (as was previously done by the Government in England with the Church of England).

    The first Amendment does NOT prevent Congress from making any law respecting an “endorsement” of religion. Our Congress has always “endorsed” Christianity, from the moment of the opening prayer at the very first session of Congress.

    I repeat for emphasis:
    The First Amendment restricts Congress from establishing (creating, owning, operating) a religion. It does not restrict Congress or our representatives from endorsing Christianity. Congress has been endorsing Christianity ever since the conception of our country. Benjamin Franklin called for prayer at the constitutional convention, and every session of Congress has begun with a prayer.

    Even Barack Obama knows that.

    Watch the video of the prayer opening the Senate sessions on June 21, 2007 when Barack Obama was acting in place of Senator Byrd.

    Guest Chaplain Rev. Linda Arey recites the following Bible passage…

    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

    For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

    For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

    Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    1 Timothy 2:1-4 (King James Version)

    …and she prays “In the name of Jesus” twice.

    After Rev. Arey finished, Senator Barack Obama said “Amen.”

    Even Barack Obama knows that it has been this way since the conception (even before the birth on July 4, 1776) of our country.

    When the President gives the State of the Union address, do you know what is above his head, LITERALLY CARVED IN STONE?

    In God We Trust”.

    And when the President looks out at the audience, do you know whose image he sees, LITERALLY CARVED IN STONE?

    Moses.

    God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building

    In closing, if you want to talk about Unconstitutional violations of the first Amendment, here you go…
    The First Amendment restricts Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That means that the IRS regulation restricting the free speech of churches is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    pricegutshall, as you celebrate Thanksgiving this year, I hope you remember why the pilgrims came to America: “for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith

  4. pricegutshall says:

    Whatever, things are better off when the people of this country are not being controlled by a the fascist Christian right.

  5. pricegutshall,

    Every freedom you enjoy came as a result of Christians.

    The fascists on the LEFT want to take freedoms away.

    Wake up, Neo…

  6. pricegutshall says:

    No, the right wants to take away the right to privacy, the right to marriage from a group of people, the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, they want to destroy science…you get the point.

    My freedom is a result of deists and free thinkers, not close-minded Christian slaves.

  7. Take away the right to privacy? Kind of like when the left widely distributed “blacklists” of people who donated money to Prop. 8? And then encouraged fascist intimidation tactics be used against those contributors and their employers?

    Take away the right to marriage from a group of people? You can’t “take away” something that never existed in the first place. Homosexual marriage has never been recognized in the 400+ year history of this country.

    Take away the right to free speech? Again, it is the left, not the right, that is trying to deny free speech.

    The right to freedom of religion? The first amendment protects that. Christians are not trying to take away anyone else’s freedom of religion, but the left is sure trying to use a phrase that is not even found in our Constitution (“Separation of Church and State”) to take away Christians’ freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit the endorsement of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. Our government has never established (created, owned, operated) a religion, but our government has always endorsed Christianity. That endorsement of Christianity has only come under attack over about the last 50 years, and I believe it is the very intentional attempts by the vast LEFT-wing conspiracy of Marxists/Leninists to demoralize our nation, on the road to communist normalization.

    Want to destroy science? Sorry, it is the left that is doing that, not the right. The right, and even many people in the center, want open scientific inquiry and open debate (the Pro-ID crowd outnumbers the Anti-ID crowd nearly 3 to 1), not the fascist suppression of any evidence that contradicts the state-imposed “religions” of Darwinism and Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is good, solid science to contradict both of those false religions, but the leftists who control the money in academia and scientific research want those who speak of such “heresy” expelled.

    The overwhelming majority of the founders were Evangelical Christians, not deists. People like our nation’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who said:

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    People like JOHN HANCOCK (known for intentionally signing his name on the Declaration of Independence so large that King George could read it without his glasses) who, less than four months before signing the Declaration of Independence, was President of the Congress of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay when it passed this order:


    The Congress therefore, considering the warlike preparations of the British Ministry to subvert our invaluable rights and privileges, and to reduce us by fire and sword, by the savages of the wilderness and our own domestics, to the most abject and ignominious bandage: Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees, duly impressed with a solemn {Omitted text, 1w} of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely in all their lawful enterprizes of his aid and direction–do earnestly recommend, that FRIDAY, the seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said Colonies as a day of HUMILIATION, FASTING, and PRAYER; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere, repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; … it is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for Public Worship, and abstain from servile Labour on the said Day………..By Order of Congress,
    JOHN HANCOCK, President

    Attest………..CHARLES THOMPSON, Secretary.

    Colony of the
    Massachusetts-Bay.

    In COUNCIL, April 3, 1776.

    READ and accepted, and Ordered, That a suitable Number be printed, in order that each of the religious Assemblies, in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same.

    Sent down for Concurrence………..PEREZ MORTON, Dep. Sec’ry.

    In the House of REPRESENTATIVES, April 4, 1776.

    Read and concurr’d………..SAMUEL FREEMAN, Speaker, pro Tem.

    Consented to,

    JAMES OTIS,
    BENJAMIN GREENLEAF,
    CALEB CUSHING,
    JOHN WINTHROP,
    JOHN WHETCOMB,
    ELDAD TAYLOR,
    MICHAEL FARLEY,
    JOSEPH PALMER,
    SAMUEL HOLTEN,
    MOSES GILL,
    JOSEPH GERRISH,
    BENJAMIN LINCOLN,
    CHARLES CnHAUNCY,
    JOHN TAYLOR,
    BENJAMIN WHITE.

    GOD SAVE THE PEOPLE.

    They weren’t deists. They were Christians. You haven’t been taught the truth about our Christian nation.

    Christians aren’t “close-minded slaves”…quite to the contrary, we have been set free by learning and knowing the truth.

    And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    John 8:32

    And what is the truth? Jesus Christ is the truth.

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    John 14:6

  8. Who wants to take away the right to free speech?
    Obama’s supporters.

    Look what they did to blogger Moms 4 Sarah Palin:

    I have been ambushed time and time again over at my blog, at one time in early October, over 1,000 comments overnight (many of which I deleted–pure filth). They went on to threaten, time and time again, any conservative/positive comment on my blog to the point that very few return readers will comment unless it’s through email! They were bullied, and some even said their lives were threatened (as was mine). Whether the threats were serious we’ll never know, but the point remains that, in my humble opinion, Obama bullied himself right into the White House.

  9. pricegutshall says:

    “Take away the right to privacy? Kind of like when the left widely distributed “blacklists” of people who donated money to Prop. 8? And then encouraged fascist intimidation tactics be used against those contributors and their employers?”

    Roe V. Wade is the official case that holds/established ‘the right to privacy.’ Take it away and blam.

    “Take away the right to marriage from a group of people? You can’t “take away” something that never existed in the first place. Homosexual marriage has never been recognized in the 400+ year history of this country.”

    It has been denied recognition; to deny recognizing regular adults the rights of other adults is to deny those people a right. That person has/had the right to marriage, until some states have made it officially unrecognized.

    “Take away the right to free speech? Again, it is the left, not the right, that is trying to deny free speech.”
    Freedom of speech and expression, if not ‘Christian,’ is viewed as evil. Implement Christian law and you’ve got some stuffed getting banned.

    “The right to freedom of religion? The first amendment protects that. Christians are not trying to take away anyone else’s freedom of religion, but the left is sure trying to use a phrase that is not even found in our Constitution (”Separation of Church and State”) to take away Christians’ freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit the endorsement of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. Our government has never established (created, owned, operated) a religion, but our government has always endorsed Christianity. That endorsement of Christianity has only come under attack over about the last 50 years, and I believe it is the very intentional attempts by the vast LEFT-wing conspiracy of Marxists/Leninists to demoralize our nation, on the road to communist normalization.”

    How would you define ‘established?’ An ‘established’ religion is not necessarily one created, owned, or operated by the government. Iran did not found Islam, Spain did not found Catholicism, yet those are those nations ‘established religions.’ A religion is ‘established’ when it is endorsed by the government, implying that the government recognizes that religion as representative. When you spend taxpayer money on the Ten Commandments for a government building, that is considered an ‘endorsement’ of Christian principles, established by the Government. When you implement Christian rituals in the schools, that establishes Christianity in the schools. It is because Christians are so adament about having their mythology posted about the public venues that it appears as though it is being attacked; it is not an attack as much as a limitation of its expression in our government.

    “Want to destroy science? Sorry, it is the left that is doing that, not the right. The right, and even many people in the center, want open scientific inquiry and open debate (the Pro-ID crowd outnumbers the Anti-ID crowd nearly 3 to 1), not the fascist suppression of any evidence that contradicts the state-imposed “religions” of Darwinism and Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is good, solid science to contradict both of those false religions, but the leftists who control the money in academia and scientific research want those who speak of such “heresy” expelled.”

    There is no science in Intelligent Design. It provides no explanatory or predictive power. It is not a science as science is properly defined. There is no debate in science about this: ID has no scientific value because there is no science to intelligent design. ID provides no answers to questions, it cannot be built on, it cannot be tested or experimented with, and it offers no new insight. Darwinism is not a religion, it is science. It is a hypotheses supported by insurmountable evidence, and is the underlying theory of modern biology. It makes no moral claims and it is indifferent to supernaturalism (since it only deals with naturalism). If ID were a valid scientific theory that answered the same questions that evolution does as well as provide meaningful insight to anomalies, it would be worthy of discussion. It does none of that, however, so it is not a science.

    Those who lose their jobs because of their association with ID is not because they are breaking away from evolution; rather, their employers no longer see value in their work because they are working on something that is not science, and therefore not contributing to the advancement of science.

    “The overwhelming majority of the founders were Evangelical Christians, not deists. People like our nation’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who said:

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    People like JOHN HANCOCK (known for intentionally signing his name on the Declaration of Independence so large that King George could read it without his glasses) who, less than four months before signing the Declaration of Independence, was President of the Congress of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay when it passed this order:


    The Congress therefore, considering the warlike preparations of the British Ministry to subvert our invaluable rights and privileges, and to reduce us by fire and sword, by the savages of the wilderness and our own domestics, to the most abject and ignominious bandage: Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees, duly impressed with a solemn {Omitted text, 1w} of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely in all their lawful enterprizes of his aid and direction–do earnestly recommend, that FRIDAY, the seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said Colonies as a day of HUMILIATION, FASTING, and PRAYER; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere, repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; … it is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for Public Worship, and abstain from servile Labour on the said Day………..By Order of Congress,
    JOHN HANCOCK, President

    Attest………..CHARLES THOMPSON, Secretary.

    Colony of the
    Massachusetts-Bay.

    In COUNCIL, April 3, 1776.

    READ and accepted, and Ordered, That a suitable Number be printed, in order that each of the religious Assemblies, in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same.

    Sent down for Concurrence………..PEREZ MORTON, Dep. Sec’ry.

    In the House of REPRESENTATIVES, April 4, 1776.

    Read and concurr’d………..SAMUEL FREEMAN, Speaker, pro Tem.

    Consented to,

    JAMES OTIS,
    BENJAMIN GREENLEAF,
    CALEB CUSHING,
    JOHN WINTHROP,
    JOHN WHETCOMB,
    ELDAD TAYLOR,
    MICHAEL FARLEY,
    JOSEPH PALMER,
    SAMUEL HOLTEN,
    MOSES GILL,
    JOSEPH GERRISH,
    BENJAMIN LINCOLN,
    CHARLES CnHAUNCY,
    JOHN TAYLOR,
    BENJAMIN WHITE.

    GOD SAVE THE PEOPLE.

    They weren’t deists. They were Christians. You haven’t been taught the truth about our Christian nation.”

    James Madison, author of the Constitution: “Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]”

    Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence: “I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [that a bookseller is prosecuted for selling books advocatig what was then presumed by the statusuo to be pseudoscience] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.
    If M de Becourt’s book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God’s sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose….
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to N G Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller (1814), after being prosecuted for selling de Becourt’s book, Sur la Création du Monde, un Systême d’Organisation Primitive, which Jefferson himself had purchased.

    John Adams, second President of the United States: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” — John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckne

    And, “When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”– John Adams

    Ben Franklin: “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”– Benjamin Franklin

    And, “He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.” — Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin’s Autobiography

    And, “But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv’d, and the People of being deceiv’d by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance.”
    – Benjamin Franklin, comparing the politicized clergyman with the regular clergyman, a thing which a few have ventured to do in recent times (Ahem!), quoted in The New England Currant (July 23, 1722)

    George Washington, our First President: “Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others.”– George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28,1789, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    And, “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition … In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” — George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States

    “Christians aren’t “close-minded slaves”…quite to the contrary, we have been set free by learning and knowing the truth.

    And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    John 8:32

    And what is the truth? Jesus Christ is the truth.

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    John 14:6″

    Christians are ‘close-minded slaves’ for the reason you just posted. That is like a pimp telling his slave prostitute that if she has sex for money, and gives him the money, then he will take care of her (her only hope). Just abide by the immoral ‘morality’ of the Christian Bible (the one where God kills babies, a bunch of people several times, allows Satan to ruin another guy’s life for an experiment) and you’ll be free? Give me a break: you aren’t supposed to have sex or think about it; you can’t look up to other people (false idols); infants are born sinners, so if they die before they are even conscious, you believe they go to hell (original sin). And, above all, you believe that you know all the answers and that your answers are superior to everyone elses, which is the scariest thing of all.

  10. pricegutshall,

    Thank you for your comment. A full response will take more time than I have at the moment, but here’s a partial response for now…

    1) The Supreme Court itself confirmed, “This Is A Christian Nation.” They weren’t creating new law, they were merely acknowledging the historical truth of our nation and its laws.

    2) Roe V. Wade created a “right” (abortion) that did not exist in the law previously. That is called Judicial Activism and is a form of tyranny. The place for laws to be created is in the Legislative branch, not the judicial branch. The ‘right to privacy’ is protected by, among other things, the 3rd and 4th amendments to the United States Constitution.

    3) Homosexual marriage has never been sanctioned by any state legislature or popular vote. It has only been sanctioned by Judicial Activism.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who support Roe v. Wade, which ends millions of innocent lives each year, in violation of our founders’ beliefs, which were expressed at the birth of our country on July 4th, 1776:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who voted to restrict the liberties the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who supported the Kelo decision, which took away property rights.

    Moving away from Judeo-Christian morality affects everyone else’s Life, Liberty, property, and their pursuit of Happiness.

    4) Every Christian that I know personally fully supports the 1st amendment.

    5) The words “establishment” and “endorsement” have very different meanings.

    If I “establish” a restaurant that is totally different than if I “endorse” a restaurant.

    If I “establish” a restaurant, I create it, I own it, and I operate it.

    If I “endorse” a restaurant, I am just a customer who likes it enough to tell someone else about it.

    The first Amendment prevents Congress from making any law respecting an “establishment” of religion. Our Government is not allowed to create, own, or operate a religion (as was previously done by the Government in England with the Church of England).

    The first Amendment does NOT prevent Congress from making any law respecting an “endorsement” of religion. Our Congress has always “endorsed” Christianity, from the moment of the opening prayer at the very first session of Congress.

    When the President gives the State of the Union address, do you know what is above his head, LITERALLY CARVED IN STONE?

    “In God We Trust”.

    And what does he see when he looks out at the opposite wall?

    Moses.

    See: God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building

    See: Our Founders Gave Thanks to God…We Should, Too

    6) De-moral-ization Leads to Totalitarianism

    We see the negative effects of De-moral-ization in news stories like this: American teens lie, steal, cheat at ‘alarming’ rates

    7) Science is advanced when one theory challenges another. Only fascists claim “the debate is over”. Those who love freedom allow open scientific inquiry and debate, whether it be about our Origins, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or any other topic.

    8) I do not “know all the answers”, and never claimed I do. To see the one who is acting “superior”, look in the mirror.

  11. pricegutshall says:

    “1) The Supreme Court itself confirmed, “This Is A Christian Nation.” They weren’t creating new law, they were merely acknowledging the historical truth of our nation and its laws.”

    The court case to which you are referring, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, concerned a law against outsourcing labor abroad (and importing labor). The judges’ decision was based on the assumption that Congress, whose representatives were predominantly Christian, would intend that the law extend to religious organizations. The decision is also important in later legal exemptions of religious groups (not just Christian). However, because a Supreme Court Judge says that the US is a Christian Nation does not make it a Christian Nation. No law in Congress or the Constitution has been made to establish that the nation is identifiably Christian. It is an assumption, a valid one, that a majority of US citizens describe themselves as ‘Christians.’

    “2) Roe V. Wade created a “right” (abortion) that did not exist in the law previously. That is called Judicial Activism and is a form of tyranny. The place for laws to be created is in the Legislative branch, not the judicial branch. The ‘right to privacy’ is protected by, among other things, the 3rd and 4th amendments to the United States Constitution.”

    Neither the 3rd nor 4th amendments extend the right to privacy. While the 3rd amendment has occasionally been cited as a negative freedom (that is, freedom from the state in the confounds of one’s home), it is increasingly less powerful and meaningful in the context of modern government (since it applies to soldiers and their homes). The 4th Amendment is a protection against false accussations and wrongful search and seizures. The 3rd amendment does not extend to the right of property defined as the person; however, the 4th does protect the rights of a person over his body, which is used to justify Roe V. Wade. The 4th amendment does not protect privacy, though. The decision on Roe V. Wade is grounded on the theory of enumerated powers (that the powers granted by the Constitution to the branches of government are the only powers the branches can have), implying that the Federal Government can not pass laws governing personal decisions over what an individual may or may not do to his or her body. Also, the Constitution formally recognizing citizens as those born; a fetus that cannot survive on its own and is not born is not an individual or a citizen, and is thusly an extension of the woman’s body with which she has the right to do whatever she wishes (in her privacy, where it doesn’t infringe on other laws). Because it is not an individual or a citizen, terminating the fetus is not legally considered murder. I should note that in my opinion, I believe that morality extends to all rational agents and those with the capacity for rationality, and thus I do believe abortion is immoral.

    “3) Homosexual marriage has never been sanctioned by any state legislature or popular vote. It has only been sanctioned by Judicial Activism.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who support Roe v. Wade, which ends millions of innocent lives each year, in violation of our founders’ beliefs, which were expressed at the birth of our country on July 4th, 1776:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who voted to restrict the liberties the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect.

    The Supreme Court Justices who would support “gay marriage” are the same ones who supported the Kelo decision, which took away property rights.

    Moving away from Judeo-Christian morality affects everyone else’s Life, Liberty, property, and their pursuit of Happiness.”

    As you know in recent history, anti-gay marriage groups have pushed for an amendment that declares marriage between a man and a woman. Because it is not established as such, marriage is recognized by the government as two consenting adults. That is the Federal Government. Marriage is a ‘state recognized’ right; preventing homosexuals from marriage is not legal, but the court may find reasons not to recognize the marriage (which they can do in any marriage). That is why so many states have passed laws that prohibit homosexual marriages, while others have passed laws protecting it from laws against.

    Again, with Roe V. Wade, the fetus is not an individual because it is still dependent on and physically part of the body; therefore, the rights of citizens and individuals do not extend to those who are not born (and therefore not citizens).

    The 2nd amendment is grounded on the British militia philosophy, free market economics, and Locke’s conception of rights. Locke’s conception of rights is the most fundamental theory underlying the United States’ Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Locke argued that there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and property. The right to life implies that a person has the right not to have his life taken from him (either in slavery, death, or imprisonment). The right to liberty is a positive freedom, which includes the right to assemble, speech, etc. The right to property is based on the Biblical conception that the Earth has unlimited resources all intended for the use of humans, which is why Jefferson did not include it in the Declaration of Independence. Locke also argued that a government is deemed legitamate if these basic rights were protected and agreed upon by the community. If the government failed to protect these rights, Locke argued, then it was the right of the people (and the DUTY of the people) to overthrow that government. Thus, the 2nd amendment secures the right of the people to determine the government illegitimate and overthrow it. We no longer have that right: the 2nd amendment lost its true meaning a long time ago (arguably with the end of the Civil War and the Federal Government making it illegal for the people and the state to form militias and secede).

    “5) The words “establishment” and “endorsement” have very different meanings.

    If I “establish” a restaurant that is totally different than if I “endorse” a restaurant.

    If I “establish” a restaurant, I create it, I own it, and I operate it.

    If I “endorse” a restaurant, I am just a customer who likes it enough to tell someone else about it.

    The first Amendment prevents Congress from making any law respecting an “establishment” of religion. Our Government is not allowed to create, own, or operate a religion (as was previously done by the Government in England with the Church of England).”

    The first Amendment does NOT prevent Congress from making any law respecting an “endorsement” of religion. Our Congress has always “endorsed” Christianity, from the moment of the opening prayer at the very first session of Congress.”

    You have committed the logical fallacy of equivocation. You take two meanings of the word establishment and endorsement to illustrate a false point. To establish a state religion is to endorse a religion over another. Again, the example of Spain where the state religion is Roman Catholicism; the government does not operate it, own it, or did it create it. Rather, the government smiply recognizes the authority of the Vatican over its constituency and government. The same can occur with our government where public displays of Christianity are sanctioned by the government; while the U.S. is not creating Christianity, owning it, or operating it, it is recognizing its authority over other religions. Furthermore, the ‘Christian Nation’ concept suggests that our government recognize Christianity as an authority above the law and government, where Christian ideology is central to the activities of the Federal government. That, my friend, is an established religion.

    As for England: prior to Henry VIII, the state religion was Roman Catholicism which recognized the authority of the Vatican and Catholic religion over its government. The reason why Henry broke away from the Vatican is because he wanted more power over his decisions (Henry had to answer to the Pope when he wanted a divorce); the Church of England, when it was established, was essentially watered down Catholicism, leaving out what it didn’t like and keeping what they were familiar with. Again, with the ‘Christian Nation’ concept, the right suggests that the government should base its decisions on the authority of the Christian religion. And, as you suggest, religion has its place in government dictating its actions. The First Amendment protects us from that possibility (as exemplified by the quotations I included in my last post).

    “When the President gives the State of the Union address, do you know what is above his head, LITERALLY CARVED IN STONE?

    “In God We Trust”.

    And what does he see when he looks out at the opposite wall?

    Moses.

    See: God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building

    See: Our Founders Gave Thanks to God…We Should, Too”

    All things that I believe violate the First Amendment.

    “6) De-moral-ization Leads to Totalitarianism

    We see the negative effects of De-moral-ization in news stories like this: American teens lie, steal, cheat at ‘alarming’ rates”

    What? Where does this come from? What relevance does this have?

    “7) Science is advanced when one theory challenges another. Only fascists claim “the debate is over”. Those who love freedom allow open scientific inquiry and debate, whether it be about our Origins, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or any other topic.”

    You are right. Science advances when one theory challenges another; but just like a horse doesn’t challenge a car in a race, ID does not challenge evolution. If a theory that answered the same questions as evolution as well as anomalies, and it served as a better explanation with greater predictive power and was falsifiable, then it would justifiable challenge the theory of evolution. ID does not do this. When it comes to science, ID is not science and is therefore not in the debate. It isn’t fascism, it is how science works. If you wanted to propose a theory of Intelligent Occasionalism that suggests that the mechanics of the universe looks more like an intelligent being constantly acting on it, but with no evidence, it would not be debtable. It is not science. However, Einstein’s theory of relativity challenged 400 years of Newtonian physics, effectively answering the same questions of Newton’s physics as well as providing insight into the anomalies. Relativity became, at the beginning of the 20th Century, the new scientific theory of physics because it was better at explaining phenomena, was falsifiable, and it could be built upon. ID does none of this.

  12. Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what the Supreme Court said in clear language:

    Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It’s impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation… we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

    Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
    The United States Supreme Court,
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change the primary source evidence published in 1864 in the book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.

    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what President Harry S. Truman (a Democrat, not a Republican) said in clear language:

    The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

    -President Harry S. Truman

    The removal from public schools of the Bible and teaching of Biblical morality has led to an increasingly amoral society. American teens now lie, steal, and cheat at alarming rates, yet you ask, “What relevance does this have?” It’s very relevant. President Truman warned about what would happen if we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, and now we are reaping what we have sown.

    We now have a Presidential candidate who:
    1) Has only produced a single, forged document as proof of his eligibility to hold our nation’s highest office,
    2) Hopes to bring Assault from Jakarta to the White House, and
    3) Speaks of bringing “an Empire to its knees”.

    Defend Our Constitution and Our Country From Jihad

  13. Swap sides and picture this:

    Evolution does not challenge Creation. If a theory that answered the same questions as Creation, and it served as a better explanation with greater predictive power and was falsifiable, then it would justifiable challenge Creation. Darwinian Evolution does not do this. When it comes to science, Darwinian Evolution is not science and is therefore not in the debate. It isn’t fascism, it is how science works.

    Darwinian Evolution is not science. It is taken by faith. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the Hot Air post I linked previously.

    If you really want to see what an open debate looks like, go read those 2300+ comments. Or, you can stick your head in the sand and belive the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim:

    We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

    ROTFL…”creating the appearance of controversy where there is none“…Yeah, there is no controversy…that is why so many different people contributed to making that the most commented thread in HotAir history.

    Or, we could do as you seem to suggest and submit to the “consensus” of Evolution just as we are expected to submit to the “consensus” of Gore-bull Warming.

  14. pricegutshall says:

    “Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what the Supreme Court said in clear language:
    Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It’s impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation… we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
    Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
    The United States Supreme Court,
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)
    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change the primary source evidence published in 1864 in the book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.
    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what President Harry S. Truman (a Democrat, not a Republican) said in clear language:
    The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
    -President Harry S. Truman”
    Regardless, it does not make the nation a ‘Christian Nation’ as defined; Truman was wrong, the Bill of Rights came from the underlying themes advocated by the philosopher John Locke, that is a fact (read the Federalist papers and writings of James Madison). And though the Supreme Court ‘said’ that, it did not ‘rule’ that. It is not legislation and therefore means nothing in regards to the principles and laws under which our nation operates.
    “The removal from public schools of the Bible and teaching of Biblical morality has led to an increasingly amoral society. American teens now lie, steal, and cheat at alarming rates, yet you ask, “What relevance does this have?” It’s very relevant. President Truman warned about what would happen if we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, and now we are reaping what we have sown.”
    I would ask that you establish that relationship (that the absence of Biblical morality being taught in the public schools is inversely related to an increase in crime among adolescents). In reality, I believe that you will find it interesting that the highest rate of crime is committed by those who admit a deep ‘religious’ affiliation. Considering that 97% of the U.S. population identifies themselves with a religion, that isn’t hard to believe. Furthermore, depression and suicide rates are also correlated with guilt and self-hatred brought on by religion (guilt from sin, self-hatred for lack of ‘worthiness’). Scientific investigations into the behavior of adolescents finds correlations between both lack of parental discretion (kids undisciplined believe they can get away with everything) and over bearing discretion (that natural inclination to rebel; overdiscretion means there is a lot to rebel against).

    “We now have a Presidential candidate who:
    1) Has only produced a single, forged document as proof of his eligibility to hold our nation’s highest office,”
    False. The effort to prove ‘forgery’ in Obama’s birth certificate is pure conspiracy theory (though I know several law cases are pending). The reason why it gets no attention is because the intelligence agencies, the federal and state elections boards, and the party organizations all have to confirm a candidate’s eligibility prior to campaigning. Do you really think the CIA and DIA let a forged birth certificate pass by?

    “2) Hopes to bring Assault from Jakarta to the White House, and”
    What? You really think that Obama wants to bring jihad to the United States? Again, think CIA, DIA, and Homeland Security. People running for President are investigated rigorously; if he really was a terrorist or associated with radical Muslim terrorists, do you think he would have been elected President? And don’t mention “the liberal media,” because they are still Americans, and they would expose such a horrible treason if it were true.

    “3) Speaks of bringing “an Empire to its knees”.”
    With reference to United States taking down the Soviet Union.

    “Swap sides and picture this:
    Evolution does not challenge Creation. If a theory that answered the same questions as Creation, and it served as a better explanation with greater predictive power and was falsifiable, then it would justifiable challenge Creation. Darwinian Evolution does not do this. When it comes to science, Darwinian Evolution is not science and is therefore not in the debate. It isn’t fascism, it is how science works.”
    See, your problem is that you do not know what science is. It is an inquiry of observable natural phenomena for the purpose of understanding the mechanics of natural systems. Consequently, supernatural explanations and those without evidence rooted in natural causes are not considered ‘science.’ In order for a theory to be a science it must be derived from a consilience of observed evidence, falsifiable (meaning subject to experimentation to validate or invalidate evidence), it must be observable, provide explanatory power from which other scientific inquiries can be built upon (such as the entirety of modern biology from evolution, astronomy from physics), and provide the premises for predictions within the context of the theory.
    Evolution, as its purpose, does not challenge creation. It is a theory that was derived from observations of the organic world: including heritage of traits, adaptation, predatation, etc.,etc. Creation is not modern science; no observable evidence implies that the earth was created in 6 days and that the entirety of the human species began with only two members (it is literally impossible for two members of a species to sustain and generate an entire population). Creation also holds that light preceded the Sun (which we know is false, especially since when the Sun is on the other side of the earth, there is no light), and plants and animals preceded the Sun (which, again, is impossible because plants depend on the Sun’s energy to survive, and animals on plants to obtain that energy). Creation has no evidence; it is purely unjustified faith; believing in it because one wants to believe in it. Evolution theory, if you choose not to believe in it, then you also choose not to believe in the theory of antibodies (anti-biotics), genetics, populations, and that traits are based down from one generation to another. Evolution theory is science because it explains something about the mechanics of organic systems; Intelligent Design and Creation do not. They offer nothing in regards to scientific investigation. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say.
    “Darwinian Evolution is not science. It is taken by faith. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the Hot Air post I linked previously.”
    Yes! It is! You can make up whatever meaning you want for science, but the principles of positive realism and naturalism remain fundamental to scientific investigation! How is evolution taken by faith? It is a justified assumption because it is logical and fits within the scientific paradigm; faith is an unjustified assumption that does not fit into the paradigm.
    If you really want to see what an open debate looks like, go read those 2300+ comments. Or, you can stick your head in the sand and belive the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim:
    We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.
    ROTFL “creating the appearance of controversy where there is none”. Yeah, there is no controversy…that is why so many different people contributed to making that the most commented thread in HotAir history.
    It is only controversy to those attacking science; in science, there is no controversy: ID just doesn’t do anything. I saw Expelled, and it appeals to the concept of “fair and balanced.” But, science is not government, politics, or democracy; it is not popular culture or philosophy. It has strict guidelines for inquiry, and if people want to disagree and be heard, their disagreement or opposing argument must fit within those guidelines, that is how ‘fair and balanced’ discussion occurs in science. Intelligent Design is not science, so to actual deem it as “science” would be to destroy the fundamental premise of proper science!
    “Or, we could do as you seem to suggest and submit to the “consensus” of Evolution just as we are expected to submit to the “consensus” of Gore-bull Warming.”
    Look, science is science. A theory is accepted when it gains consensus from those working in the field; it is a rigorous ordeal, it takes a lot of evidence for a theory to gain consensus. I understand why Christians try to slam evolution: because it is convincing and logical, but global warming? Why so against that? For one, it is because evangelicals know with whom their power lies, the Republican corporate right. That side of the spectrum is deeply associated with companies who might find themselves at loss with emmission cut-rates and taxes. For the Christian Right to get who they want in power, they have to appeal to the ideology and representatives of that group. Global warming is happening, and human output is effecting it. Try to argue with the meteorologists and geologists that have been tracking the relationship between Earth’s warming and increased carbon emissions from man-made activities; they’ll show you the hard evidence. But, I know, that doesn’t matter to you. ‘Evidence’ means nothing when it comes to the Bible, whose books were delegated public by the pagan Roman Empire.

  15. Your comment is extremely difficult to read.

    There is not “consensus” on Evolution or AGW. There are significant numbers of scientists who disagree with those theories, but they are silenced by liberal fascists.

    You claim “the Republican corporate right”, but check out this current Drudge Report story:
    Big Business transfers its loyalty, money to Dems…
    That actually isn’t new news…Obama received a lot of support from Corporate America, not the least of which from the “Mainstream” Media.

  16. pricegutshall says:

    REPOSTED FOR CLARITY

    “Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what the Supreme Court said in clear language:
    Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It’s impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
    Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
    The United States Supreme Court,
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)
    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change the primary source evidence published in 1864 in the book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.
    Say what you will, but your opinions cannot change what President Harry S. Truman (a Democrat, not a Republican) said in clear language:
    The most important business in this Nation, or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
    -President Harry S. Truman”

    Regardless, it does not make the nation a ‘Christian Nation’ as defined; Truman was wrong, the Bill of Rights came from the underlying themes advocated by the philosopher John Locke, that is a fact (read the Federalist papers and writings of James Madison). And though the Supreme Court ’said’ that, it did not ‘rule’ that. It is not legislation and therefore means nothing in regards to the principles and laws under which our nation operates. A perfect citation for the United States NOT being founded as a Christian nation, and intentionally so, is the Treaty of Tripoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli

    “The removal from public schools of the Bible and teaching of Biblical morality has led to an increasingly amoral society. American teens now lie, steal, and cheat at alarming rates, yet you ask, what relevance does this have? It’s very relevant. President Truman warned about what would happen if we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, and now we are reaping what we have sown.”

    I would ask that you establish that relationship (that the absence of Biblical morality being taught in the public schools is inversely related to an increase in crime among adolescents). In reality, I believe that you will find it interesting that the highest rate of crime is committed by those who admit a deep ‘religious’ affiliation. Considering that 97% of the U.S. population identifies themselves with a religion, that isn’t hard to believe. Furthermore, depression and suicide rates are also correlated with guilt and self-hatred brought on by religion (guilt from sin, self-hatred for lack of ‘worthiness’). Scientific investigations into the behavior of adolescents finds correlations between both lack of parental discretion (kids undisciplined believe they can get away with everything) and over bearing discretion (that natural inclination to rebel; overdiscretion means there is a lot to rebel against).

    “We now have a Presidential candidate who:
    1) Has only produced a single, forged document as proof of his eligibility to hold our nation’s highest office,”

    False. The effort to prove ‘forgery’ in Obama’s birth certificate is pure conspiracy theory (though I know several law cases are pending). The reason why it gets no attention is because the intelligence agencies, the federal and state elections boards, and the party organizations all have to confirm a candidate’s eligibility prior to campaigning. Do you really think the CIA and DIA let a forged birth certificate pass by?

    “2) Hopes to bring Assault from Jakarta to the White House, and”

    What? You really think that Obama wants to bring jihad to the United States? Again, think CIA, DIA, and Homeland Security. People running for President are investigated rigorously; if he really was a terrorist or associated with radical Muslim terrorists, do you think he would have been elected President? And don’t mention “the liberal media,” because they are still Americans, and they would expose such a horrible treason if it were true.

    “3) Speaks of bringing an Empire to its knees.”

    With reference to United States taking down the Soviet Union.

    “Swap sides and picture this:
    Evolution does not challenge Creation. If a theory that answered the same questions as Creation, and it served as a better explanation with greater predictive power and was falsifiable, then it would justifiable challenge Creation. Darwinian Evolution does not do this. When it comes to science, Darwinian Evolution is not science and is therefore not in the debate. It isn’t fascism, it is how science works.”

    See, your problem is that you do not know what science is. It is an inquiry of observable natural phenomena for the purpose of understanding the mechanics of natural systems. Consequently, supernatural explanations and those without evidence rooted in natural causes are not considered ’science.’ In order for a theory to be a science it must be derived from a consilence of observed evidence, falsifiable (meaning subject to experimentation to validate or invalidate evidence), it must be observable, provide explanatory power from which other scientific inquiries can be built upon (such as the entirety of modern biology from evolution, astronomy from physics), and provide the premises for predictions within the context of the theory.
    Evolution, as its purpose, does not challenge creation. It is a theory that was derived from observations of the organic world: including heritage of traits, adaptation, predation, etc.,etc. Creation is not modern science; no observable evidence implies that the earth was created in 6 days and that the entirety of the human species began with only two members (it is literally impossible for two members of a species to sustain and generate an entire population). Creation also holds that light preceded the Sun (which we know is false, especially since when the Sun is on the other side of the earth, there is no light), and plants and animals preceded the Sun (which, again, is impossible because plants depend on the Sun’s energy to survive, and animals on plants to obtain that energy). Creation has no evidence; it is purely unjustified faith; believing in it because one wants to believe in it. Evolution theory, if you choose not to believe in it, then you also choose not to believe in the theory of antibodies (anti-biotics), genetics, populations, and that traits are based down from one generation to another. Evolution theory is science because it explains something about the mechanics of organic systems; Intelligent Design and Creation do not. They offer nothing in regards to scientific investigation. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say.

    “Darwinian Evolution is not science. It is taken by faith. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the Hot Air post I linked previously.”

    Yes! It is science! You can make up whatever meaning you want for science, but the principles of positive realism and naturalism remain fundamental to scientific investigation! How is evolution taken by faith? It is a justified assumption because it is logical and fits within the scientific paradigm; faith is an unjustified assumption that does not fit into the paradigm.

    “If you really want to see what an open debate looks like, go read those 2300+ comments. Or, you can stick your head in the sand and belive the folks at Expelled Exposed who claim:
    We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.
    ROTFL “creating the appearance of controversy where there is none”. Yeah, there is no controversy, that is why so many different people contributed to making that the most commented thread in HotAir history.”

    It is only controversy to those attacking science; in science, there is no controversy: ID just doesn’t do anything. I saw Expelled, and it appeals to the concept of “fair and balanced.” But, science is not government, politics, or democracy; it is not popular culture or philosophy. It has strict guidelines for inquiry, and if people want to disagree and be heard, their disagreement or opposing argument must fit within those guidelines, that is how ‘fair and balanced’ discussion occurs in science. Intelligent Design is not science, so to actual deem it as “science” would be to destroy the fundamental premise of proper science!

    “Or, we could do as you seem to suggest and submit to the “consensus” of Evolution just as we are expected to submit to the “consensus” of Gore-bull Warming.”

    Look, science is science. A theory is accepted when it gains consensus from those working in the field; it is a rigorous ordeal, it takes a lot of evidence for a theory to gain consensus. I understand why Christians try to slam evolution: because it is convincing and logical, but global warming? Why so against that? For one, it is because evangelicals know with whom their power lies, the Republican corporate right. That side of the spectrum is deeply associated with companies who might find themselves at loss with emmission cut-rates and taxes. For the Christian Right to get who they want in power, they have to appeal to the ideology and representatives of that group. Global warming is happening, and human output is effecting it. Try to argue with the meteorologists and geologists that have been tracking the relationship between Earth’s warming and increased carbon emissions from man-made activities; they’ll show you the hard evidence. But, I know, that doesn’t matter to you. ‘Evidence’ means nothing when it comes to the Bible, whose books were delegated public by the pagan Roman Empire.

  17. pricegutshall says:

    “There is not “consensus” on Evolution or AGW. There are significant numbers of scientists who disagree with those theories, but they are silenced by liberal fascists.”

    Depends on what you mean by significant. If you mean 1%, then okay. But 98% of scientists of biology agree (and even more so that I would dare say) that evolution is FACT. As for AGW, I’m not as familiar with it, so I will hold out any comment.

    “You claim “the Republican corporate right”, but check out this current Drudge Report story:
    Big Business transfers its loyalty, money to Dems…
    That actually isn’t new news…Obama received a lot of support from Corporate America, not the least of which from the “Mainstream” Media.””

    Of course they’ll get corporate funding, but not from major neocon industries like exploitative oil companies and manufacturing companies, the ones that would be most effected by emission warnings.

    The relationship between radical evangelical Christianity and the far right, neocons like the Bush Administration, is indubitable–Bush claims to be an evangelical, born-again Christian.

    I want to address a comment you made earlier concerning the religiosity of the nation’s founding. Yes, the nation is predominantly Christian and its founding was done so by predominantly Christian people. However, early evangelicals only accounted for 20% of the U.S. population (Puritans), the other 80% was comprised of Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Deists, and more. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment, brilliant men who knew that the government must refrain from being dictating by any one religious group since the states and its constituency represented no single plurality of religious believers. Again, as men of the Enlightenment, they also believed that the separation of Church and State was vital in the success of creating a federal government and union among the diversely ideological states. The nation is not inherently Christian and our government is not either. To believe that it is is propaganda distributed by pseudo-historian such as Dan Barton and WallBuilders. No historians agree with their immediate fabrications of history, and it is dangerous for people to follow behind the rewriting of history (a practice fully supported by Hitler and Stalin.)

    Furthermore, don’t you think that it is a bit ludicrous that the early leaders of modern evangelicalism praised Hitler? LaHaye and team thought he was just a great guy.

  18. pricegutshall,

    Thank you for cleaning up your earlier comment. I don’t have time at the moment to respond to each point, but may, at my own choosing, come back later and address them. I’m not sure that it’s even worth my time, though, as I don’t think you really care about what I have to say. Rather, I think you’re here to “stir the pot” and don’t really care about the truth.

    I’f I’m wrong about that, read the posts I’ve pointed you to previously. If you had, you would have found that I’ve already discussed things like The Treaty of Tripoli.

  19. pricegutshall says:

    “I’m not sure that it’s even worth my time, though, as I don’t think you really care about what I have to say. Rather, I think you’re here to “stir the pot” and don’t really care about the truth.”

    I do care about what you have to say or else I would not be engaging your arguments. I wouldn’t spend the time posting such lengthy comments if I was just trying to be a jerk.

  20. I just found this…

    Remember the U.S. Capitol Building Rotunda painting I mentioned in the original post? The painting where the open Bible is the focus as the pilgrims set sail?

    That same painting was featured on the reverse side of the series 1918 $10,000 bill.

    reverse side of the series 1918 $10,000 bill

    Really.

  21. When it comes to the Founders and the Constitution, David Barton knows orders of magnitude more than Jon Stewart.

    Jon Stewart threw every straw man (that his staff gave him on note cards) that he could at David Barton, and Barton knocked every single one of those straw men down. Barton has spent decades studying thousands of primary source documents. Stewart has spent minutes, possibly hours, studying the note cards his staff gave him. It was no contest. Every time Stewart threw a false accusation at Barton, Barton countered with the truth. And every time, Stewart would interrupt Barton’s answer. Stewart could only crack a joke or change the subject; he couldn’t have a straight-up discussion of the truth.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–2

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–2

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–3

    I would love to see a similar discussion between David Barton and “Constitutional Law” lecturer Barack Obama.

    When it comes to the Founders and the Constitution, David Barton knows orders of magnitude more than Barack Obama.

  22. From WallBuilders

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: John Adams 1809 Letter
    A December 21, 1809 letter by John Adams to Benjamin Rush.
    Read Letter »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: Treaty of Tripoli
    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular.
    Read Article »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: The Aitken Bible
    Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.
    Read Article »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: The Separation of Church and State
    In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
    Read Article »»

    Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson
    An 1801 letter from the Danbury Baptists and President Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 response in which he used the famous phrase “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
    Read Letters »»

    The Founders And Public Religious Expressions
    An article with quotes by various Founding Fathers on pubic religious expression.
    Read Article »»

  23. Watch the video of the prayer opening the Senate sessions on June 21, 2007 when Barack Obama was acting in place of Senator Byrd.

    That link (http://i166.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid166.photobucket.com/albums/u90/snopesbinary/Politics/obamapledge2.flv) appears to no longer work directly in a browser… but still appears to work when embedded with the appropriate HTML code (which I can’t do in WordPress, but is done in the Snopes page where I originally found the video: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

    In that video, you can hear Obama say, “Amen”.

    However, when I search C-SPAN and find this: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?id=157538, it appears that C-SPAN has since edited out Obama’s “Amen.” It is no longer in the audio.

    That is a story in and of itself… who edited the video to remove Obama’s “Amen” from the audio?

    It’s also not mentioned in the transcript, although I’m not sure that I would expect it to be…

    The Senate met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Barack Obama, a Senator from the State of Illinois. — (Senate – June 21, 2007)
    [Page: S8165]

    10:30:04 AM
    1 minute

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today’s opening prayer will be offered by guest Chaplain, Pastor Linda Arey, New Harvest Church, Waynesboro, VA.

    The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:

    Let us pray.
    Father God, we acknowledge You as the Ruler of all nations and we pray for peace and justice in our world.
    We pray First Timothy 2:1-4:

    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings; and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    Father, I pray for our President and First Lady. Bless them this day and give them the wisdom to do all that is set before them.

    I pray for the Senate, to have Your wisdom to accomplish all that is set before them. Bless them for their commitment to serve the people of our Nation and to carry out their duties.
    Father, in Jesus’ name I call this United States of America blessed. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s