"HILLARY SPEAKS".........Large Majority...LISTEN !

Sidebar
700UW said:
And all of you fail to grasp, they didnt want religion and the government to mix, hence why the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
 
They wanted religious freedom, not freedom from religion. At the time religion was essentially state sponsored. The Church of England held tremendous sway over everyone. Other beliefs were not tolerated and people were jailed and discriminated against.
 
Religion and Government HAVE to mix to a point because we have to have a common set of rules to run the place. What the Founders insisted against was what we currently have in Iran.
 
SparrowHawk said:
 
Give him a minute Dell, he's on the phone with either the IAM or DNC to get his reply.
Click to expand...
Oh wait did you call Ron Paul or Rand and ask them what to post?
 
The Treaty of Tripoli
Main article: Treaty of Tripoli
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[62]
Click to expand...
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[63]
Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.[64] The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

Use of the phrase
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[15]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[65]

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[66] Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[67] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[68] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[69] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."[70] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[71]

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[72] During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in the United States. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state".[73] In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[74]
 
 
That's very interesting.Given that it also proves my point. During that time frame the resistance to anything that remotely resembled state sponsored religion was denied.
 
Nearly all of the Founding fathers were either outright Christians or at least Deists.which is probably why our system of justice is based upon the old testament and other things such as English Common Law and the Magna Carta. Our legal system is NOT purely of any faith. However those who drafted it were and you can't easily divide the two.
 
And all of you fail to grasp, they didnt want religion and the government to mix, hence why the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Well that would have been under Jesus' "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's!" But why give the founder of Christianity credit when you could give it to the atheists?
 
I think its interesting that the images in the fresco in the rotunda of the capital building have nothing to do with Christianity. There are images of Zeus, Mercury among others and an image of Mr Morrison who was a financier of the Civil war.
 
Ms Tree said:
I think its interesting that the images in the fresco in the rotunda of the capital building have nothing to do with Christianity. There are images of Zeus, Mercury among others and an image of Mr Morrison who was a financier of the Civil war.
Click to expand...
 
But everything regarding Heaven and God
 
Its Morris and he funded the American Revolution. The word "apotheosis" in the title means literally the raising of a person to the rank of a god.
 
 
In the central group of the fresco, Brumidi depicted George Washington rising to the heavens in glory, flanked by female figures representing Liberty and Victory/Fame. A rainbow arches at his feet, and thirteen maidens symbolizing the original states flank the three central figures. (The word "apotheosis" in the title means literally the raising of a person to the rank of a god, or the glorification of a person as an ideal; George Washington was honored as a national icon in the nineteenth century.)
Six groups of figures line the perimeter of the canopy; the following list begins below the central group and proceeds clockwise:
  • War, with Armed Freedom and the eagle defeating Tyranny and Kingly Power
  • Science, with Minerva teaching Benjamin Franklin, Robert Fulton, and Samuel F.B. Morse
  • Marine, with Neptune holding his trident and Venus holding the transatlantic cable, which was being laid at the time the fresco was painted
  • Commerce, with Mercury handing a bag of money to Robert Morris, financier of the American Revolution
  • Mechanics, with Vulcan at the anvil and forge, producing a cannon and a steam engine
  • Agriculture, with Ceres seated on the McCormick Reaper, accompanied by America in a red liberty cap and Flora picking flowers.
Click to expand...
 
Seems that Hillary didn't learn much from her statements of two weeks ago...

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.
Click to expand...
I guess being a multi-millionaire doesn't quite meet the definition of "well off" according to Hillary.

Few people meet the definition of Limousine Liberal as well as Hillary and Bill.
 
eolesen said:
Seems that Hillary didn't learn much from her statements of two weeks ago...


I guess being a multi-millionaire doesn't quite meet the definition of "well off" according to Hillary.

Few people meet the definition of Limousine Liberal as well as Hillary and Bill.
Click to expand...
 
Did anyone see the blurb I posted where they are in the 1% bracket and tripping over themselves to take advantage of the loopholes they supposedly despise for the right?
 
I'm beginning to think that the next version of Websters Dictionary is going to have Hillary's picture next to the word arrogance.
 
When the lying rat bastard left the White House "Dead Broke" they managed to scrape up $895,000 in cash PLUS secure a 1.995 MILLION dollar Mortgage.
 
Does she have half a clue that some people don't earn $895,000 in their entire freaking life? Much less qualify for a near 2 million dollar mortgage? Thought Democrats were for "The Little Guy"? Apparently not. They want to start that class warfare feces with this old PaulBot I say "Bring it bitches"
 
Well, technically you'd have to work hard *not* to earn $1M in a lifetime. 50 years of working at an average of $20K get you there... But, the point stands.

She's becoming more of a liability every time she opens her mouth than Joe Biden does. Biden makes statements that are just dumb. She makes statements that can really alienate people.
 
But she really is the right candidate to be the next president. Who can deny that if Hillary were president, we would wish for the Obamafiasco!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top Bottom