I disagree. It’s not uncommon for rural folks to be exposed to pollution, such as that from: pesticides used on the farm, “playing” with gasoline as a solvent, tragic events such as downwinders and toxic storage issues, …

I don’t see how “total separation of the church from the State”, “Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution” or lastly *nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience* results in “We’re a Christian nation, but one type of Christianity can’t be above another”.

So yes, you sound simplistic.

–
with symbols of Christianity being removed and banned from public places while Yoga and Muslim prayer are practiced in schools, prisons and courthouses.
–

1) Yoga is not a religious act
2) Muslim prayer shouldn’t be practiced in schools, prisons and courthouses if Christian cannot.

True separation of Church requires either none or all. If you want a city to put up a nativity scene, fine, but then they need to put up a pagan Winter Solstice symbol if so requested.

In prisons, either you have no chaplains or allow chaplains of any religion. I would assume the latter because nothing says that we should deny prisoners their right to worship as they see fit.

–
This happens because in order to set a goal for equality the state must first arbitrarily take one creed, religion or ideal and set it above all others as the highest principle.
–

And our Government has a highest principle: The Constitution. That we are all equal before the law, we all have essential rights, …

I wouldn’t go so far as including the DofI, although if we did, it would argue for more of a Deist view of the world.

If you call this humanism, so be it.

Typically the courts have not considered secular humanism as a religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism):

Some religious groups argue that secular humanism–and, by association, secularism–have a religion-like legal status despite the separation of church and state, that secularism in government and in the schools constitutes state favoritism towards a particular religion (namely, the denial of theism), and a double standard is used in granting protections to these groups while allowing the teaching of their non-theistic views such as evolution which are consistent with secularism.[22]
The U.S. courts, however, have consistently rejected this interpretation. Often the discussion is not clearly framed. However, the rationale for believing there is no contradiction appears to include the following:
Beliefs involved are about more than secularism: Religious status has been granted to various non-theistic humanist organizations. Such organizations typically favor various aspects of secularism. However, humanism embraces a variety of ideas which are not part of secularism, for example, affirming human dignity. Even if a particular brand of humanism were to be regarded as a religion, that would not necessarily make particular positions, such as secularism, religious, as religious status could be based on other considerations.
Beliefs of a religious group can be non-religious: Even if a group did assert secularism in isolation to be its religion (no instances of this are known), this would not mean that secularism is in general a religious idea. (“Just because people count something in what they say is their religion does not make it inherently religious. If some people start worshipping chairs chairs shouldn’t be kept out of school.”[citation needed])
Court rulings have not been about beliefs: No court rulings on particular non-theistic groups being religious have ever actually ruled that the ideas of these groups were religious per se. Instead, rulings have generally said the groups in question functionally acted like other religious institutions and therefore were entitled to similar protections. (This fact has been obscured by imprecise comments, such as those of Justice Black, but is reflected in the text of particular rulings.)
Most advocates do not regard their belief in evolution as religious:[citation needed] Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious.
Decisions about tax status have been based on whether an organization functions like a church. On the other hand, Establishment Clause cases turn on whether the ideas or symbols involved are inherently religious. An organization can function like a church while advocating beliefs that are not necessarily inherently religious.
Author Marci Hamilton has pointed out: “Moreover, the debate is not between secularists and the religious. The debate is believers and non-believers on the one side debating believers and non-believers on the other side. You’ve got citizens who are…of faith who believe in the separation of church and state and you have a set of believers who do not believe in the separation of church and state.”[23]

———
What I am saying is that if we try to mandate equality in the realm of thought, product or wealth, the system will always become inherently unfair and tend towards tyranny for a subset of the population.
——

You are confusing the government being equal when it comes to religion versus government mandating that all religions are equal. The former is true and the latter is not.

Religions can grow as big as they want. The state does not mandate that religion A has to more funds then to compete with religion B. That would be trying to force religions to be equal.

The huge irony is that the secular interpretation of the phrase, “separation of church and state,” has effectively given us a state religion: Humanism.

Just as the quest for social equality in the former Soviet Union resulted in class polarity rivaling the reign of Nicholas II, so the quest for religious neutrality in the U.S. has resulted in massive inequality; with symbols of Christianity being removed and banned from public places while Yoga and Muslim prayer are practiced in schools, prisons and courthouses.

And in both cases this happened for the same reason: Mistakenly confusing equality with fairness.

Any time the state tries to create equality in the realm of thought, product or to a lesser degree wealth, the result is always massive inequality. This happens because in order to set a goal for equality the state must first arbitrarily take one creed, religion or ideal and set it above all others as the highest principle. Then the state must enforce that creed, religion or ideal to the detriment of all others. So any quest for equality in these areas ultimately winds up producing injustice.

This is not to say that we can’t have equal opportunity, or equal worth, or equal treatment under the law. On the contrary, those are necessary for the functioning of a civil government.

What I am saying is that if we try to mandate equality in the realm of thought, product or wealth, the system will always become inherently unfair and tend towards tyranny for a subset of the population.

The difference, by the way, is that equalities of opportunity, worth, and treatment under the law all work together to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. But attempts to create equality in the realms of thought, product or wealth all tend to strip away the rights of minorities and individuals.

Madison himself addressed this tendency brilliantly in the Federalist Paper No. 10 when he talked about how to reduce the influence of factions in government:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Madison went on to argue for federalism on the basis that a government spanning a large area – which therefore includes and respects many different points of view – is much more effective at neutralizing the tyranny of factions than a small government representing only a limited area.

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”

–
Arrange marriages still occur today.
—

Duh, I already said that (and are still done by other cultures/religions).

–
She says she loves her husband all the same.
–
A couple anecdotes don’t prove that all arranged marriages result in love. The reality is that arranged marriages were done for

social/economic reasons. It they grew to love each other, it was a bonus; if not, to bad for them.

–
This made me think you view marriage as some super fluid post-modern putty that can mean anything.
–
It means whatever the culture at the time means it to be.

–
I believe there are essential principles that can not change.
–
Doesn’t matter what you believe: history says otherwise.

–
That is why I used the example when the shoe becomes a hat it is no longer a shoe.
–

If I use a large rock as a chair, it is both a rock and a chair. Platonic forms are so droll. (BTW: If you ever saw the movie Brazil,

you would realize your example is quite humorous.)

–
Man and Wife is one such principle.
–

One man and many wives? One woman and many men?

Were the ancient Jews evil?

–
It is a hill the Christian must die on.
–
Why? How many times did Jesus himself refer to homosexuality? How many times did he refer to poverty?

Seems to me you should be focusing on other problems.

–
Our nations future depends on it.
–
No it doesn’t.

I’ve seen some homosexual parents care for their young better than some heterosexual parents. MOre important than gender/sexual

preference is love, time, temperment…

Our population is growing. It’s not like the whole population is going to become gay if we allow gay marriage.

—
You can call the inclusion of Trinitarian language “meager” or “honorifics” all you want but it also is part of the treaty of this so

called “atheistic nation” so it also applies as well as the phrase you quote from the 1797 treaty.
—

Last Thursday — oops, I guess I’m a pagan because Thursday is Thor’s day. Jefferson used the term Year of our LOrd but that didn’t make

him a Christian. So yes, there is a difference between declaration and honorifics.

–
Why when the treaty with Tripoli was renegotiated or the 1797 version of the treaty was translated in Arabic was this part absent?
–
YOu contradict yourself. You say this part is absent in the Arabic part, but then you say it was included to make the Muslims happy?

Which is it?

–
Why when you quote it above do you truncate the context it was written it?
–
I could have produced the whole treaty, but what would be the point? YOu assume too much. I also assumed that you had already studied

it from your earlier post. It is a declaration that stands on it’s own. It’s doesn’t say “Where no way a Christian nation except

for…”

–
The purpose and intent of the treaty was not to establish the point you think but to try to convince Tripoli as a nation we were not

coming after them because they were Muslims so they would stop stealing our ships and enslaving our citizens.
–
So you are saying we are a Christian nation but we lied to make some small Muslims happy? GOod luck with that.

–
Also if the ruling Dey of Tripoli…
–
Doesn’t matter: law of the land. In fact, I wish Congress and the various Presidents would remember this before they give away our

rights for some sleazy trade deals that benefit mutli-national corporations.

–
In fact it is possible that the version they read in Arabic did not even have this section.
–
Just about anything is possible, including the sun going supernova tomorrow. I’m not holding my breath.

The reality is what we have in our records.

———————

So you don’t trust the Treaty of Tripoli. Fine. Let’s look at the supplemental writings of the Founding Father who wrote and petitioned for the Bill of Rights: James Madison

(emphasis added)

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the *total separation of the church from the State* (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

*Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution* of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. *Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both*, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 – 731).

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political
prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

(There are many more examples, but these make the point well enough.)

————
I’m not saying that Madison was anti-religion. He may have even thought that religion was a good foundation for individuals to have.

However, he was very clear: Church and State are to be separate.

If we are to have total separation of Church and State, than religion should not influence what the state’s definition of marriage is. At best, the state can only view marriage as a type of contract between two consenting adults. It’s up for religion and individuals to decide what the meaning behind it is. What you think marriage is and I or others believe it to be may be two different things.

Your original statement indicated the “nature and definition” has changed through out history. This made me think you view marriage as some super fluid post-modern putty that can mean anything. Though the means and methods may change color, flavor, and emphasis, I believe there are essential principles that can not change. Man and Wife is one such principle. It is a hill the Christian must die on. Our nations future depends on it.

When the nature and definition “changes” then I would argue it is not longer the same thing. That is why I used the example when the shoe becomes a hat it is no longer a shoe. I realize that is super simple example but I hope it would clarify what I was trying to say.

Concerning Tripoli, you are the one who brought it up as being a proof of a position you hold. You can call the inclusion of Trinitarian language “meager” or “honorifics” all you want but it also is part of the treaty of this so called “atheistic nation” so it also applies as well as the phrase you quote from the 1797 treaty. I am just pointing out the contradiction. You are the one who needs to resolve it.

How could treaties that use such specific Christian language be ratified by a congress and signed by sitting presidents with such blatant contradictions?

Why when the treaty with Tripoli was renegotiated or the 1797 version of the treaty was translated in Arabic was this part absent?

Why when you quote it above do you truncate the context it was written it?

“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 law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],—and as the said States [of America] never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.”

- William M. Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United
States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909, 4 vols. (New York: Greenwood Press, [1910] 1968), 2:1786.

The purpose and intent of the treaty was not to establish the point you think but to try to convince Tripoli as a nation we were not coming after them because they were Muslims so they would stop stealing our ships and enslaving our citizens.

I am though not trying to argue the opposite of your point. I am not trying to prove the Christian Charter and Life of our nation by pointing to a phrase in a single treaty.

Also if the ruling Dey of Tripoli had copies of any of the state constitutions at this time he would have laughed at the statement of the Treaty as being blatantly false and misleading. In fact it is possible that the version they read in Arabic did not even have this section.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of arranged marriages. I suggest you Google about it. Arranged marriages were common during the middle ages and are still done by other cultures/religions. Arranged marriages were usually done for economic reasons.

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Farrell/Campbell-1.html

“Campbell recognized that chivalry wasn’t stodgy or absurd. As he points out, prior to the Middle Ages, women (and men too) were largely puppets of familial necessity — they had little influence over their own destiny when it came to establishing romantic relationships or choosing life-partners. But in a world where marriage was primarily a means of establishing geographic or economic bonds between two clans, chivalry helped to tear down the centuries-old social customs that made wives little more than property and husbands political pawns.

In fact, Campbell explains that the troubadours (i.e., professional storytellers) of the Middle Ages weren’t just telling mindless tales of romance and dalliance, they were spreading a radical, almost subversive concept: That men and women could pursue their own destinies, fall in love and relate to one another as equals under a groundbreaking concept known as “courtly love.””

Polygamy was very common at one time, then it became so “evil” that people ran the Mormons out of town.

You try to claim a mandate that does not exist.

–
Also the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does not establish that the US is a secular nation.
–

Yes it does.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”

This is not some meager “year of our lord” language; this is a categorical statement.

Per the Constitution:”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ”

Can you come up with anything more than honorifics?

Also the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does not establish that the US is a secular nation. As a nation our constitution rightly separates the jurisdiction of the State from the jurisdiction of the Church. Also note that the family is also a separate jurisdiction from these other two. Being separate does not mean one of the other spheres of jurisdiction is not important or I would even say critical to the health of a great nation. The primary thing article II of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does is to attempt to highlight the difference between our countries that does not force a person to profess allegiance to Jesus Christ the same way a Islamic nation uses force to demand allegiance to their God. Remember that Islam has no problem with pirates going after “infidels”. Christian are specifically identified with infidels. A nation of Christians when true to their savior makes disciples not by the sword but by prayer and preaching the word of God. When our nation was trying to protect our shipping industry from Islamic Barbary Coast pirates it may have made sense to make this dictation but this does not establish the intent of our founding father to make the spiritual and religious life of the people of this nation completely separate in every regard. As an institution the civil government is not the institution of the Church. But this does not deny that our founding fathers intended Christian principles and understanding to be infuses and an integral part of our nation’s wisdom.

Further if treaties are to establish the secular intent of our nation how about the treaty in 1783 with Britain to establish peace at the end of the war? It starts with the following, “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain.” This was signed by Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Note Adams, later as president signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. What other religion beside Christianity teaches the Trinitarian conception of God? Similar treaties in 1814, 1822, and 1848 use similar Trinitarian language.

>>

Good luck with that. While I don’t think this is a conservative vs. liberal issue, conservatives (in particular the JBS) have propagated a story that those that oppose the Fed will end up dead.

<>

You can’t treat an organization that is going bankrupt as a monopoly. Now as a part of bankruptcy/nationalization, you can break them up. Now yes, the ones that aren’t going bankrupt should be treated as monopolies, but again, that is not a liberal or conservative issue.

<>

What? More regulation? You damned socialist.

<>

1) Why exempt the FDA? 2) The goal of a corporation is to make money. How is the NEA,USDA, … going to make money?

<>

You think privatizing the various Departments will save enough to completely pay for SS, unemployment, Medicare… I’d like to see that math.

<>

Insurance companies get raided. Look at AIG.

<>

Measuring law by the pound is not a useful measurement. It’s a reactionary metric used to mobilize the simple.

<>

You’d have an easier time of it if you simply punished the employers much more harshly.

<>

You goddamned socialist!

<>

Whose going to give them? Narcissist Sarah? McNasty? Boner the Tan? Jindal the Volcano Expert?

<>

Separation of Church and State.

<>

Mindless pap to make people feel good. Simple math tells us the US can’t drill enough to make a difference. Furthermore, we’ve been giving out permits faster than they use them; rushing out more permits will simply pad the pockets of the oil companies.

<<