Thoughts on Freedom From Religion

[Joshua260]

I never stated or implied that they did not believe in a god .

I didn't say you did. Hello...is this mike working? I simply stated the "facts about the basis for our Declaration and Bill of Rights originating from the founding father's belief in a divinity." The founding fathers referenced a higher moral authority to make the case in the Declaration that their rights had been abused, and then implied the same higher moral authority in the Bill of Rights. So the existence of a creator who possesses moral authority *is* at the foundation of our law. I know that's an inconvenient fact for an atheist who is trying to prove that this was meant to be a faithless nation, but I can't do anything about that. But as you point out, the government cannot make you worship God. You're free to be an atheist if you so desire. No one is trampling on your freedom to hate God.

They specifically stated that our constitution was not based upon Christianity.

You never did provide a reference to back this up. Are you still talking about the Treaty of Tripoli?

These men were deists and not Christians....

Again, you're rewriting history. That is a popular saying among atheists that is quite easily disproven if one would simply read the writings of the founding fathers themselves.

This thread has degenerated into an unprofitable exchange. If you're going to continue making claims, please provide backup. Right now, this thread is just going back and forth, back and forth. If it continues to do so, please pardon me if stop responding due to lack of interest.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

I didn't say you did. Hello...is this mike working? I simply stated the "facts about the basis for our Declaration and Bill of Rights originating from the founding father's belief in a divinity." The founding fathers referenced a higher moral authority to make the case in the Declaration that their rights had been abused, and then implied the same higher moral authority in the Bill of Rights. So the existence of a creator who possesses moral authority *is* at the foundation of our law. I know that's an inconvenient fact for an atheist who is trying to prove that this was meant to be a faithless nation, but I can't do anything about that. But as you point out, the government cannot make you worship God. You're free to be an atheist if you so desire. No one is trampling on your freedom to hate God.


You never did provide a reference to back this up. Are you still talking about the Treaty of Tripoli?



Again, you're rewriting history. That is a popular saying among atheists that is quite easily disproven if one would simply read the writings of the founding fathers themselves.

This thread has degenerated into an unprofitable exchange. If you're going to continue making claims, please provide backup. Right now, this thread is just going back and forth, back and forth. If it continues to do so, please pardon me if I lose interest.

You don't need a pardon from me.

Some of your requests are absurd and I will no more entertain them than I would put on a monkey suit and do tricks for you.

Your insistence that they based some of their ideas on a god belief simply isn't relevant to the separation between church and state and their established freedom from religion. Stay on topic. If you want to investigate how religious these people where then that's a different topic. That they separated church and state is not debatable.

If you think a book that proclaims that I deserve to die is the source of my freedom from that book then ok buddy.

 

[Radagast]

That they separated church and state is not debatable.

When they used those words they almost certainly did not mean them in the modern US sense of the phrase.

This is indicated by the fact that Australia copied the wording of the US Constitution at this point, but interprets it quite differently. In particular, "establish" is interpreted in Australia in the technical sense used at the time that the US constitution was written.

And, ironically, you seem to be suggesting some kind of laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of Christianity.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

When they used those words they almost certainly did not mean them in the modern US sense of the phrase.

This is indicated by the fact that Australia copied the wording of the US Constitution at this point, but interprets it quite differently. In particular, "establish" is interpreted in Australia in the technical sense used at the time that the US constitution was written.

And, ironically, you seem to be suggesting some kind of laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of Christianity.

Unless you're in the business of harassing or controlling other people, me being free from any and all of your ideas would not limit your free exercise of religion.

If you have a different meaning for the word separate then ok.... I for one think the lawyers not the people who think Jesus really can walk on water know what they're talking about because one of those is clearly illogical and show that you will go to any means necessary to believe strange and unreasonable things in your pursuit of happiness.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Thanks to everyone for responding. I think this thread is finished and I've gotten too upset about the posts within it. It's finished.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

Closed on OP Request.

MOD HAT OFF​