quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Your broad brush stroke..... Just slander them all with a big sweeping statement with nothing to back it up. My problem with Republicans...... appeasing christian fundamentalists and screw anyone in a minority belief, the move towards a totalitarian society where we look more like the USSR of the cold war than they do now, secret police searches, secret prisons, snatching people up and holding them without charges,trials and incommunicado, tapping any communications they want, labeling anything potentially bothersome secret.

Excuse me... Broad brush strokes you say?

Why is there such an outcry from the left, AND libertarian, against "conservative Christians". Eighty-five percent of the populace "believes in Jesus". Though we don't hold identical beliefs, we ARE the majority.

This country was clearly founded by those who intended to build Judeo-Christian principles into the fabric of law. The left uses a single phrase from a Jefferson letter as the basis for their attack. You've spoken other threads about "context". When you consder that phrase, in the context of the entire letter, and within the context of the question it answered, and the overall belief and life of Jefferson, the claim falls flat.

There is no such issue as "separation of church and state" mentioned within the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It only falls under the liberals "penumbrella".

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Allowing Eminent Domain to be turned into a tool for corporate developers to snatch private property. What people believe is something you need to ask them, not accuse them of without backing it up.

This issue is particularly upsetting. Three of the judges in the 5-4 decision were Republican appointments so I somewhat agree with you that Republicans carry blame.

John Paul Stevens (Nixon)
Anthony M. Kennedy (Reagan)
David H. Souter (Bush 41)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
Stephen G. Breyer (Clinton)

Kennedy was accepted only after the Borking of '87 and the failure to confirm his suggested replacement Douglas Ginsburg.

Appointment of judges who are not strict constitutionalists lead to the harmful decisions the Court has made in the last 30 or so years, hence my disdain for Republicans who are not conservative, but moderate. They tend to "moderate" all over the map.

Stevens is the judge who believes we should "consider foreign law" when interpreting and applying the constitution.

The decision of left leaning, socialist judges like these demonstrates the Democrat "stuffing" of the Supreme Court. Legislating from the bench is what it is called. Under their "penumbra" (penumbrella) they stuff issues that were never present in the constitution, into law.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: edit: something just struck me as odd about your entry. i thought that democrats were traditionally accused of not putting their trust in the people but rather in the machineries of government?

The way I've typically viewed it is Democrats tend to think a problem can and should be fixed by appropriate government action. Republicans tend to think a problem should be taken care of by private industry or individuals. Dems want to take care of those who can't take care of themself. Republicans want to give those who can't take care of themself the tools and skills to do it themself. That's part of why many Dems say the GOP is all about big business, and why the GOP says the Dems are all about big government.

An analogy that seems apt - you've got a man drowning in the ocean. A Republican will throw him a life saver float, but only halfway to him - he's got to swim to it.
The Democrat will throw the life saver all the way to him, even having it land right in his hand, then immediately drop the rope to go save someone else.

BTW WTF!!!
Yes we got all over Foley for being a perv.. all over the news.

Umm What about Sandy Berger??? Busted taking classified documents and gets a slap on the wrist??
Everyone loves to point at the 9/11 comission but wtf? Berger is in the archives pulling documents.. oh guess that doesnt matter.

You want media bias? This is it!!
Yes we heard all about Foley and Ms Nevada.. but Berger pulling documents.. and being punished almost nothing.
No media bias my ass.

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Gun Control is a fine example! You think it's bad for people to have guns! But guns and violence isn't the issue! You just have been convience that guns should be taken away from citizens. I don't know you very well, but if we ever met in person, it would be very easy for me to put you into a subordinate state.

ah yes. the debating expert once again "wins" by deliberate misreading. nowhere have i indicated that i "have been convinced that guns should be taken away from citizens." but in your rather blunt, flat world, there is no other possible interpretation of what i did say. clearly, stricker's call for a recognition of complexity is not for you.

oh well. my brief hope that i was actually conversing with something other than a cinderblock has been dashed. it's ok. i've found that there actually people around here with whom i can substantively disagree, but can also count on enaging as people, rather than as cartoonish ideologues.

as for the idea that you would in any way "subordinate" me, should we ever meet... well, originally i had written something else here, but dude... that's just pathetic and creepy. go play out your adolescent power fantasies in your own basement with the lights off, m'kay?

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: "Religious freedom is a cornerstone of our Republic, a core principle of our Constitution, and a fundamental human right." "...when the British Colonies became the United States, our Founders constitutionally limited our Federal Government's capacity to interfere with religious belief by prohibiting the Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What a pity that the concept, emphasized above, is conveniently ignored by the "separation of church and state" crowd.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What a pity that the concept, emphasized above, is conveniently ignored by the "separation of church and state" crowd.

oh hardly. most of the serious "first freedom" advocates i know are much less concerned about anyone practicing their religion, than about the extreme pressure that the majority - and the state which represents it - places on minority expression. for a good example, see the attitude expressed by texasfiero above: "what's the big deal? we are the majority, after all?"

E, because I'm being evil..

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=59874

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: oh hardly. most of the serious "first freedom" advocates i know are much less concerned about anyone practicing their religion, than about the extreme pressure that the majority - and the state which represents it - places on minority expression. for a good example, see the attitude expressed by texasfiero above: "what's the big deal? we are the majority, after all?"

When religious people are forbidden, but the government, from religious expression, it's wrong. Majority or not.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: E, because I'm being evil.. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=59874

men get breast cancer, too.
hop to it.

The problem I have with current religion/government issues is the hypocracy.

Putting a manger scene or "Christmas" tree on government property is wrong, yet having Menorah, Kwanzaa or "generic" holiday decorations are ok.
It seems anything Judeo-Christian is considered against separation of church and state BECAUSE they are the majority.
Displays of other religions are in the spirit of diversity.

I think that's wrong. If it's ok to put up a Menorah, it's ok to add Kwanzaa decorations, and then it's also going to be ok for Christian decorations as well.
Otherwise, get rid of it all except for generic "non-religious" holiday decorations.

Non Christians say Freedom of Religion also means freedom FROM religions they don't agree with. I think that's true, but why doesn't it also apply to Christians? Don't they also have the right to be free from having to recognize other religions?

See, that's where it gets sticky. It's almost like our country's treatment of racism. A "Black History Month" showcases ethnic pride and diversity, whereas a "White History Month" would be considered racist. The religion issue is the same.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The problem I have with current religion/government issues is the hypocracy. Putting a manger scene or "Christmas" tree on government property is wrong, yet having Menorah, Kwanzaa or "generic" holiday decorations are ok. It seems anything Judeo-Christian is considered against separation of church and state BECAUSE they are the majority. Displays of other religions are in the spirit of diversity. I think that's wrong. If it's ok to put up a Menorah, it's ok to add Kwanzaa decorations, and then it's also going to be ok for Christian decorations as well. Otherwise, get rid of it all except for generic "non-religious" holiday decorations. Non Christians say Freedom of Religion also means freedom FROM religions they don't agree with. I think that's true, but why doesn't it also apply to Christians? Don't they also have the right to be free from having to recognize other religions? See, that's where it gets sticky. It's almost like our country's treatment of racism. A "Black History Month" showcases ethnic pride and diversity, whereas a "White History Month" would be considered racist. The religion issue is the same.

taking the last point first, it's about class, power, and homo/heterogeneity. i bet you even know that.
(my girlfriend just cracked up at the idea of a "white history month.")

as for the first: no. putting up a menorah on government property butnot a christian symbol is not ok, and i don't think i've heard of that being advocated. (a manger scene is generally understood to be a lot more specific than a christmas tree, by the way. christian apologists will frequently make the case that a tree is by now essentially generic... but a manger scene can in no way be seen that way.)

personally, i think the diversity doesn't go far enough. abrahamic religions are largely a matter of academic interest to me, and i have no real idea where kwanzaa came from, nor what its relevance is... most black people i know are christians. but i want more expression, not less. bring on the instruments of saturnalia... let's see some pentacles... fill every mug with mead, and let there Blót!

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: oh hardly. most of the serious "first freedom" advocates i know are much less concerned about anyone practicing their religion, than about the extreme pressure that the majority - and the state which represents it - places on minority expression. for a good example, see the attitude expressed by texasfiero above: "what's the big deal? we are the majority, after all?"

That simply isn't true. The argument for "freedom from religion" is almost always supported by the first amendment claim, with the non-existant "separation of church and state" phrase thown in for good measure. The problem is that most Americans are not familiar enough with the Constitution to know that the phrase is not there.

What is wrong with imposing faith based restrictions on society, if that is what most of them choose to live, by as long as it's done in an open and balanced format where all sides have a chance to participate.

What your side wants to do is totally eliminate any reference to "the Christian God" from our society when that belief is the foundation upon which we have existed.

With regard to Christmas season celebrations, why don't you see the need to restrict Kwanza. It has nothing to do with the holiday and only exists for a very small part of our society and has nothing to do with our culture. I dare say you'd have convulsions if anyone suggested that it should be restricted because of a "separation" issue.

http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/origins1.shtml
"Kwanzaa was created in 1966 by Dr. Maulana Karenga, professor, Department of Black Studies at California State University, Long Beach, author and scholar-activist who stresses the indispensable need to preserve, continually revitalize and promote African American culture."

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: What is wrong with imposing faith based restrictions on society...

i think i'm going to just let this statement sit here and bask in its own glory.

anyone... care to take this up?
anyone?
bueller?

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: taking the last point first, it's about class, power, and homo/heterogeneity. i bet you even know that. (my girlfriend just cracked up at the idea of a "white history month.") as for the first: no. putting up a menorah on government property butnot a christian symbol is not ok, and i don't think i've heard of that being advocated. (a manger scene is generally understood to be a lot more specific than a christmas tree, by the way. christian apologists will frequently make the case that a tree is by now essentially generic... but a manger scene can in no way be seen that way.) personally, i think the diversity doesn't go far enough. abrahamic religions are largely a matter of academic interest to me, and i have no real idea where kwanzaa came from, nor what its relevance is... most black people i know are christians. but i want more expression, not less. bring on the instruments of saturnalia... let's see some pentacles... fill every mug with mead, and let there Blót!

That fact that your girlfriend cracked up at the idea of a "white history month" goes to show just how different the rules are applied.
When I was in High School back in the Bronze Age, a group of black students formed a school sponsored group called Ebony Unique. A group of my friends decided to form our own group called Ivory Unique. Yeah, you can guess how that ended. Ebony Unique celebrated diversity and Ivory Unique was banned for being racist.

As for religion, God forbid someone actually call it a "Yule" tree instead of a Christmas tree. (pun intended) And I think Kwanzaa was invented so there could be "Black Christmas."

Although Beltane is still my favorite holiday.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

Your smiley indicates confusion or shock at that statement. Ok, the Ten Commandments are prevalent within our society. They are displayed in at two places within the Supreme Court building. Among the we find that we should not kill (meaning not murder but does not restrict capital punishment), we should not steal, we should not covet our neighbor's wife just to name a few. Those commandments, as displayed, are specifically Judeo-Christian. Let's take them down. We no longer should live by them. We wouldn't want to impose faith based beliefs on society, whether the majority lives by them or not.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Your smiley indicates confusion or shock at that statement. Ok, the Ten Commandments are prevalent within our society. They are displayed in at two places within the Supreme Court building. Among the we find that we should not kill (meaning not murder but does not restrict capital punishment), we should not steal, we should not covet our neighbor's wife just to name a few. Those commandments, as displayed, are specifically Judeo-Christian. Let's take them down. We no longer should live by them. We wouldn't want to impose faith based beliefs on society, whether the majority lives by them or not.

Tell me, is the idea that stealing and murder are wrong solely part of the Judeo-Christian religion? Are you saying without the Ten Commandments we'd have no basis for any of our laws?

There's a BIG difference between making laws based on moral ideals of what's right and wrong, and the Ten Commandments aren't the only source for that information. But that's not what you were talking about. You said, "What is wrong with imposing faith based restrictions on society,"

How do you intend to "impose" these "restrictions?" With laws? Laws based on your faith? There's a little document, maybe you've heard of it, call The Constitution, that forbids that.

If you want to use the Old Testament of the Bible for your reference for laws, then there's a whole lot of new laws we need to start enforcing.
Exodus 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death."
I don't think many kids would survive.

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
I'm sure a lot of people will support this one.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Maybe they can make the Duke Lacross team marry their accuser?

I wonder how loud you'd be screaming if faith based restrictions were actually imposed, only they were Islamic, or Buddhist, or *gasp* Pagan.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Eighty-five percent of the populace "believes in Jesus".

Oh, what exactly is that supposed to imply?

I believe Pterodactyls existed as well, but I’ve never been inclined to worship one.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Oh, what exactly is that supposed to imply? I believe Pterodactyls existed as well, but I’ve never been inclined to worship one.

That's a Chinese fake!

quote Originally posted by Wichita: That's a Chinese fake!

Now how would you like it if I was to suggest that Jesus was a Palestinian fake?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The problem I have with current religion/government issues is the hypocracy. Putting a manger scene or "Christmas" tree on government property is wrong, yet having Menorah, Kwanzaa or "generic" holiday decorations are ok. It seems anything Judeo-Christian is considered against separation of church and state BECAUSE they are the majority. Displays of other religions are in the spirit of diversity. I think that's wrong. If it's ok to put up a Menorah, it's ok to add Kwanzaa decorations, and then it's also going to be ok for Christian decorations as well. Otherwise, get rid of it all except for generic "non-religious" holiday decorations.

You just don't get it... You specifically state JUDEO-Christian and can't see that a Menorah and a Christmas tree or manger scene are the same thing? It's NOT ok to put symbols promoting Jewish holidays on Public property anymore than Christian ones... and a Menorah IS a Judeo-Christain symbol... don't you realise the Judeo means Jewish... as in the roots of Christianity?

It's not that ONLY the christian symbols aren't allowed and therefore your being picked on as a Christian. NO Religon is to be sanctioned/promoted/put above any other or a lack thereof.

The Christmas trees at SeaTac was an example of Christian symbols being allowed and Jewish ones denied. Not very fair is it? When someone sues a local government over putting a manger scene on a courthouse lawn, it's not because it's Christian, it's because it's promoting a religon over all others. You WANT to make it anti Christianity, you WANT it to be that your being persecuted so that you can lash back at the evildoers, find scapegoats and attack them.

Let's see... it's fair that the Ten Commandments be posted in Courthouses because they are just a morale code..

Let's take the one in front of the Texas Courthouse as an example... What part of this is NOT establishment of religion when put as a monument in front of our courthouses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg

Thou shalt have no other gods before me (real inclusive... screw everyone not Jewish or Christian)
Thou shalt not make to yourself any graven images (so wtf are the manger scenes doing there in the first place!?!?!)
Thou shalt no take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain (more inclusiveness, in order of importance note that we haven't reached murder yet... what should the penalty be for the ones we've covered so far?)
Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy. (again, what's the penalty for those pesky Hindus and the like?)
Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee (Ok, made it halfway through and haven't hit the crimes y'all seem to think no one that isn't a christian or religous can avoid without this document.

The rest are the ones on murder, adultery,stealing, bearing false witness, and a bunch of coveting (Oh you are all screwed on that last one based on the girls with and without fiero threads )

There is NO way that is a generic document covering morale and legal code. And if you think it's binding then you need to get your christian butts back under the law, keep Kashrut and follow the rest of the Law. All 613 or so of them.... (you will have to rebuild the temple though to start following the animal sacrifices requirements...) http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm

Point being that if you want Christian symbols on public property you need to accept that others have the same rights and you either need to accommodate all of them or put nothing up. I prefer you keep all your religious decorations on private property, there is nothing about that which limits your ability to celebrate your holidays. What I don't need is a group crying like a bunch of babies because they want to cram their celebration down everyone else's throats, and get pissed off if someone else wants to celebrate their holiday also in the same public arena you demand.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: You just don't get it... You specifically state JUDEO-Christian and can't see that a Menorah and a Christmas tree or manger scene are the same thing? It's NOT ok to put symbols promoting Jewish holidays on Public property anymore than Christian ones... and a Menorah IS a Judeo-Christain symbol... don't you realise the Judeo means Jewish... as in the roots of Christianity?

No, I do get it. Sorry for not listing more non-Christian religions, like Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, and Yule. I should have mentioned Islam and Buddhism as well.

Oh, and Kashrut and the 613 Laws are part of the covenant between God and the Jews, not Christians.

I completely agree that if ANY relgious symbols are on public property, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., then everyone needs to have the same right to display something. Like you said, accommodate all of them or put nothing up.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: No, I do get it. Sorry for not listing more non-Christian religions, like Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, and Yule. I should have mentioned Islam and Buddhism as well. Oh, and Kashrut and the 613 Laws are part of the covenant between God and the Jews, not Christians. I completely agree that if ANY religious symbols are on public property, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., then everyone needs to have the same right to display something. Like you said, accommodate all of them or put nothing up.

The ten commandments are supposed to be THE Covenant between God and the Jews... Good grief. Remember Moses, the burning bush and all that? Those are NOT a Christian document, you just kept that part while tossing the rest. God wasn't talking to non Jews. The Ten Commandments were a contract forming the basis of what was demanded by the Jewish God of the Jews, not of the rest of the world.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Now how would you like it if I was to suggest that Jesus was a Palestinian fake?

Oh, man, I hope this doesn't start a holy war!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, man, I hope this doesn't start a holy war!

Hmmmm.... Pterodactyls versus the Jesus Freaks, eh?

I'd put my money on the huge flying lizards.

So, When is White History Month? It maynot be right but I will share this, Many years ago while stationed in West Germany, someone I know was told to attend a meeting of lower enlisted people to discuss the upcoming events for black,hispanic,etc,,history month. This person was ,she noted the only white person there. She was ignored by all but the senior nco moderator who ask what she thought of all the discussion,,, she replied that it all sounded fine except for one thing,,, When is White History Month? she ask. The room erupted with anger. All the other people there tried to say that the following were white holidays, Christmas, 4th of July, Labor day, Memorial day, Veterans day. The moderator pointed out that none of these were white holidays or history days,weeks,months. And then he pointed out that the white lower enlisted female soldier was right, that there was in fact, No white history month. That was 1982. She was ask never to attend another meeting as none of the other people there could accept the facts as stated by the moderator. And these days, when you apply for a job they ask you if you can speak spanish? My answer to them is that if anyone wants my help they should better be able to speak the American version of English.

quote Originally posted by ron768: My answer to them is that if anyone wants my help they should better be able to speak the American version of English.

East coast or west? Southern or from the north?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: The ten commandments are supposed to be THE Covenant between God and the Jews... Good grief. Remember Moses, the burning bush and all that? Those are NOT a Christian document, you just kept that part while tossing the rest. God wasn't talking to non Jews. The Ten Commandments were a contract forming the basis of what was demanded by the Jewish God of the Jews, not of the rest of the world.

Good point. I'm all for removing the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The left uses a single phrase from a Jefferson letter as the basis for their attack.

And forget, in doing so, that Jefferson was a Christian.

Jefferson is not the perfect man people build him up to be. I have nothing but respect for him, especially sicne he is in my family tree, but moreover, I think Jefferson would be offended at being put on a pedistal as is often done today. That wasn't his ilk. He was a conflicted man who continually wrestled with his own desires versus his ideals. But those ideals had their basis in his Christian upbringing. Some people on this forum, no names, quote selected fragments of Jefferson to support their own personal desires rather than study the man to learn what he really valued and why.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-02-2007).]

North, south, east, west,,, All of those are acceptable. When in Rome,,,, I did learn enough German when stationed in Germany to get directions , order food at a resturant, find things at a store. I demand the same here.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Tell me, is the idea that stealing and murder are wrong solely part of the Judeo-Christian religion? Are you saying without the Ten Commandments we'd have no basis for any of our laws? There's a BIG difference between making laws based on moral ideals of what's right and wrong, and the Ten Commandments aren't the only source for that information. But that's not what you were talking about. You said, "What is wrong with imposing faith based restrictions on society," How do you intend to "impose" these "restrictions?" With laws? Laws based on your faith? There's a little document, maybe you've heard of it, call The Constitution, that forbids that. If you want to use the Old Testament of the Bible for your reference for laws, then there's a whole lot of new laws we need to start enforcing. Exodus 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death." I don't think many kids would survive. Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." I'm sure a lot of people will support this one. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Maybe they can make the Duke Lacross team marry their accuser? I wonder how loud you'd be screaming if faith based restrictions were actually imposed, only they were Islamic, or Buddhist, or *gasp* Pagan.

I get the point of your post but Please don't put quotes around statements that are NOT quotes; whether it is the Bible or anything else.

Deuteronomy:
"22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. "

Leviticus
"20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Exodus
"21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-01-2007).]

they are quotes.
king james is not the only version.

Toddster, why did you attribute the above quote to me?

He discussed the issue in more than one letter, as you know the actual phrase comes from his reply to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. That letter was not written off the cuff, he consulted others on his wording. And Jefferson wasn't the only one with the concerns, people wanting their religious beliefs favored are the ones that make the claim that the wall of separation is based solely on that one letter. The phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" just states the concept simply and eloquently.

The letter was written a full decade after the Bill of Rights, so he'd had some time to dwell on the matter.

Here is a Jewish perspective from the time involving Madison and Jefferson for anyone interested. They were NOT out to make this a "Christian" nation because that was the majority, that was exactly what was to be watched out for as explained here.

"Our laws have applied the only antidote to [religious intolerance], protecting our religious, as they do our civil, rights by putting all on equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-fé.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/loc/madison.html

Besides the "wall of separation" letter...

“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
--Letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
--Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
--Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781 – 1785

Some might like this bit of light reading http://www.law2.byu.edu/wfpc/New%20Page/Forum/2002/Holland.pdf

Strangely enough it's the only reference on the internet I could find of Jefferson quoting Bolingbroke into his "Literary Bible"

"It is not true that Christ revealed an entire body of ethics, proved to be the law of nature from principles of reason, and reaching all the duties of life.... Were all the precepts of this kind, that are scattered about in the whole of the new testament, collected, like the short sentences of ancient sages in the memorials we have of them, and put together in the very words of the sacred writers, they would compose a very short as well as unconnected system of ethics. A system thus collected of the writings of Tully, of Seneca, pf Epictetus, and others, would be more full, more entire, more coherent, and more clearly deduced from unquestionable principles of knowledge."

His viewpoint had changed some by the time he wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" otherwise known as "The Jefferson Bible". Worth a read and it's back in print, just don't be surprised when you find all the miracles and Jesus as god gone.

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 01-01-2007).]

I would like to ask...
SINCE WHEN IS THE CHRISTMAS TREE A CHRISTIAN SYMBOL!!!!!!

Im no bible scholar but im pretty sure the tree has NOTHING to do with Christian (real) Christmas
its just a product of commercial (modern) christmas.

quote Originally posted by 4-mulaGT: I would like to ask... SINCE WHEN IS THE CHRISTMAS TREE A CHRISTIAN SYMBOL!!!!!! Im no bible scholar but im pretty sure the tree has NOTHING to do with Christian (real) Christmas its just a product of commercial (modern) christmas.

I am often dismayed at the attitude some have toward Christmas. For example, Jewish and non-Christian folks saying they can't/won't enjoy Christmas because it's a "Christian holiday". There are actually two Christmases...

1. The Christian holiday. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, birth of the savior, religious songs, and so on.

2. The secular holiday. Santa Claus, Xmas trees, reindeer, mistletoe, decorations, presents, and so on.

Neither really has anything to do with the other, except that some folks have tried to cram them together. If you are Jewish or non-religious, I'd encourage those folks to enjoy the latter definition, the nice mid-winter party, and don't worry about the religious side of which you need not feel obligated to participate.