Just so everyone knows, I apologize to the level I went when I wrote that last response.  Don’t worry, Jeremy, I only used that example to prove the point that total Anarchy is a TOTAL overshoot of what I’d expect from a fall from religion.  The fact that he used total Anarchy as a result of this “behavior” made me so mad I just had to illustrate that kind of result.  I could use myself as an example, and I did.  Just don’t call the FBI

And to nowiser: I suppose that’s what he could have meant, but in all honesty I was using the intent of those people to clarify what they meant in the Bill of Rights, because that’s what I truly believe will uphold the rights of ALL Americans.  Most of those who are using the intent of these people are those who are abusing it, such as those who want prayer in public schools and those who want to say that this country was founded on Christian principles.  But, yes, I would have to admit you could definitely be right on that one.

But I interpreted the analogy as a comparison between a religiously objective government and one that endorses slavery.  And I really don’t agree with that viewpoint, but, then again, he might not even have it.

Well, I guess I will have to apologize for my grammar. Unfortunately writing has never been my strong suite. Joshman3d I have never had an argument with you before so I am not the Pablo you think I am. I admit my analogy was not the best and my response was too quickly written and posted, but Nowiser was correct in my post’s intent. Just for the record here is my position. I hope this is more clearly written.  When I wrote “the law” I meant the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I in no way meant the Ten Commandments. I believe that whatever the founding fathers intended, in regards to the law, was written into the law. If they intended anything else it would be there. I do believe that they understood that there would be those who would want further clarification on these laws and under some circumstances would even appose them. They solved this problem, as Les has already mentioned, by creating the Supreme Court. If one is not sure what the laws mean or how they should be enforced then the Supreme Court judges are the guys you should be quoting. The Founding Fathers never said or wrote that if you had a problem with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights then look up their opinions on the matter.  They certainly didn’t write that into law. I believe they did this because a successful nation cannot live in the past. It is fine to look at their words for principles but not for the practical. None of them lived through the Civil War, WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, The Cold War, The Atomic age, Computer age, Global Terrorism, etc. Therefore how can one quote them on issues of foreign or domestic policy as well as religious and many other issues to provide solutions for the present world when none of their ideas or words were influenced by these moments in history? At that time they could not have foreseen or understood any of these situations fully and therefore do not provide any comment that have taken these issues into account. I should try and say this more simply in case my grammar and thought process is failing again. The Founding Fathers lived two hundred years ago. What the Hell do they know about how to solve problems in the modern world? They lived in an agriculturally based society and hadn’t even gone through the freaking industrial age let alone the twentieth century! Was the country founded on Christianity? Let’s say for the sake of argument sure, why not. Does that mean we should be founded on it today? That is for us here in the present to decide not them and that is what they wanted. That’s the whole point of our government and how it is set up. I would like to believe that they were wise enough to know that they didn’t have all the answers and none of them held ideas and practices that should be written in stone. I would also hope that they understood that in order for wrongs to be righted that the law should be written in principle but set up to be flexible.  I don’t know. Maybe I’m naive and they didn’t think any of that at all and the way they set up the government and how it has so successfully met these challenges is a complete accident. I have great respect for my history and the people involved who created it and who are also responsible for giving me the world I live in. I would right now like to thank them very much for that! I just won’t let them run it and I don’t think that is something they intended to do either directly or indirectly through some close minded idiots high-jacking their words! That is what I meant by “throw it all in the trash.”
As for my slave analogy, I admit it was not the best or not adequetly presented but here is at least the point I intended make, grammar willing. There are those who believe that because we were founded on Christianity and the Founding Fathers were Christians provides that religion a special exemption to the separation of church and state law. Specifically, because of those two circumstances it is okay to place Christian articles such as the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse even if it may create the impression that the government is endorsing that religion. This is because the United States was founded on Christianity and the Founding Fathers were Christians who endorsed the country as a Christian land. Further, it is not okay if it is an article of a non-Christian religion because this country was not founded on a non-Christian religion, nor were the “Fathers” non-Christian. I believe that this argument, if it were to be actually used to interpret law, could be easily expanded to a principle stating that an institution that was part of the country when it was founded and that has “Founding Father approval” would have a certain exemption from the Constitutional law that pertains to it.
Our country was founded on Black slavery and was supported by some of the founding fathers. I bring up “black” because like Christianity being a specific form of religion, it is the specific form of slavery that our country was “founded on” and was “Founding Father endorsed.” Many of them supported this form of slavery, if few in words than many by practice. Could I not make the same form of logical argument that is applied by Christians to keep the Ten Commandments in a courthouse to keep my own black slave? Of course slavery is evil and that is why I shouldn’t do it. My point wasn’t why I shouldn’t but why I can’t which is a big difference. The “civilized” world for most of its history has endorsed the practice of slavery and thought it was okay and in some circumstances “God Given.” This can also be said about state sponsored religion. Hell, in most cases there was no distinction between church and state. So don’t tell me how obvious the evil of slavery is when the separation of church and state certainly wasn’t so damn obvious. Therefore the logic of my analogy should not be attacked on whether it supports an “obvious” evil or how useless an attempt it would be to use this argument to acquire a black slave, though that would be true. It is even true that it is asking for far more than what the Christians want. My point was that when you use the “Ten Commandment’ argument in regards to slavery it’s invalidity becomes obvious. Secondly, if it were to be actually used to interpret law then what other possibilities would such a ruling have on the rest of our laws? Yes, you can interpret church and state you cannot do the same for slavery. But I am not attacking an argument about interpretation. The argument I am attacking is not trying to prove whether the first amendment allows A religious law article to be displayed in a courthouse but whether a specific religion, in this case Christianity, can do it because it is exempt from that law. If by using this argument one can make the point that “Christian” is exempt from “religion” in the first amendment than why couldn’t the same argument be made that “Black” is exempt from “slavery” in the eighth? The other possible point of their argument is, “that’s the way it was so that’s the way it should be.” Of course this argument would not be valid either. This type of decision-making, mentioned during my first point, was not the intention of the Founding Fathers or how the government was designed to work. The last point this argument could be making is “Fuck you I’m a Christian and I want things done the way I want them to be law or no law.” No need proving that wrong. For all of you Christians that are for the separation of church and state I hope that last comment did not insult you. That was not my intent. I hope this has made my position a little more clear.

I had a bad feeling when Jeremy started quoting me.

I think this does help to clarify your thinking on the issue, Pablo. I’m going to try address your main point on how arguing over what the Founder’s intended is moot.

You are, of course, quite correct that the Founding Fathers weren’t psychic and had no special knowledge of the future. Correct also that they did intend for the government and its laws to be adaptable as time passed and new situations they hadn’t considered presented themselves. There are rules within the Constitution itself on how it could be changed to adapt to the future and the amendment process has been used several times in the past to do just that. Sometimes with mixed results.

That said, the Founding Fathers had quite a bit of wisdom amongst them and quite a bit of foresight. One of the dangers they anticipated in a semi-democratic system is the possibility that the will of the majority expressed through elected representatives could enact laws that trampled on the individual rights of citizens and the Constitution proper didn’t outline what those rights were. Demand for a “Bill of Rights” was high and, in fact, was necessary to get all of the states to ratify the Constitution. Thomas Paine, if I recall my history correctly, was quite instrumental in bringing this about. Thus the first ten amendments to the Constitution, what we refer to as the Bill of Rights, were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified in order to help spell out just what rights individuals had that government could not infringe upon. These ten amendments got their name because they were considered of such importance by the people who enacted them.

Much like the Bible, however, the language of the time leaves some of the amendment’s true meaning a bit vague. As such it does become important to try and ascertain though the writings of the people involved just what their intent was when they wrote these amendments otherwise you’re left with multiple interpretations of what the amendment means and Christianity itself shows what happens when you get too many varying opinions on what a passage of text means with no way to ascertain from the guy who supposedly wrote the text what his intent was. A good part of how the Supreme Court makes determinations about the constitutionality of various laws is based on issues such as what the framers of the Constitution had intended to accomplish.

The problem with your comparison to slavery is the simple fact that the Constitution never said anything about the legality of slavery one way or the other until the addition of the thirteenth amendment which abolished it whereas the issue of separation of church and state is addressed right in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Les,

I can see your point, re: why it’s relevant what the founding fathers intended, and to a certain extent, I agree. 
That is to say, I think most of the people who claim that the Founding Fathers intended America to be a “Christian nation” are actually incorrect.  The fact that some of their supporting quotations actually appear to be fabrications only confirms in me my initial suspicions.
Pablo’s point-- and one which I have made myself, actually, so I have some investment in defending it-- is that, even IF people who argue that the Founding fathers intended America to be a Christian nation were RIGHT, that would not necessarily lead, inevitably, to a determination that we should structure our current laws around their intent. 
I’m somewhat fond of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and it should be pointed out that the BOR is a *minimal* guarantee of certain liberties.  It also says that just because certain rights aren’t listed in the BOR, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t also legally protected. 
So I concede that the Founders’ intent is important in the establishment clause debate, because their intent happens to be consistent with my own point of view.  If, however, they had established an official state religion, I’d be advocating an amendment.  Just as I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be reworked to clearly state that every private citizen is NOT entitled to stockpile RPGs.

Gee.  I sound so freakin’ wishy washy.  I’ll just abandon this here, now.

I admit that you have a valid point. I believe I was so extreme in my argument because I have on occasion made arguments on this site or the SEB forums and have never received a response critiquing my position. This has made the whole exercise pointless in my mind as I wrote them in order to strengthen my understanding of the issues through debate. It also became a little frustrating.

I agree that the Forefather’s intent is important as a guiding point but often their words have been misused and in some cases irrelevant. I have read from time to time their opinions on matters such as foreign policy being used as justification for the way a current decision should be made. Granted, they were not stupid and had wisdom on such affairs but their knowledge of such was still formed in the eighteenth century. As you have said, it is important to use the Founding Fathers words to guide the Supreme Court’s decisions because like the Bible the constitution is vague. But I feel that even if Jesus and the other writer’s of the Bible had extra speeches not in the Bible clarifying what they meant I am not sure that would have changed anything much. We could have a document that Jesus wrote (assuming it was verified), “When I mean love your enemy that is what I mean. Not just Christian enemies, all enemies. That means every single human on the planet who has lived and who will ever live.” Would that work? Not if I declared some people sub-human. That would be a good way to get around that statement. That was so easy I didn’t think how to defeat it until I was done writing it and it only took me about ten seconds to respond to it. So given time most any statment can be twisted.

I just believe that if allowed evil people will rise to the top and fuck people over no matter what ideals and words a people are founded on if given the power to do so. I believe I have a lot of history to back that up. So even though the Forefather’s intentions are a nice guide their words alone do not insure those intentions. What I believe has a strong influence on our rights being ensured is that the Forefathers declared that people have a right to liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness and then wrote laws that ensured that the government did not infringe on those rights. The Bible never declared anything close to this. It is because the people, not God, control their fate that insures these rights. If you are told what to do by a God then you serve. If a people are given rights then when those rights are infringed upon those people get pissed, even violent. Also, The Supreme Court and its justices have nothing to gain by the decisions they make. This cannot be said of many religious leaders that interpreted the Bible. I also believe that if the teachings of Jesus were set up in a system like ours those teachings would be more successful than they have been and if the Forefather’s words were set up in a religious system their intentions would fail. (However you want to interpret that.) So even though the justices do use these words as a guide to interpret law it is the system that assures their intent not the words themselves.

As for the slavery issue, let’s throw that away. It’s getting in the way of what I wanted to better understand. Here is what I would like to know from the people who believe that the Ten Commandments should be kept in a courthouse and the reasons for this are because we were founded on Christianity and the Forefathers were Christians. Does the fact that we were founded on Christianity and the Founding Fathers were Christians, if this can be proven, provide that religion a special exemption to the separation of church and state law? I’ll keep my question to just this as I have to go to work.

Sorry, that was a response to Les. I’ll remember to specify that next time.

What? “But that’s the whole point. No one, not one secularist - atheist, deist, liberal christian, constitutional scholar, etc. - no one that I know of has EVER made the claim that “Freedom from religion” means “I never want to hear, speak, or have anyone else speak about religion”. That’s simply a ridiculous red herring dreamed up by the would-be theocrats in our country.”

WRONG! That’s exactly why the ACLU should be ‘defunded’. If this wasn’t true then why did your three, supposedly “Christians” file their lawsuit? Why? Because they aren’t Christians at all.

Just because someone says they are, doesn’t mean they are. Soiunds like a great (satanistic) double speak from a bunch of low-life atheist non-beleivers.  It would make NO SENSE whatsoever for a ‘real’ Christian to say they feel like ‘outsiders’ because the 10 commandments are on public display.

You ATHEISTS prove your stupidity yet again. As I said before. You CANNOT, and WILL NOT EVER win against the superior logic, intellect and TRUTH of God.

What we DO like, is that you repeatedly prove us right. No pun intended.

Enjoy your time in hell.

Les has no authority to say what is and is not a ‘TRUE’ Christian. Since he is an atheist he cannot know anything about truth, even if it stared him in the face. Which it will one day, and which he will deny.

Because they aren’t Christians at all.

Well of course you would say that. If someone doesn’t think like you do, they don’t get to be in your club. I think this stuff is hitting a little too close to home and you’re pissed because it’s forcing you to think. That can’t be a pleasant experience for you.
Oh and “enjoy your time in hell” is exactly why someone like you could never be a child of God, even if there was one. You’re too mean spirited.

And why is it that people like you and Bill Blass (same person?) never have the courage to give your e-mail address. After all we aren’t the type to send you angry e-mail. That’s your style.

Because “Bill Blass” and “Who ?” are both the same person and that person is Robert Frey. You know, the guy who likes to claim he’s not a lying conman?

Apparently Robert feels the need to make “puppet” posts and doesn’t consider it to be deceptive. He also appears to be clueless that I track the IP address of people who post comments to my blog. Oops. Caught in the act of lying. Hardly what one would expect of a “TRUE” Christian.

Ooohh! Robert is so dang clever! Who would have dreamed that you could post anonymously on the intarweb?

He must be a hacker god, that super-smart and kewl Robert Frey!

(Don’t worry Robert - IP Addresses are tools of Satan, but your Jebus Armor™ will protect you from those nasty non-believers if you simply click your heels and say “There’s no place like home.")

Brent is correct, just did an nslookup for this site…
the first digit is 6,
add the 2nd and 7th to get 6,
add the 3rd and 4th digits to get 6,
conveniently ignore the rest and you end up with 666,
Les, you naughty :devil:

Oh yes, it hurts so much to be ridiculed by raving atheists. As if I don’t know that you most likely track IPs. Well isn’t that a surprise, oh the wizardry will never end. You are truly experts in your field. Too bad it’s all based on lies, misconceptions, ignorance, lack of vision etc. Your master is so cunning in fooling you, not I.

How do you think I found your original posts? Duh.

Worry? Why should I worry? I’m very secure in my faith and my place in this world, and beyond. You apparently are not, which is most likely why you must attack those who are. You just can’t stand the truth that there may be something more to life that you’re, and will continue to, missing out on.

“Jebus armor” ? Are you too Atheist to even type the word Jesus ? Or is that just your admission that you have trouble with grammar AND biblical concepts?

And since when is using a pseudonym tantamount to equivalence to a lying conman ? If that is true, then at least Les is a Hypocrite i.e. “StupidEvilBastard” @ yahoo. O Les, we’ve caught your ‘friend’ Brent calling you a lying conman now. It’s funny how this debate with atheists pans out. LOL.

Brent: Do you use IM, or ICQ or any other service wherein you do not use your full real name ? Oh of course not. You couldn’t be the master of what you accuse others of.

Brent: “Elevating Christianity above all other religions and philosophies is not only wrong, it’s also unconstitutional.”

Wrong. In whose eyes? Yours?

I’d like to see your proof of its unconstitutionality. You can’t prove it because it’s not unconstitutional. Opinions are just that, opinions. They can never be unconstitutional if we truly have a 1st that means something. And no Brent, ‘separation of church and state’ does NOT exist, anywhere in the 1st. And you guys still can’t/won’t, even after all these posts, show us where the 1st has any prohibition against anyone other than CONGRESS from making law on the subject. Oh darn, must have ‘accidentally’ forgotten about that one.

Did either of you ever bother to read the Alan Keyes bit I posted back several days ? Probably, and most likely ‘no comment’.

“There’s no place like home.” - Oh whatever will I do ? I am on this earth Brent, but not of it. Your quote is almost ironic, if it weren’t from a raving atheist. You see Brent, your statement means absolutely nothing to anyone. You see an atheist, who doesn’t believe in heaven or hell, lest he have to admit he believes in God, which, by extension would mean he had to admit to purposefully denying God’s existence, your statement would imply just the opposite. Where is “Home” Brent ? Is it heaven? Is it God’s kingdom ? Your stupidity is very amusing.

So to your statment: “Robert is so dang clever” and “that super-smart”, and “your Jebus Armor™ will protect you “
Yes I agree. And apparently my Jebus Armor (Try Armor of God) does work, which incenses you even more I’m sure. Again Brent, you guys just can’t win against superior firepower. But then again truth and Logic were never high on the Atheist’s list of virtues.

Brock: “I think this stuff is hitting a little too close to home and you’re pissed because it’s forcing you to think.”

Forcing us to think ? It’s doesn’t require any real thinking to destroy an atheists non-arguments. Pissed ? No, just giddy in the knowledge that we won’t have to worry about any of you infiltrating OUR camp.

Later

Isn’t Jebus Armor from some Gaming site? I think it defends against orcs, Mr Frey.
Oh and posting using one name, then a few minutes later using another sounds a bit shifty to me…

See? Told you he’d be back. People as mentally damaged as he is can’t stay away from any place he gets some attention whether the attention is positive or negative. What really cracks me up about him is he thinks he’s been “debating” us. Not only is he unclear on the concept of dishonesty, but also on the concept of what a debate is.

Oh c’mon. Frey wasn’t being deceptive.

Brock: “I think this stuff is hitting a little too close to home and you’re pissed because it’s forcing you to think.”

Forcing us to think ? It’s doesn’t require any real thinking to destroy an atheists non-arguments. Pissed ? No, just giddy in the knowledge that we won’t have to worry about any of you infiltrating OUR camp.

Sounds like Multiple Personality Disorder to me.

“Your master is so cunning in fooling you, not I.” - Frey.

LOL. No kidding.

And you still haven’t proved any of your libelous remarks. What complete fools.

Like I said before, if you feel you’ve been libeled then feel free to sue me. Otherwise you’re just whining now.

As for proving my remarks, well, all the proof anyone needs is right at your website. Let alone the fact that you’ve been caught lying right here on SEB. Between the two I couldn’t ask for more evidence. To top it all off you’ve done a wonderful job of revealing what a complete ass you are just in your responses so far. I may not know what a “true” Christian is, but I do know it ain’t you.

Hey Frey, just to let you know:

When you openly brag about how completely and utterly close-minded you are and present it as a strength, the rest of us are too busy contemplating your stupidity to actually formulate an interesting arguement. (smartass wink!)

We don’t WANT to infiltrate your camp.  Quite frankly, all the bonfires with everybody singin’ Kumbaya, holding bibles in mindless prayer while the world eventually eats itself alive with ignorance, don’t seem too inviting.  Especially with idiots like you to represent them.

Oh, and by the way pablo:

My deepest apologies.  No, seriously, I think I must have confused you with someone else.  But in all honesty, I really didn’t know what you were saying.  Sorry if I misunderstood.  Words laugh at me when I’m tired and angry, and I cannot help but retaliate by swinging a large stick at ‘em.  Durn words.

And on a happier note:  Frey, you suck.  Stay in your coccoon and stop yelling out at us if you don’t want to view things with an OPEN mind, or if you want to label us all as “raving Atheists” while your fundamentalist bullshit outwieghs any of MY arguments in their pig-headedness.

That’s cool, Joshman3d. I have to admit my first comment was more rambling than a coherent statement.