Hi Les.

I just want to take a second to introduce myself and comment on your view about separation of Church and State.  My comment is a little long so please visit me at http://www.seaofvapors.com to view it.

your going to hell you satinist but you asked for i dont condemb people, people condem people

I’m not a Satanist (proper spelling BTW). In order to be a Satanist you have to believe in Satan, which I don’t. Satan is an invention of the Christian religion just as Jesus and Moses and the rest of those fairy tales are. If I don’t believe in God and I don’t believe in Jesus or any of that stuff, then it should go without saying that I don’t believe in Satan.

You need to A) learn the difference between a Satanist and a Christian and an Atheist and B) you need to learn how to spell, capitalize, and punctuate. I find it very hard to worry about your opinion when you don’t even try to come across as a reasonably literate individual.

At the least you could be brave enough to leave your name, if nothing else. Good to see your faith gives you the confidence to stand up and be identified when you’re making incomprehensible statements. Thanks for sharing.

Good one Les. I am the same as you. When I say Im atheist people believe I am a Satanist. These people are being ignorent, But oh well there is only so much you can do to inform them.
              -Darkest Blessings-

I do not have a comment that has not already been made by you or which does not lie within the confines of this page or any other page you can find on the net.  I just felt the need to let you know that I too agree with you.

My guess is that he thinks you worship satin, which, while it may be odd to worship textiles, at least the priests would look terrific.

One can only presume he thinks that those who follow the teachings of Islam are also really fond of muslin.

Thanks for the laugh, Jr. That one made me smile.

I am sure this is nothing you have never heard before, but I believe it is worth repeating.

The term “seperation of church and state” has somehow changed meanings over the years. When the founders of this country wrote the constitution they actually formed the new nation on Christian principles. The 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights actually reads in part:

[hr]

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

[hr]

Note the key here is “an establishment of religion” The US Government, by law is prohibited to establish a national religion. The Constitution does not prohibit religion. Actually, the Constitution does not even prohibit the recognition of religion.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence itself contains religious language. In it you will read that the colonists were not seperating from the Crown for religious reasons, but because the King was abusing his authority over them.

The Mayflower Compact declares a strong allegiance to the king. As a matter of fact the author wrote,

[hr]

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia”

[hr]

Therefore, there is no historical foundation for the present day definition of “seperation of church and state.”

You’re right Mark, those are all arguments we’ve heard before and which we’ve addressed time and again here. Still, let’s see what we’ve got.

The term �seperation of church and state� has somehow changed meanings over the years. When the founders of this country wrote the constitution they actually formed the new nation on Christian principles.

This is a common claim yet no one provides any references to back this claim up. A close look at the writings of the Founding Fathers reveals that most of them, contrary to popular belief, were Deists and much of what they based the Constitution had nothing to do with Christian principles. Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were openly hostile to Christianity as a belief system and every attempt by the members that were Christian to insert language that was specifically Christian in nature (such as Jesus’ name) were struck down.

Still, if you feel you have evidence to the contrary we’d love to hear it. We hear the claim all the time, but the few people who do try to back it up invariably use quotations that are bogus or, at best, unconfirmed.

The 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights actually reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Note the key here is “an establishment of religion” The US Government, by law is prohibited to establish a national religion. The Constitution does not prohibit religion. Actually, the Constitution does not even prohibit the recognition of religion.

We’re pretty familiar with the First Amendment around here and what it says. No one is advocating that the Constitution prohibits religion nor the recognition of religion. That said, there is a big difference between recognizing religion and giving the appearance of endorsing one religious viewpoint over the others. The Supreme Court functioning as the final authority on what the Constitution means has established that the First Amendment requires the government to remain neutral in matters concerning religion. A Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or school is not remaining neutral, but provides the appearance that the government is promoting that religious viewpoint over all others.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence itself contains religious language. In it you will read that the colonists were not seperating from the Crown for religious reasons, but because the King was abusing his authority over them.

The fact that the U.S. Declaration of Independence contains some religious language is irrelevant as it is not a document of United States law being that it was written as a proclamation prior to the formation of the government and has no real bearing on legal matters.

The Mayflower Compact declares a strong allegiance to the king. As a matter of fact the author wrote,

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia”

That’s as may be, but it is also irrelevant. Not only was the Mayflower not the only vessel to ever arrive on this shore, but the Compact itself has no legal bearing on U.S. law as it was not written as part of the foundation of this country. All manner of people came to the New World for all manner of reasons including religious persecution.

Therefore, there is no historical foundation for the present day definition of “seperation of church and state.”

Except, of course, for the historical writings of Thomas Jefferson who tried to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment on a number of occasions with writings such as the following:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.—Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808).

Then there’s James Madison who said:

Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.—James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

And…

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.—James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

And…

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.—James Madison, 1819, Writings

And on Christianity in particular:

“The difficulty of reconciling the Xn [Christian] mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware N.J., &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.—James Madison, letter to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823

I suppose as long as you’re willing to overlook these and other historical writings, then I suppose your claim that there is no historical foundation could be considered correct…

I really love Atheists.  They make you realize how stupid and ignorant people can really be.  Atheists claim to believe in nothing.  But corect me if I’m wrong but you cannot believe in nothing can you? I mean once you believe in nothing doesn’t that automatically make it something?  That just goes to show how stupid and ignorant some people are.  I always think about how white supremasists think they are so much better than other people.  But if you were to read certain documents written by slave owners they woule mention how they knew the slaves they owned were smarter than them and that’s why they needed them. But that’s neither here nor there with my first subject.  I close by saying this.  Simply because a person is too stupid and ignorant to believe in God, Jesus, Satan, hell, or heaven;that can never and will never deny the fact that they do exist.  I simply say this.  If you truly belive that they do not exist; for your sake I hope you are right.  But I know that the second you fall into hell and are burnt alive for eternity you’ll know the truth.

Marcel,

I spend as much time every day “believing” in the nonexistence of God as you spend believing in the nonexistence of Mr. Smee from Peter Pan.

Got that?  I doubt it.

You mean to say Mr. Smee is not real? Or that he is real, but you can’t imagine him being real for Marcel? Or perhaps you are Mr. Smee in disguise? Wait, I got it, you think Mr Smee is really God!

Ahh, Geekmom, come now. You breath, you see spring coming, your daughter growing the stars in the practically infinite sky, and your mind never once wonders why or how? Hmmm.. how very dull.

David, I always marvel at the glories of our world.  But I’m perfectly content with the scientific explanation for how they came into being, and have no need to create a being behind them.

But it’s amazing how, when you don’t spend time thinking about God, he manages to vanish.  Just like Mr. Smee.  You probably didn’t even think about Mr. Smee until I mentioned him, right?  And I doubt you’ll be thinking about him tomorrow—and your life will be full and complete without him.  It really is just that simple.

How’s that threat of hell as a deterrent working for ya, Marcel? Are you a saint yet? Or have you already gotten word from your god that your name’s on the list to get into his club?

If I’m in an airplane at the time the world ends, can I avoid falling into hell?

How come when I read certain other documents and old laws they seem to say that slaves are property and akin in worth to animals?

I’m so glad you’re here. I’ve got so many questions for you!

You mean that if I don’t think about a character from a children’s story, that it would be analogous to ignoring God? Somehow, just somehow, I think there may be a slight flaw in your logic.

But I will give you that if you’ve turned away from God in no uncertain terms, he will leave you alone. Forever. I know of very few people (Les claims to be one) that have had a relationship with God, and prefer to no longer have one. To be honest, I doubt they had one to start. For most of those, I think there might have been some intellectual acceptance of the concept of God. But not an actual relationship. I remember well my life before salvation. There is a difference. A very pleasant difference.

You mean that if I don�t think about a character from a children�s story, that it would be analogous to ignoring God?

Yep, that’s exactly what I mean.  God is a character from a different story, just featured a lot more prominently than the poor, overlooked Mr. Smee.  I wouldn’t think about God any more than I do about Mr. Smee if references to him weren’t so pervasive in society.  If you had people talking earnestly to you about Mr. Smee every day, if you found a copy of Peter and Wendy in every hotel room, if half the people you met wore little cutlasses around their necks, you’d be reminded of Mr. Smee, but still wouldn’t feel motivated to give him any more thought.

David, you can only “turn away” from God if you posit that he exists to begin with.  Have you “turned away” from Mr. Smee?  Have you broken off your close personal relationship with Strawberry Shortcake?  How about Zeus?  Based on your logic, the list of characters who are actively “leaving you alone” must be staggering.

Marcel:
Atheists don’t believe there is no god. We have no belief there is a god. There is a difference. The word means “without theism”.

David:
Believing in fairy tales does not make them true. I, too, once believed - I received the standard baptist indoctrination as a child and around 10 years of age, or so, went up to the Pastor to be baptized. Then, as I grew up and read the Bible I realized what a load of bullshit it is. Wake up and use your mind!

Uh, who’s this Mr. Smee guy?  I mean, I wasn’t that interested until you said “cutlass.”  Then I thought of pirates, knee high boots, shirts with puffy sleeves and lacy cuffs, and,

erm .  .  . the wife told me to ask, really.  (Something to do with Orlando Bloom.)

Anyway, who’s this Smee dude?

I really love people like Marcel. They make you realize how stupid and ignorant people can really be. First they set up a straw man (atheists claim to believe in nothing) and then they go about knocking it down with a bit of spurious logic. That just goes to show how stupid and ignorant some people are.

Wow, amazing how effective their own words are against them.

But, there was never a time that I sought out the meaning of peter pan prior to hearing of peter pan. Certainly I never noticed it’s absence from my life prior to reading it, let alone Mr. Smee. And afterward I put it away and never thought on it again (well, not never, but quite seldom, and it was never smee that crossed my mind).

God, on the other hand is a different story. I recognized a lack of Him before I met him. I sought Him before I found Him. And after I read the Bible, I could not simply walk away.

I can understand that if your view is that the Bible is a fairytale, then you could treat it as I have Peter Pan. However, I’m not suggesting a particular creed, just the existence of God. And I see that pursuit, the pursuit of the nature of reality, a pressing issue in the existence of a self-aware being.

And I still await your response to your explanation of that nature. What makes good or evil?

Mr. Smee is Capt. Hook’s sidekick in Peter Pan.

nowiser, given the choice between Johnny “Captain Jack Sparrow” Depp and Mr. Smee, I would definitely worship Johnny any day of the week.  Yeowza!  Who knew that the Disney ride could grow up so well?

David:
  I would bet that if you were not incessantly exposed to this word “god” all your life you would not have “met” him or “found” him. Of course, you may have created him yourself if you didn’t understand the world around you and could not deal with that lack of knowledge. You have simply succumbed to the oldest scam on the planet.

PS. If you are truly a seeker of the nature of reality then surrender to the temptation of the supernatural explanation would be your last choice!

spocko, I assure you that you’re busy labeling me. Sorry, I don’t pigeon hole so easily. I probably read more philosophy at 14, than you did in college. I seek truth, and all truth is God’s truth. It’s my experience that people that cannot trust anything but what they can put their hands on believe as you believe. Those who can open their minds to the infinite, embrace it. It’s not an intellegence thing, or a talent thing, I’m not saying those that cannot know God are lacking. Indeed, I believe everyone can know God. But I wouldn’t go around bragging that I was limited to believing in the natural, if I were you.

And I’m down with Geekmom on the comparitive characters. Capt. Jack is way more sleek as a pirate than ol’ Mr. Smee.

I probably read more philosophy at 14, than you did in college.

No, he’s not arrogant. He’s not boastful. He’s not any of those things we keep accusing him of unfairly! What was it they said about ASSumptions?

But I wouldn�t go around bragging that I was limited to believing in the natural, if I were you.

No, you’d go around bragging about being more philosophically studied at 14 then he was in college. Touche!

And that may be, but it seems you would have been better served studying up on Evolution, physics, biology and several of the other sciences you keep making clueless statements about while trumpeting how “obvious” your conclusions supposedly are.