I wrote 20 different responses to this, I deleted them all as nothing fully conveyed my point. All I care to say is this is crap! I think it is best summed up with GOD HAS NO ROLE IN GOVERNMENT! Just like God has no role in UNC winning the NCAA championship! Make an argument that doesn't involve a Christian God or a Christian Value. This is NOT a country of Christians, rather a country of people who recognize that we are the best, we offer the best opportunity, and we don't dictate what faith you must have! I hate to break it to you but this land was founded by a people who aren't Christians!

It is indisputable that America has a Christian heritage, and yes, many of the founders did hold personal opinions indicated by the quotes the writer points out. However, the writer is missing the larger picture.

While a great many of the founders were Christians, they thoroughly understood the importance of keeping government and religion separate. They considered this separation so important, in fact, that they made it the very first point in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

While John Jay may have held the opinion that Americans should select Christian leaders, the consensus among all of the founders was that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution) They considered the prohibition of religious tests so important that they included this in the original, pre-amended body of the Supreme Law of Land.

Note that the writer of this letter does not quote any laws but simply personal opinions held by a few of the founders and some ornamental effects. He can't quote the Constitution for evidence that we're a "Christian nation" because there's simply nothing there to indicate that.

His points about Bible verses on federal buildings and the Ten Commandments are meaningless. He seems to be indicating thus:

-Bible verses are on federal buildings
-Therefore, we are a Christian nation

According to this logic, if tomorrow they removed all references to Christianity and applied Islamic verses, then we would suddenly be an Islamic nation. The mere presence of writing on a wall someplace does not make us a theocracy.

Again, we are in fact largely a Christian nation in culture, but we are not one in law, because we are a nation which believes in freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

The writer's final point is quite absurd and useless. He states that we shouldn't allow other religious texts in the courtroom because other countries do not allow the Bible. If this is truly his reason for wanting to prohibit other religious texts, then it must be the case that he would approve of other religious texts if only other countries would allow the Bible. Of course, we know he doesn't mean that, which is what makes this statement so absurd.

Besides that fallacy, he fails to realize that what goes on in courtrooms in other countries has absolutely no bearing on what should go on in ours.

There's only one solution to this question which will be fair to everyone: remove all religious texts from the courtroom.

Point 1. The Supreme Court building was finished in 1935. It's not directly connected in any way to the founders.

2. Without knowing exactly which ones you are writing about I'll say that this is the same as point 1: these monuments came well after the founders and can't be directly connected to their will.

3. One statement by one founder, (and not a primary one at that, though he did inspire the writing of the bill of rights, God bless him)does not an argument make.

4. See point 3.

As a Christian, I feel blessed to live in a land where I can freely worship. Many folks aren't given that. I don't feel threatened in the least by efforts to limit the promotion of Christianity by government officials in their official roles. That's not their job. Limiting government promotions of Christianity actually helps nurture the environment of religious tolerance that protects my ability to worship as I wish.

If called to testify in a court of law I will happily swear on a Bible or no book at all, but not a Koran or the book of any other faith. I would not ask folks of other faiths to swear on a bible.

What additional meaning could that act provide except as an sign of disrespect to his religious beliefs?

This is like the flag admendment issue. A political effort to energize the Christian right more than an effort to attack a serious problem.

I really wish Mr. Cronham would read the US Constitution, instead of the propaganda pumped out by the Religious Right-wing. In it, he would find that the oath for the presidency does NOT include the words "so help me God." He would also find that this document specifically states that there shall be NO religious test for holding any office in the country.

After a little more thought, it would be most interesting to ask him what he thinks about the flat-out contradiction between the First Commandment and the First Amendment.

Read the rumor control for yourself here at truth or fiction:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/religious-depictions.htm

Methinks the writer, especially, or the editors might have tried to document the quotation first.

It is so sad to see people in the 21st century still trying to propagate this indifference. What the founding fathers of this country were seeking was a place where any AND all could worship his/her god without governmental interferrence. They belielved, whatever their own personal convictions, that every person should have this freedom and that the government had no right to intervene into the personal religious life of the people.

I tink you Christians gotta lotta tings wrong wif yourself. Ya go out durin' da crusades and ya go over to da Middle East and ya claim dat ya have ta look fer da Grail and den ya go an' murder a bunch of dem folks lookin' fer dat silly cup. Den ya go and split all up over da indulgences and de divorces of yer kings. Den ya got ta go and a start a persecutin' one anuder so ya hafta leave Europe. Den ya come 'ere and ya start a burnin' one anuder 'cause ya tinkin' ya all witches. At de same time ya be agoin' ta Africa an' enslavin' da peoples ta work fer ya 'ere 'cause ya can't do no real work. After dat ya goes to da west an' starts a killin' de native people a callin' it de manifest destiny. Ya do all dat an' let dose peoples wit da hoods claimin' ta be christians ta come an' take people out dey house an' burn de cross an' do de lynchin'. Even t'day ya walks around accusin' ya brudders of wrongdoin' and cursin' dem to hell when dat is God's job. Now I sees why de people who started dis here nation decided dat der shouldn't be one religion 'cause you christians is evil ta one anuder and to everyone else who isn't one of you. I'm glad I'm part of a religion dat loves one anuder an' accepts the power of Jah in our daily lives. Ya christians ought ta practice what ya Christ preached to ya and stop tinkin' ya so superior to da rest of us.

Jah Rastafari!!

So, here's my question: If a Muslim takes an oath on the Bible -- a book he or she believes to have been corrupted and perverted over the centuries by its caretakers -- how much weight do you think that oath really carries for them? Why do we feel it necessary to swear an oath, anyway? It's illegal to purjure yourself. Do we take an oath not to murder, steal, or otherwise break the law? Just drop it. Have the judge instruct witnesses that their testimonies must be forthright and truthful, else they'll find themselves sitting at the defense table the next time they're in court.

Thank God for our Christian government!

Misquotes and innacuracies abound in this unoriginal letter. I thought the N&R was checking that letters are the writer's original thoughts and not regurgitated astroturf.

Since this letter contains factual errors (independent of the author's opinion), the N&R should publish a correction. Yes?

Mr. Roch, facts are never an issue with a newspaper.
The N&R only "redacts" the blogs after they've hit the archives, in order to maintain the frenzy of this pet project of theirs, and to protect themselves when someone does research later.

Who represents The Ideal American? Jerry Falwell? Billy Graham? Sun Myung Moon? The Bhagwan?
I'd say that Walt Whitman pointed the way to The Ideal American, which, I believe, to be ever-evolving.

It has been said that Whitman didn't read books. He read libraries. Today it would be internets. But he also read people, nature, the Spirit...the whole of reality. He bravely explored the whole of existence, then turned his observations into beauty, thus added to the better side of the ledger. This is an exportable American virtue.

Some people, on the other hand, explore only a small portion of existence, but then want to tell how the whole of existence should behave...based on this decidedly limited knowledge. A person who has read the Bible AND the Koran AND the Bhagavad-Gita AND The Sutras, AND the Vedas and the great books of Taoism, Buddhism and so forth...have the upper hand with someone who has only read The Bible. Sorry, but it's true. Even if the ignorant begin hyperventilating and swinging their fists.

There is beauty, art, philosophy, morality, truth, and wisdom in more books than just the Bible, and it is not an either-or game.

If someone wants to limit your knowledge, they are really wanting to limit, or control, you in other ways as well. I would even bet some money is involved.

Just say "no" to limits on your knowledge, and indeed, faith. Fling open the gates of your mind and heart.
The dark sides of Religion have been mined thoroughly enough, thank you. Be as mistletoe, living off the uppermost branches of many different trees. Monoculture breeds disease.

- anonymoses dave beckwith (charlotte, nc)

Actually, I believe that "Letters to Editor" are more like Op/Ed. While the truth of the matter may be wrong, the perspective is still there. It's not the newspaper's place to reinform the citizen on the facts. It is however the newspaper's place to fact-check their own publishings (and publish corrections). I could be wrong, but that's the way that I've always looked at it.

Charles,
WOW!

It's funny how Christians are so afraid of change. You spouting out crap like this won't change the fact that America is getting more liberal year after year.

Mr.Cronham is right. The founders did design a christan nation. But they were tolerant of all religions. However this evolved over time(especially in the 60's) to "no religion in government". And anyone who sees no wrong with the ten commandments being displayed on the steps of a courthouse is quickly shot down by liberals as "the government mandating christianity" as the official religion. As other imigrants entered the country bringing their faith with them,they were(are) welcome to do so,but does this mean christians have to abandon theirs? I would argue not.

And here we go again. Full circle. Jon, please explain how making the government indifferent to religion forces any Christian to abandon their religion. Where, for instance, does the Christian religion mandate swearing on a Bible in order to testify truthfully? Where is it stated that a Christian judge has to have a copy of the 10 commandments plastered on every square inch of court property? When did it become a fundamental principle of the Christian religion that one MUST have "In God We Trust" on every piece of metal and paper money made by the government? What about the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance... is that central to your Christianity?

Would removing ANY of these things be the same as "forcing" any Christian ANYWHERE to abandon their religion?

Ben wrote: "It's not the newspaper's place to reinform the citizen on the facts."

Boy, Ben, that's setting the bar pretty low.

Beautiful response, David K. Beckwith.

This kind of letter, it has only one real motivation behind it: to badger and bully those that are not of the same mindset as the writer. And as a Christian myself, I find this to be entirely counter to what it is that Christ has called us to be in this world.

God doesn't *care* about America, not really. This nation in the greater scheme of eternity means nothing! Neither is God a Democrat or Republican, or anything else... those are completely meaningless concepts to Him. He does care about individuals. THAT is who we as Christians are called to minister to, and NOT unto nations solely for the sake of nations.

If only this kind of passion were channeled into living a life that honors Christ, instead of boasting a life that pummels Christ onto others. That's not the spirit we are called to have. That's NOTHING like what Christ preached unto us at all.

And this kind of factionalized thinking is of the very same spirit that gave rise to the Nazis in Germany, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's not needed in the body of Christ. And we shouldn't use His name as a convenient tool with which to harass our fellow man simply because said fellow man is a little bit "different" than we are. Does that make me a "tolerant liberal" that sees all viewpoints as equal? Hell no! But as a Christian I'd rather it be Christ that others see in me, and not "my" interpretation of what Christ must and must not be. He's immutable... we ain't!

Eric said: "Would removing ANY of these things be the same as "forcing" any Christian ANYWHERE to abandon their religion?"

I would say not but then Eric would leaving these things force anyone anywhere to become Christian?

Brian said: "You spouting out crap like this won't change the fact that America is getting more liberal year after year."

What do you base this statement on Brian. As far as I can see liberals lost more seats in Congress, they put up one of the most liberal canidates for President and well he didn't get elected. One of the most liberal states,Oregon banned same-sex marriage. So what fact are you basing your information on?

By the time all these GOD haters get done with it this country may not mean much but the BIBLE say blessed is the nation whose GOD is the LORD. How much longer that will be for this country only GOD knowes. I had rather believe the words of a book inspired by a living GOD than a book by a dead fake.

Ben, your standards are too low. The paper should fact-check its op-ed pieces as well as its letters. Publishing falsehoods is not excused because the writer is not an employee. This has come up with Davenport Jr. and is a real threat to the paper's credibility IMHO.

Trish,

No, having Bible verses on a wall would not force anyone to be a Christian. There would be nothing wrong with quoting the Bible on government property as long as the intent is simply to reflect history or heritage. Unfortunately, too often the intent is to say, "We are a Christian nation," and to turn us into a theocracy, which is an obvious violation of the establishment clause.

MRK,

Who in this entire post ever said that they hate God?

Mrk,

What God haters? I as a Christian also believe that separation of Church and state is a good idea. Does that make me a God hater? I'm sad to say it but some of the ones that seem most hateful are the ones that purport to represent Christ. There is something wrong there.

Not spending taxpayers money to promote religion is not oppression. Spending taxpayer money to promote someone elses religion is oppression. Try to see things from the other guys point of view. Ask yourselves WWJD. The change that Jesus asks of us isn't worn on around our necks or displayed in our courthouses. It's in our hearts. If you want to make America a more Christian nation then act more Christian.

Paul said: "Unfortunately, too often the intent is to say, "We are a Christian nation," and to turn us into a theocracy"

When and where has this ever happened? I have never heard of any county, city, state or the federal government try to turn us into a theocracy. I have seen no proof where any body of government in the USA has stated we are a Christian nation and no other religions are allowed nor have I heard of one person being imprisioned for practing a different religion. Do you have proof that maybe I missed. Or could be just your interpertation of someone's intent? Also let me ask you, in your opinion, where does tolerance fit into all of this?

Trish,

I never said that the government has prohibited anyone from practicing their religion or that anyone has been imprisoned for doing so. I simply said that there are people who wish to turn us into a theocracy by passing laws promoting religion, conserving laws that already do that, and having the courts interpret the law based on religion rather than American law.

If the courts say that only the Bible may be used for oaths, then they are obviously favoring one religion over another.

Roy Moore said he was placing the Ten Commandments in that courthouse to "acknowledge God." That's an obvious endorsement of religion, which the government has no business doing.

Public schools are trying to start teaching religious doctrine, while others already are.

The federal government has begun faith-based initiatives, which will certainly end up amounting to taxpayer-funded proselytization.

Our state Constitution says that no person who denies the existence of God may hold public office. They don't enforce that, but it's telling that the clause is there.

Just a few examples off the top of my head of how many in this nation wish for us to be a theocracy.

Eric,making government indifferent to religion does not force christians to abandon their religion.That is not what I said. I said "anyone who see's no wrong in the ten commandments being displayed on the steps of a courthouse are quickly shot down by liberals as the government mandating christianity as the offical religion".
If you are going to throw back my words at me at least quote me accurately.Don't put words in my mouth.
You try to ridicule everyone here that dosen't agree with your liberal points of view. As for the pledge of allegiance, you guys have pretty well gotten that one removed from the public school system all togather. Now you are trying to get the word "God" removed from all public venues as well. Has anyone noticed that about the time the left began to attack christianity,the pledge of allegiance,and people of faith in general,that is about the time our soceity began to suffer ills like never before:Crime rates on the rise, drug use rampant, a public school system that turns out graduates that cannot name the current president,let alone the first. I am not a very religious person, but I have been in life threathing situations before and have seen many other people in the same situation.Guess who they call out to for help when the chips are REALLY down? And I mean REALLY DOWN? Yep,you guessed it.

Two touchy subjects: Politics and Religion

Put em together and you have a strong possibility of nuclear war. Gotta bring on Armageddon, you know.

RE: Newspapers and Letters to the Editor -- I think the newspaper prints letters to the editor to present a cross-section of public opinion, and I don't think they make any claim as to the veracity of anything the writer states. The letters are printed to make readers aware of their fellows' opinions -- and what information they're basing those opinions on, be it right or wrong.

Amen Chuck.....glad you said what we need to hear.

Paul,

"there are people who wish to turn us into a theocracy by passing laws promoting religion",

The Preamble to our Constitution states: "We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution."

This has been in our State Constitution since 1776 and yet the state of North Carolina has not turned into a theocracy, why? Why do you feel that after 229 years that all of a sudden it is going to?

Courts: Or it could just mean that that is the way it has always been done. For the people who don't believe in the Bible how does it harm them? Where is it saying that they have to become Christian?

Roy Moore: Again that would be your interpretation of it. I do not see Roy Moore as the "government" of Alabama. I do not see where this in any way shape or form is someone trying to: "govern a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided" the definition of a theocracy. Nor do I see where Judge Moore or the state of Alabama is saying anyone has to become Christian.

Public schools: Yes and public schools are also allowing Islam to be taught. Students participate in role-playing that requires students to pick Muslim names, recite Muslim sacred words and imitate their prayer practices. (as a side note, in saying the prayer, whether the speaker understands what he is saying or not, one is considered to have converted to Islam if he confesses a belief in Allah and this conversion is considered irrevocable.) I do not see this as the state setting up Islam as the state religion. Do you? Our universities have classes in theology. Do we need to do away with those as well? Is that the state endorsing a religion?

faith-based initiatives: I think if someone were in need they wouldn't care where the help was coming from. As an example the Salvation Army is helping with hurricane relief in FL, is Florida now endorsing a state religion? Faith based programs help the needy more then government run bureaucracies. Most faith based programs, unlike The United Way and the Red Cross, have lower overhead cost because they are not paying their employees outrageous salaries. Again if the people do not want help from a faith based organization, nobody is requiring them to accept that help.
I would rather my tax dollars go to faith based programs then say to the civil rights museum or to Guildford Country to hire a person to help minority business fill out government contracts. Is this not the local government endorsing one race/gender over another?

Our state Constitution: If you don't like this part of the Constitution, then you are free to get your fellow citizens to agree and change it. Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other. Tolerance. It is no big deal to me why is it to you? What I find ironic is the same people who which to yank down the Ten Commandments are the same become that lecture about tolerance. "Let the gays marry, how is it going to harm you". So I ask, how does a war memorial of a cross, sitting on city land, harm you? How does a monument of the Ten Commandments sitting at the Grand Canyon harm you? Both of these monuments have been there for over 50 years, and yet this country still has not turned into a "theocracy". Why if you let them remain do you feel that all of a sudden it will?

"how many in this nation wish for us to be a theocracy."

No what they want is to be allowed to have Boy Scout meetings on a military base, the Salvation Army to get a little of our tax dollars to do more good then the United Way to squander it on employees instead of those in need. What they want is monuments that have been a part of this nations history to be allowed to stay where they have for 50 plus years instead of being torn down because some people have no tolerance for the history of this country.

Trish,

I think you completely missed all of my points, and I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think.

I said that I don't disagree with having religious inscriptions and whatnot on government buildings as long as the intent is merely to reflect history and/or heritage rather than to establish a religion and as long as they do not make it a policy to allow the emblems/inscriptions of only one religion.

"So I ask, how does a war memorial of a cross, sitting on city land, harm you?"

It doesn't, and the mere presence of such things on government land doesn't bother me. What would bother me would be a case in which a Christian symbol is on government land and then they prohibit an emblem of some other religion. Or to allow a Bible to be used in a courtroom but prohibit a Koran. That's clear discrimination against Muslims and a biased endorsement of Christianity, and such things should not be allowed in a free society.

But what we would be a better solution than allowing the scriptures of all religions in the courtroom would be simply to disregard all scriptures in the first place. Then there would never be reason for any conflict in the first place. It's such a simple concept.

As for public schools, of course I don't object to teaching students about religion. In fact, I encourage the practice. Naturally, religion is a critical component of virtually every culture in the world, and therefore it is only right that students should be taught about religion.
I'm simply criticizing having religion taught as fact, as what students must believe.

As for faith-based initiatives, first and foremost, they're are unconstitutional. Read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That's the section that lists the specific powers which have been granted to Congress. If you can show me where Congress has been granted the power to steal our money and give it to charitable organizations (regardless of whether they're faith-based or not), I'll eat my words.

I can't prove that faith-based organizations will proselytize with their federal funds, so I'll say no more about that, but I can prove that Congress has no power to give our money to any charitable organization.

And I don't care if the Boy Scouts meet on a military base as long as their activities don't cost the taxpayers any money.

"I would rather my tax dollars go to faith based programs then say to the civil rights museum or to Guildford Country to hire a person to help minority business fill out government contracts. Is this not the local government endorsing one race/gender over another?"

Heh, you're confusing me with a liberal, Trish. ;-) I don't support our tax dollars going to any of the things you mention above. And yes, you're right that the government is engaging in discrimination if it actually has a program which exclusively helps minorities fill out paperwork.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Yes!!! Keep up the fighting!!!! Keep postulating!!! Keep yourselves busy with trivial nonsense like this!!!! Waste your time and ignore bigger issues!!!! Let your state legislature spend its precicous time arguing over the state dance!!! Let your Senate and House come to a standstill over changing the name of food to Freedom Fries!!!! Yes, keep this up!!!! You are only making way for me!!!!! You are a bunch of sheep and are so easily led astray by non-issues!!!!! If you spent your energy actually doing something instead of ranting here, I wouldn't be able to rule in this domain!!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Jon, you asked me to quote you accurately, and I apologize if I missed your intent:

"And anyone who sees no wrong with the ten commandments being displayed on the steps of a courthouse is quickly shot down by liberals as "the government mandating christianity" as the official religion. As other imigrants entered the country bringing their faith with them,they were(are) welcome to do so,but does this mean christians have to abandon theirs?"

Please explain how you mean this comment about Christians having to abandon their religion. I thought I understood what you said and responded to that understanding; if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

"You try to ridicule everyone here that dosen't agree with your liberal points of view. "

I'm getting a little tired of this accusation. I was not trying to ridicule your view, I was instead trying to get you and others to think things through a little differently. I honestly don't think that disagreeing with you equates to ridicule. If I decide to go into ridiculing mode, I'll be sure an make it clear to everyone.

"As for the pledge of allegiance, you guys have pretty well gotten that one removed from the public school system all togather. Now you are trying to get the word "God" removed from all public venues as well."

Okay, please explain to me how the pledge of allegiance has been "removed." The last I heard, it was required. And if you could tell me of anyone who has tried to get the word "God" removed from any public venue, I'd be most interested to hear it. What does this mean, anyway? What is a "public venue" in your opinion? I thought that public venues were, like, bill boards, TV and radio, or print media. Aren't all those soaked in enough Godly messages for your liking? Has anyone to your knowledge tried to silence messages about God in any of them?

These are serious questions, not meant as "ridicule." And I'd really like to discuss them... if you don't mind talking about such things publicly.

The issue/problem is that at the time of the founding of our country there were only two religious persuasions that could even be thought of to have an effect on anyone. Judaism and Christian based faith.

The Constitution specifies that the Federal government shall not "establish" a religion. Establish a religion simply meant that the Federal Government cannot designate one religion as being the the primary religion of the country. There are countries, Norway for example, that have a State religion. In Norway's case it is Lutheran. You pay taxes and your taxes support the Lutheran Church. The clergy are government employees. If you are a Jew, your taxes still go to the Lutherans, like it or not.

Our courts have allowed law to stray so far from the intent of the founders that this issue boils continually. Had they just left the law alone and let the states deal with things as was intended, there would not be a discussion.

If you look to France you will see that the population of Muslims is around 20% these days. That is sufficient numbers for the Muslims to take over the government. All they have to do is get out and vote. In the US a voting population of 20% could control the outcome of any election. When the Muslims take over France and that becomes the national religion of the country, perhaps people will wake up and see what is going on world wide.

And yes, I ramble and stray from the original letter.

What is it about the south that breeds so many religious fanatics who live is their own little weird twisted worlds? I can remember when the chrisian churches of nc barred their doors rather than permit a black person to worship with them. I guess this is how jesus wanted us to live in the 50's and 60's huh? And I guess in the name of jesus they can do whatever they want....scary. Our country was founded on religion? Another illusion. Go stick your head in your book of fairy tales and stop destroying our country

Eric, the pledge of allegiance is not required in public schools any longer. My son tells me that he hasn't said the pledge sinc e he was in the 6th grade. He is now a Jr. And your remarks about "in God we trust" on every piece of money we print. What is wrong with that? Do you want to exorcise the word"God" from our currency to satisfy a few who do not believe in God? I will tell you my friend, they are in the minority. As I said, I am not really a very religious person,but I have no problem with those who are.
Appoligies for accusing you falsely of trying to ridicule if that was not your intent.

Tony,

You said:
"Our country was founded on religion? Another illusion."

Our country was indeed founded on religion. The freedom of, to be exact. While our founding fathers were Christian, they understood the need for freedom of religion as a staple to American life. It doesn't matter what your religion is, or even if you have no religion.

But as a nation, we need to understand, that it is not a Christian's right to decide what is right and wrong for all people. Everyone has his or her own belief. It is up to that person to determine right and wrong.

As a people, we have used the Christian religion in assisting with develloping our laws. Many non Christian country's have laws that are very similar to ours. It is ok to accept differences. I don't think that Abdul worshipping Allah, or Mr. Rosenberg believing that Jesus has not yet walked this earth are any more right or wrong than I am as a Christian. God lives in our hearts.

One can have his or her belief and feel free with it. God is in many forms. Allah, Buddah, whatever. Live your life the best you can...and be happy. That is what God (et. al.) wants!

Jon said:

"Eric, the pledge of allegiance is not required in public schools any longer. My son tells me that he hasn't said the pledge since he was in the 6th grade. He is now a Jr."

Hm. Interesting. I didn't know that. That's for the best, in my opinion, but not for the religion issue, so much as freedom of thought. Another time perhaps...

"And your remarks about "in God we trust" on every piece of money we print. What is wrong with that? Do you want to exorcise the word"God" from our currency to satisfy a few who do not believe in God?"

I view the motto as a government endorsement of religion... in particular, the religion (or perhaps a subset of religions) that uses "God" as a proper name. I believe that violates the basic ground rule spelled out in the first amendment. That's the only objection I have. It's not a matter of satisfying the few of us who don't believe in God, the other few who prefer to believe in Allah, and that other few who believe in a multiplicity of gods.

"I will tell you my friend, they are in the minority."

Everyone's a minority in some sense or other. But that's what is so nice about our Constitution, isn't it? The rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority, when it's needed.

"Appoligies for accusing you falsely of trying to ridicule if that was not your intent."

Thanks. I'll do my best to check on my tone when I post in the future, to avoid giving a false impression. These venues are limited in their scope and it's easy to make invalid assumptions all the time.

Paul,

Discrimination: Let me ask you how do you feel about having our road signs in all 500 plus languages? Isn't that our government endorsing one language over another? Believe it or not I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. Our country was founded with Christian principals in mind. Heck that is basically the reason people fled Europe because of religion. That is part of our history and cultural.Yes everyone has the right to practice their own religion but the fact remains that the US was formed by a bunch of radical Christians.

Schools: Do you have kids in our local schools? Not being smart just wondering. I do and I can tell you religion is not taught. Although my daughter is being taught that communism is a wonderful thing, among other things. To be honest with you I want all morals and values to be taught at home. I am tired of this stuff being shoved down my kids throat when the child can't even read.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Of course there isn't and neither is there any power granted to Congress to steal our tax money and give it away in welfare, social security and Medicaid/Medicare or pork projects. I mean really what benefit to North Carolinians is there with the Big Dig in Boston or the Lightrail in AZ?

Heh, you're confusing me with a liberal: No I am just saying that our tax dollars go to a lot of wasteful pork on the local, state and federal level and you know what, it will never stop. So to me if some of my tax dollars gets into the hands of an organization that helps the poor or needy instead of providing Ted Kennedy with more for the Big Dig or Skip Alston for the civil rights museum then I am all for it.

Minority contracts: As a side note: Guildford County board of Commissioners (or should I say the Democrat Commissioners) approved this position, pay starts around $65,000 - $75,000 a year (I can't remember the exact figure but I think the above figure is close, that does not include the benefits.) "According to a March 17 memo from Best to the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, one of the goals of the Guilford County Purchasing Department is to create a position "that would work exclusively with Minority Businesses within Guilford County."
The memo goes on to say, "The unit would start out with one (1) new employee who could track minority responses to bid openings, [and] evaluate reasons for bids that receive little or no minority responses."
"The City of Greensboro currently has four employees devoted to a similar effort regarding its contracts. That department has a budget of around $275,000 a year"
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/archives/040104/story10.html
My point tax dollars go to government projects that discriminate against one group of people all the time, I for one cannot complain about money going to a faith-based organization. I would rather it go there then to some bloated pork project.

why ya'll all arguing about what the founding fathers thought way back when. has any of you been in contact with the dead? if not, then you really don't know do you?

besides, these people had their time in the spotlight. now, they are dead and gone. what they said or thought don't much matter now, does it?

we are the ones who are alive and if it comes to fightin to figure out what this country will be, i got my brass knuckles ready to go.

Trish,

The more we talk, the more we agree, I think.

Except on the first point. Road signs are a necessity, and of course it would be absurd to write them in different languages.
Involving government in religion is not a necessity, however, and so this argument of your fails.

As for schools, right. I didn't say that all public schools teach religion. I said that some do (I read about one in the mountains of Virginia, for instance, that holds mandatory Bible classes) and others are trying to add it to their curricula.
I'm equally appalled that they teach communism in a positive light, and I certainly agree that school curricula should be void of teaching morals and values.

I'm also angry that Congress steals our money and uses it for welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. I'm angry that Congress uses our money for 95% of the things they use it for, all of which are unconstitutional.

"So to me if some of my tax dollars gets into the hands of an organization that helps the poor or needy instead of providing Ted Kennedy with more for the Big Dig or Skip Alston for the civil rights museum then I am all for it."

Well, yeah, but we need to avoid the fallacy of saying any use of the money they've stolen from us is ok.

As for the commissioners, nothing they do can shock me anymore. I think there's a growing tide of anger against these buffoons, however, and perhaps we'll get a few new ones next time around.

Trish, you sound very much libertarian in a lot of ways. We actually very much agree on a lot here. Why don't you check out the Libertarian Party's platform? I'm confident that you'll like a lot about us, and you just may want to vote for us next time around as an alternative. Here are the state and national web sites:

http://www.lpnc.org/

http://www.lp.org

Ms. Jackson,

We do know what the founders were thinking. They wrote it down in the Constitution and made it the Supreme Law of the Land.

Paul,

Thanks for the invite to the libertarian party. However as your probably already know with the way our country's elections are set up, there is no way a third party will ever get elected. Voting third party is a vote for the democrats. No offense but about the only thing a third party does is split the party allowing the other side to win.

I look at it as something we have to live with, kind of like tax dollars going to waste. By the way I do agree with you, I don't say it is right, I was more or less saying that it will never change so I would prefer faith-based.

Although on the bright side, it has been known to happen where one party falls and another takes it place. With the way the Democrats are heading the Libertarian might just become the dominate party. Ahh now that would be fun give those liberal conservatives a run for their money!

As I try and catch up with this thread...the very first post is what has caught my eye. Brian has just enlightened us that our founding fathers were not Chrisitans. Whoa. This dude could make a ton of money rewriting history books- and I know school systems that will buy them. Speaking of which, is book burning (the original version) okay! With a permit?

Let's work on catchy titles for the book cover like..."WE are endowed by our Creator...Goat!!"
Yeah, that has a ring to it. And all these really cool dudes with wigs and stuff...well, they called themselves, uh, Chrisanthemums or something. These freaky ol guys seemed pretty smart and stuff but they weren't all that smart.

They just loved all religions. One night they would hold mass and the next they would be bowing down at some Muslim mosque or something. They told us it would be cool to choose any religion we wanted to becuase that was how they organized this party. I asked what party are you. He stated clearly that he was a Chrisitian and that I had Freedom of Religion, here. You mean the right to choose? Yes. The right to choose and the right not to choose at all.

Wow, those other guys said I had freedom FROM religion so I thought I wasn't supposed to choose. No, it's freedom of religion- they just interprit it has meaning "from". Unless of course it comes to killing an innocent child, then it is clearly freedom OF choice and not freedom FROM choice. Is any of this helpful, son. NO.

In order to get started, I need to kinda tap in to what the thought proccesses are her. Not liking what I hear so far.

Trish,

No! Don't do that! Don't say that it can't change! It can!

You say that it can't change. Well, you're right...as long as you and the rest of America hold that attitude.

If you keep doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep getting what you been getting. You say that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a vote for a Libertarian. By the same token, a vote for a Republican is, well, a vote for a Republican!
If you believe that the Libertarian Party best reflects your views, then why would you vote for someone else who will do things of which you don't approve simply because they've got a better chance of winning? If you're against Social Security and welfare, why would you vote for Republicans, who support those things? By voting for them, you're saying you approve of it. You may consider them the lesser of two evils, but if you vote for the lesser of two evils, then you're still voting for evil.

On the other hand, you can stand up for what you believe to be right and vote for people who will take us in the right direction. You mentioned how parties have failed before and another took its place. Of course! That's because people finally realized that they had other options and took advantage of those options. And the American people can decide right now to use one of their other options, which is the Libertarian Party.

We are growing every year. Last year alone the state party grew by 20%. We will arrive.

Join us in the fight for Liberty.

Trish said: "When and where has this ever happened? I have never heard of any county, city, state or the federal government try to turn us into a theocracy."

Read this "GOD" proclomation that was endorsed by my county and many others last year. I consider this an endorsement of religion by government and a call for theocracy.

"PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE RECOGNITION OF GOD
AS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE... the Yadkin County Board of Commissioners urges all American citizens, to proclaim to every level of Government ( Local, State and Federal) the responsibility to publicly recognize God As the Foundation of Our National Heritage,.....LEST OUR NATION FORGET AND OUR CHILDREN NEVER KNOW.
Adopted this the 8th day of March 2004.
S/Lloyd Davis, Chairman
Yadkin County Board of Commissioners."