Don't like it? Get out!

Aussie Gov't Ministers have stated their position on Muslim extremism. This is pretty amazing stuff:

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false.

If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to other country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

A lot of people are cheering this as the "line to be crossed" and note they think the US should make the same statement. I think that's great! So when I made minor changes to the article to reflect the changes they suggested, their opinion changed, suddenly.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which based on religious law or a theocratic state, then The United States is not for you."

Huh. I wonder why they didn't like that? ;)

Under current trends, the statement here would probably come out something along the lines of, "If you don't like a government founded and run on Christian principles, then perhaps the United States is not for you."

Sheesh.

Or, in an attempt to seem inclusive, "Judeeeeeeoooooo-Christian Values," as Bill O'Reilly says.

Elspode wrote:

Under current trends, the statement here would probably come out something along the lines of, "If you don't like a government founded and run on Christian principles, then perhaps the United States is not for you."

Sheesh.

Sad but true, Patrick! And 3 cheers for Australia! Pakistan and Northern Indian have had endless problems because there are two sets of laws - secular versus religious. In the more rural, Muslim areas of these two nations, the Muslim clerics seem to win out.

Freedom of religion does NOT mean the freedom to impose your religious views on others. I don't care if every single person in the US except for one was an Evangelical Christian. The 800 million or so would have no right to impose their system of belief on the one who chose to believe differently.

The core problem is that religious law can easily be at odds with secular law. Additionally, secular law tends to be far more egalitarian where enforcement is concerned. Last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it did not really mention christian values or even the christian god. So many people base the fact that the original writers of the constitution were christian, but really, that was just coincidence. If Hindus had gotten here first...well, you get the point. Besides, we'd offed all the local american indians, so they didn't really get a chance to help. In any event, good for the Aussies. Now if only those barbarians down in New Zed would get the point...

Look, man...if you're going to be rational, there's no place for you in the New Christian Right. Now, get in lockstep and start spouting the party line about our Christian Founding Fathers, and be quick about it! :lol:

Oh. When I saw this thread I thought it was meant for the AG people. Pity.

Who the heck are these "AG" people I keep reading about..

Guess I don't frequent this place as much as I ought to.

Bullitt wrote:

Who the heck are these "AG" people I keep reading about..

Guess I don't frequent this place as much as I ought to.

In the last week, we've had an influx of several people from AudioGalaxy, a site that shut down. They are looking for a new home and came here. There's been a period of "adjustment" since then.

Oh boy that sounds like loads of fun [/sarcasm] :lol:

Elspode wrote:

Look, man...if you're going to be rational, there's no place for you in the New Christian Right. Now, get in lockstep and start spouting the party line about our Christian Founding Fathers, and be quick about it! :lol:

:lol:

Kitsune wrote:

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which based on religious law or a theocratic state, then The United States is not for you."
Huh. I wonder why they didn't like that? ;)

This is why I voted for Kitsune as a Dwellar that I'd like to meet...:beer:

Pie wrote:

This is why I voted for Kitsune as a Dwellar that I'd like to meet...:beer:

You're insane for that vote, but I will buy you a beer for that.

Well, if you heathens don't like it, we've lots of good Catholic Mexicans to take your place. :p

Pakistan and Northern Indian have had endless problems because there are two sets of laws - secular versus religious. In the more rural, Muslim areas of these two nations, the Muslim clerics seem to win out.

Don't forget Canada. Quebec has accepted sharia law for their Muslims that prefer it.

So many people base the fact that the original writers of the constitution were Christian, but really, that was just coincidence.

If you do some reading on the "Founding Fathers", I think you'll find the influential ones, the ones that contributed most to the Constitution, were in fact not really Christians, or at best, Christian light.

Either way, they definitely wanted a separation from religion influencing the government, or being promoted by the government. That makes sense because they had seen all the shit, the mixing of the two had caused in Europe.

If I recall correctly, Sharia law is a set of specific rules and punishments that exist outside the "law of the land" of Australia (An out of my ass example would be: If you are Muslim, and you steal, you get the Australian punishment, but you also get the Sharia punishment, like your hand gets cut off.)

Please explain to me, since we're using Christianity as an example, what religious laws in the United States are you referring to?

OC?! *drops dead of shock*

OnyxCougar wrote:

Please explain to me, since we're using Christianity as an example, what religious laws in the United States are you referring to?

Well, I can think of one in the news, recently.

I wouldn't call that a Christian law. :confused:

Right, but the people proposing it would.

Since there's no non-theocratic reason to have it, and the people clamoring for it call themselves Christian, it counts.

From your own source:

"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said.

(emphasis mine)

Right, but the people proposing it would.

That is an assumption, not backed by fact.

Since there's no non-theocratic reason to have it, and the people clamoring for it call themselves Christian, it counts.

There is a non-thoecratic reason, namely economics. One example is: Insurance companies don't want to have to cover same sex relationships.

Ridgeplate wrote:

Last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it did not really mention christian values or even the christian god. So many people base the fact that the original writers of the constitution were christian, but really, that was just coincidence.

(all emphasis mine)

Samuel Adams:
signed the Declaration and said:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

George "the father of our country" Washington's Farewell Address excerpts:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

...

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

...

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

How about Benjamin Franklin?

speaking to the Constitutional Convention, on June 28, 1787:

"All of us who were engaged in the struggle (war of independence) must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence** in our favor.

To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.…

I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…

Another delegate to the convention wrote these observations about Franklin's speech and its effect on the convention:

"The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate."
(Jonathan Dayton, delegate from New Jersey)

Franklin's resolution was passed and implemented enthusiastically. From that moment on, the deadlock was broken and rapid progress was made on the constitution.

From that day on, Chaplins were established in both the House and Senate. Prayers have opened both houses of Congress ever since.

** In the usage of the time, "Providence" referred specifically to God's fortuitous intervention in events. It was considered so much a characteristic of God's dealings with men that the word was always capitalized in print to emphasize that it was referring to specific acts of God.

How about John Quincy Adams?

On July 4, 1837, in a speech celebrating the 61st Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration, John Quincy Adams proclaimed to the inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day. Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.”

After the "Articles of Confederation" didn't work, the Constitutional Confederation was convened. One law of interest passed into law under the new Constitution 1789 is the Northwest Ordinance (passed during the period that the first amendment was being deliberated). The NWO is the law that lays down the rules that you had to follow to become a state. This portion of the Ordinance requires the state constitutions to include statements to this effect:

ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. ....

AND

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
February 29, 1892

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.
...
The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: C. First Charter of Virginia
"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires."
...
The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
"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; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."
...
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs."
...
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:
"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.
...
the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.;
"And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
...
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community
...
This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870:
"We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.
...
in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that,
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
...
And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
...

Religious Clauses in State Constitutions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delaware; Article 22 (1776) "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:
'I,_____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"
Delaware; Article VIII, Section 9 (1792) "...No clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this State, or of being a member of either branch of the legislature, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral or clerical functions."
Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."

Georgia; Article LXII (1777) "No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."

Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county,...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."

Kentucky; Article II, Section 26 (1777) "No person, while he continues to exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or teacher of any religious persuasion, society of sect...shall be eligible to the general assembly..."

Maryland; Article XXXII (1776) "...All persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection their religious liberty...the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general tax and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion."

Maryland; Article XXXIV (1776) "That every gift, sale or devise of lands, to any minister, public teacher or preacher of the gospel, as such, or to any religious sect, order or denomination [must have the approval of the Legislature]"

Maryland; Article XXXV (1776) "That no other test or qualification ought to be required...than such oath of support and fidelity to this State...and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe..."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless...he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) "[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

'I,_____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth...'"
New Hampshire; Part 1, Article 1, Section 5 (1784) "...the legislature ...authorize ...the several towns ...to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality..."
New Hampshire; Part 2, (1784) "[Provides that no person be elected governor, senator, representative or member of the Council] who is not of the protestant religion."

New Jersey; Article XIX (1776) "...no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right...; all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature."

New York; Section VIII (1777) "...no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretense or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this State."

North Carolina; Article XXXI (1776) "That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function,"

North Carolina; Article XXXII (1776) "That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,...shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Pennsylvania; Declaration of Rights II (1776) "...Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged to any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

Pennsylvania; Frame of Government, Section 10 (1776) "And each member [of the legislature]...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'"
Pennsylvania; Article IX, Section 4 (1790) "that no person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."
South Carolina; Article III (1778) "[State officers and privy council to be] all of the Protestant religion."

South Carolina; Article XII (1778) "...no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion."

South Carolina; Article XXI (1778) "...no minister of the gospel or public preachers of any religious persuasion, while he continues in the exercise of his pastoral function, and for two years after, shall be eligible either as governor, lieutenant-governor, a member of the senate, house of representatives, or privy council in this State."

South Carolina; Article XXXVIII (1778) "That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed...to be the established religion of this State."

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 1 (1796) "...no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either house of the legislature."

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 2 (1796) "...no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State."

Vermont; Declaration of Rights, III (1777) "...nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment...; nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day..."

Vermont; Frame of Government, Section 9 (1777) "And each member [of the legislature],...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one god, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.'"

Snopes:

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter (1797) to clergyman Jedidiah Morse:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire.

Also snopes:

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher . . . whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

Congress has indeed retained paid (Christian) chaplains since 1789 (not 1777) to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual guidance to members and their staffs upon request. This practice was strongly opposed by James Madison at its inception.

I know it's alot to read, but its there if anyone cares to read it.

I'm not advocating everyone being forced to be religious, but I think it's clear that the "founding fathers", many of the significant ones, if not most of them were, in fact, very Christian men, and with the (state) Constitutions stating what they do, BY LAW, I would have to assert that America was a very Christian country, back in the day, and I note in my research that it started to shift about the time of Darwin's theory coming out.

But that's another thread.

;)

Brianna wrote:

OC?! *drops dead of shock*

:love2: miss me?

Yes. Hi, girl.

There is a non-thoecratic reason, namely economics. One example is: Insurance companies don't want to have to cover same sex relationships.

:lol: Insurance companies don't want to cover anything, even if they already do cover it. That's not a reason.

Insurance companies will cover anything they can make money on.....strictly business.

Every successful politician knows (has known) that nothing keeps people in line like the fear of God. You can hide from the law but you can't hide from God.
Also, nothing justifies authority like religious/moral superiority.
The wild, wild west was subdued not by lawmen but by the importation of women and their churches. ;)

Found this one via BoingBoing. That solid red block scares me. I guess that's why the call it the bible belt.

Pie wrote:

That solid red block scares me. I guess that's why the call it the bible belt.

After looking at the image, I'd call it an "irritating rash in the country's nether regions". Living in the middle of it, I assure you, is no picnic, either.

Long time/no see, OC! That's a lot of material to read and not enough coffee to go with it. Whoa.

:coffee:

source

76% of the population in the United States identifies themselves as "Christian".

If that 76% voted according to the candidate that stood on a platform of "Christian principles", and elected representatives and senators based on that platform, this would be a politically "Christian" nation, and laws regarding abortion, same sex marriage (which I concede is predicated on religious opinion, but deny it's an exclusively Christian viewpoint), etc would be passed overwhelmingly.

Think of the uproar when the Christian president said "If you don't like our 76% Christian nation and it's laws, get out." Would you be heralding him like you are the Aussie guy?

Just food for thought.

Kitsune wrote:

Long time/no see, OC! That's a lot of material to read and not enough coffee to go with it. Whoa.
:coffee:

I know it is, Kitsune. But I wanted to show the folks here that America was, indeed, founded on Christian principles and the separation of church and state was never a policy in the time of the founding fathers, and is not found in the Constitution. (As I'm sure you're aware.)

So Mr. Guy (or Ms. Girl, whichever the case may be) who says it's just a "coincidence" does not seem to have read much about American History.

Leave it to me to attempt to enlighten. :)

(By the way, James Madison was fiercely about leaving religion out of politics. He was outvoted alot. Democracy at work!)

OnyxCougar wrote:

I know it is, Kitsune. But I wanted to show the folks here that America was, indeed, founded on Christian principles and the separation of church and state was never a policy in the time of the founding fathers, and is not found in the Constitution. (As I'm sure you're aware.)

I'm not going to agree on the "not found in the Constituion" bit, but I will agree that you have an interesting analysis of the founding of this country and some good points. Still, I find the religious ideals that were erroroneously woven into our country's early laws to be just as invalid today as the then accepted "legal" concept of racial inequality, slavery, and the ownership of human beings. It is rare that I hear the suggestion that because the current majority of this country is white and the founders were white that the 13th amendment should be marked as invalid or that the United State's government should be recognized for the original interpretation of "all peoples" as white male land owners. There are plenty of laws that were written in to make the early governments of this country popular to the citizens that would be asked to adopt them, both federal and state, just as today laws are proposed to appeal to the masses. Neither excuse, however, makes them "correct" under the central idea that our government is a government of the people and representative of all.

I don't want the United States to ask those that demand religious-based laws, government sponsored religion, inequal rights based upon religious ideas, or a theocracy to "get out".

...but they sure as hell better get used to not getting what they want.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Insurance companies will cover anything they can make money on.....strictly business.

Right, I was using two meanings of "cover", as the incurance companies do. They'd love to cover[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=1]1[/SIZE] [/FONT]gay marriages, but once they have they'll try and find ways that they aren't actually covered[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=1]2[/SIZE][/FONT]. But that's no different from straight marriages, or hurricane or flood insurance for that matter.

[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=1]1. Collect insurance fees from[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=1]2. Eligable to recieve money[/SIZE][/FONT]

Gay relationships are notoriously unstable, even in a culture where straight relationships are about as reliable as a Colorado weather report (i.e., not so much). The additional load of drama upon society would be crippling: the divorce rate would quintuple, insurance companies would crumble under the weight of millions of claims due to hair-pulling and slapping.

And imagine the bridal magazines. Some things can't be unseen, remember that.




/kidding. <3

OC: Some of those passages are unmistakably Christian, but it is my understanding that a significant portion of the religious language used by the founding fathers was in reference to Deism, not Christianity.

From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">wikipedia</a>:

Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge.

Deism was championed by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are among the most well-known of the American founding deists. There is debate as to whether George Washington was a deist or not.Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe. Paine wrote that deism represented the application of reason to religion. Deists like Paine hoped to settle religious questions permanently and scientifically by reason alone, without revelation.

The first six and four later presidents of the United States had strong deistic or allied beliefs, even if they did not proclaim them.

I know I'm going to be sorry for jumping into this, since OC's research is obviously more thorough than mine (which is to say, none), but...once we've made it illegal for queers to engage in a legally binding contract like marriage, what's to keep us from, say, revoking women's voting rights and anything else that isn't keeping with the fundamentalist notions of how everyone else ought to live?

I cannot conceive of any valid legal argument whereby any two people should not be allowed to unite their assets and obligations in a legal manner, cohabitate, and derive the same benefits as any other two people are entitled to simply by dint of their genders.

Anything else is discrimination. If it isn't, someone needs to tell me why, and the explanation can't include anything about family values (mine might not be yours, and if I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I have to live by yours), historical precedents (go far enough back in history and you'll find a great many alternative lifestyles that were quite acceptable in their time) or {insert your religion here} tenets.

Marriage is a contract. If Bob and Mary want to believe that their contract is sanctified by God, great, cool, I hope they hire me to play at the wedding. But if Bob and Joe just want to ensure that they have rights of property inheritance and insurability...why can't they? If they each married a woman, they'd be entitled to those things, so there wouldn't be any more burden on insurance companies, the government or anything else if Bob and Joe got hitched.

There's no rationale for prohibiting same sex marriage other than religious morality. By my way of thinking, if you can limit one thing on that basis, you can do anything else on that basis, and taken to that extreme, you have radical Islam, Right Wing Christianity, and so on.

It's a slippery slope, Elspode. You let 'em get married and before you know it all those faggot/lezzie children will be bitching the their separate but equal schools ain't equal and they don't want to sit in the back of the bus anymore. ;)

Elspode wrote:

I know I'm going to be sorry for jumping into this, since OC's research is obviously more thorough than mine (which is to say, none), but...once we've made it illegal for queers to engage in a legally binding contract like marriage, what's to keep us from, say, revoking women's voting rights and anything else that isn't keeping with the fundamentalist notions of how everyone else ought to live?

I cannot conceive of any valid legal argument whereby any two people should not be allowed to unite their assets and obligations in a legal manner, cohabitate, and derive the same benefits as any other two people are entitled to simply by dint of their genders.

You know what? I agree. So why don't we just bring this down to one point: marriage is male/female, civil union is same sex. Make civil union just as legal and binding as marriage, give it the same rights and responsibilities?

I'm 100% happy with that. Semantics? Absolutely. But it goes a long way to pacify the majority of the people.

Anything else is discrimination. If it isn't, someone needs to tell me why, and the explanation can't include anything about family values (mine might not be yours, and if I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I have to live by yours), historical precedents (go far enough back in history and you'll find a great many alternative lifestyles that were quite acceptable in their time) or {insert your religion here} tenets.

Marriage is a contract. If Bob and Mary want to believe that their contract is sanctified by God, great, cool, I hope they hire me to play at the wedding. But if Bob and Joe just want to ensure that they have rights of property inheritance and insurability...why can't they? If they each married a woman, they'd be entitled to those things, so there wouldn't be any more burden on insurance companies, the government or anything else if Bob and Joe got hitched.

There's no rationale for prohibiting same sex marriage other than religious morality. By my way of thinking, if you can limit one thing on that basis, you can do anything else on that basis, and taken to that extreme, you have radical Islam, Right Wing Christianity, and so on.

Upon further reflection, I think I agree with you. Again, call marriage male/female and call saem sex civil union. Legalize civil union. I really dont' see the problem in that compromise, but then I'm actually pretty moderate in my views.

OnyxCougar wrote:

You know what? I agree. So why don't we just bring this down to one point: marriage is male/female, civil union is same sex. Make civil union just as legal and binding as marriage, give it the same rights and responsibilities?

Even better: Call it all civil union from a governmental point of view, and let individuals and/or their churches decide whether to call their unions marriages. No double standard, religious people still can put whatever restrictions they want on what they call marriage, and nonreligious people can ignore those restrictions and call themselves married anyway.

They call it marriage because civil union would be an oxymoron in many cases.:rolleyes:

I can see the merit to OC's plan, but I, for one, think that marriage should be allowed between same-sex couples. Like Elspode said, there is no valid legal argument for prohibiting it. Being bisexual, I could definitely live with OC's plan of Civil Union = Marriage by a different name, but I wouldn't like it. Especially knowing what happened to seperate but equal in the south.

I can see the merit to OC's plan, but I, for one, think that marriage should be allowed between same-sex couples. Like Elspode said, there is no valid legal argument for prohibiting it. Being bisexual, I could definitely live with OC's plan of Civil Union = Marriage by a different name, but I wouldn't like it. Especially knowing what happened to seperate but equal in the south.

Kitsune wrote:

Aussie Gov't Ministers have stated their position on Muslim extremism. This is pretty amazing stuff:...

There are a couple of interesting points that the Snopes articles didn't mention.

1/ There were serious and violent (Youth of "middle-Eastern-apperance" vs "Australian") riots in the Cronulla region of Sydney, late last year. There was substantial fault on both sides, massive and often divisive media coverage, followed by no real resolution.

2/ A enormously popular right wing radio talkback personality has been running an "Australia - Love it or Leave it" campaign, intermittantly for several months. Speaking very generally, the main demographic of this radio personality's audience foverlaps substantially with a big part of the Howard government's voter base.

I think these comments from the Australian govermnent are simply political rhetoric aimed at answering the question "What's the goverment doing about all this Muslim violence at home?"

I am a proud Australian, and while I personally agree with the stated basic sentiments, I doubt they will change anything of consequence one iota.

;)

Happy Monkey wrote:

Even better: Call it all civil union from a governmental point of view, and let individuals and/or their churches decide whether to call their unions marriages. No double standard, religious people still can put whatever restrictions they want on what they call marriage, and nonreligious people can ignore those restrictions and call themselves married anyway.

Why would non religious people WANT to call it married?
Marriage is a religious concept, located in Genesis.

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

No, it's a social concept that's mentioned in religion, as are many other social concepts, because religion exists in a social environment. Marriage existed long before the bible was written. :cool:

OnyxCougar wrote:

Why would non religious people WANT to call it married?
Marriage is a religious concept, located in Genesis.

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

OK. Remember that 76%? I'm thinking of this issue in a religious POV.

From a religious POV, the first murder ever recorded is in Genesis, carried out over jealousy over who's sacrifice God liked best. Murder, to 76% (+ Muslims + Jews, who use the same Genesis) is a religious concept. You don't have to be religious to carry it out, like marriage, but it is definitely a relgious concept, and the law against it is religious in nature (see Moses).

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

I think you may find that to a majority of people, if it's not "sanctified" by an official of some religion, that it's not a marriage, it's a civil union. Which is why I posted the compromise above.

I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, your opinion is as valid as mine. I'm just trying to get you to understand where the best possibility of compromise is going to come from.

(As a side note, this conversation would never have occured in the 50's, and I'm interested in your viewpoint as to WHY things have changed so much in our culture since then.)

OnyxCougar wrote:

OK. Remember that 76%? I'm thinking of this issue in a religious POV.

You asked why the non-religious person would call it a marriage. What the 76% think isn't relevant.

I think you may find that to a majority of people, if it's not "sanctified" by an official of some religion, that it's not a marriage, it's a civil union.

I doubt that. There are tons of lapsed Catholics who don't join another church but still get married.

Which is why I posted the compromise above.

Actually, mine makes more sense in that respect. Just call all of them civil unions, and let individuals decide whether to call it marriage (and the vast majority, religious or not, will - they certainly do now). People who want religious blessings will get them, and people who don't won't. Having governmental "marriages" and "civil unions" which are separate but equal is a bad idea, and just an invitation for constant attempts to add more priviledges to one but not the other.

OnyxCougar wrote:

(As a side note, this conversation would never have occured in the 50's, and I'm interested in your viewpoint as to WHY things have changed so much in our culture since then.)

In the 50's, the argument was whether interracial marriages should be legal, and the same aguments were used. Hopefully it's a constant trend in a free society. I think the internet has dramatically helped as well in recent years, allowing people to interact with people outside their social circles.

OnyxCougar wrote:

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

Because we non-religious types deserve the same as the rest of y'all. :mad: I'm not a second-class citizen and I refuse to be treated as one.

Pie wrote:

Because we non-religious types deserve the same as the rest of y'all. :mad: I'm not a second-class citizen and I refuse to be treated as one.

The trick here, my friend, is to come up with a term that is better than the one they use. Marriage? Try forever relationship or incredi-bond!

OnyxCougar wrote:

Murder, to 76% (+ Muslims + Jews, who use the same Genesis) is a religious concept. You don't have to be religious to carry it out, like marriage, but it is definitely a relgious concept, and the law against it is religious in nature (see Moses).

No it isn't. Murder is a crime that transcends all religions. The only thing that varies is the dividing line between murder and lawful killing. Do you think that it was legal to murder among the Israelites before Moses brought down the tablets? No, it's just that no set of laws can be taken seriously if "don't murder" and "don't steal" aren't included.

Don't Christians refer to it as "holy matrimony"? The rest of us heathens should get to call it "marriage". :)

We use "handfasted" and "married" pretty much interchangably, as a matter of fact, but just try finding the little "handfasted" check box on your average questionaire.

What is really under discussion here is the pervasive intrusion of the predominant religion into the lives of people who do not follow that path. As long as I am not harming anyone else, why should I have to be burdened with those tenets' intrusion into my dealings with government and civil functions?

Happy Monkey wrote:

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

I'm thinking that everybody keeps saying "religion" when they mean "Christianity."

It's only recently (say the last half-century or less, just at a guess) that marriage has really developed in a non-religious context.

What? Jews, muslims and the people that practice the myriad of far eastern religions, don't get married? :eyebrow:

I was married by a Justice of the Peace, once. The paperwork was the same.....it said I was married.

wolf wrote:

It's only recently (say the last half-century or less, just at a guess) that marriage has really developed in a non-religious context.

Common-law marriage is older than that, and whether a common-law marriage is religious in nature is completely up to the individuals.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Common-law marriage is older than that, and whether a common-law marriage is religious in nature is completely up to the individuals.

What? Man, someone needs to fix that! People shouldn't get to decide whether or not their private affairs are religious or not!:lol:

Sorry to interrupt, but back to immigration, OK?
I got this email this morning quoting Rush Limbaugh. That fact immediately made me cast a wary eye, but it's worth looking at despite the source. :eyebrow:

Limbaugh Laws
All right, immigration proposals under discussion. Let me add mine to the mix. I want to call this proposal the Limbaugh Laws.
Here they are.

First, if you immigrate to the United States of America, you must speak the native language.

You have to be a professional or an investor. We are not going to take unskilled workers. You will not be allowed.

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your native language.

Foreigners will not have the right to vote, I don't care how long they are here, nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office.

According to the Limbaugh Laws, if you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled, ever, to welfare, to food stamps, or other government goodies.

You can come if you invest here, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don't have that amount of money, you can't come and invest. You have to stay home.

If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options. You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. In fact, as a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property. These are the Limbaugh Laws.

Another thing. You don't have the right to protest when you come here. You're allowed no demonstrations, you cannot wave a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, or you get sent home. You're a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out, and if you come here illegally, you go straight to jail and we're going to hunt you down 'til we find you.

I can imagine many of you think that the Limbaugh Laws are pretty harsh. I imagine today some of you probably are going, "Yeah! Yeah!" Well, let me tell you this, folks. Every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico, today. I just read you Mexican immigration law. That's how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country.

Geez, can you blame them for wanting to get out and come here?

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Sorry to interrupt, but back to immigration, OK?
I got this email this morning quoting Rush Limbaugh. That fact immediately made me cast a wary eye, but it's worth looking at despite the source. :eyebrow:

Geez, can you blame them for wanting to get out and come here?

I would like to see a Snopes on this one. I do a lot of fact checking, on items I post and posts that I read, but verifying these claims against Mexican immigration laws would be tough.

From what this link states, what the author is describing is an immigrant permit, not citizenship. People with green cards in the US do not vote, because they are not citizens.

As for buying waterfront property, the US is a capitalist country and except for drug dealers and terrorists, anyone is welcome to invest anywhere (except for owning ports or defense plants).

BTW, 40,000 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico city (about $4.36) is about $170,00 US depending on currency fluctuations.

What do they mean by invest? Pay, or actually place in an escrow account?

You can find a run down on Mexican immigration law here. Foreigners can own property in Mexico. The laws were changed in 1972. It looks rather convoluted, but bottom line, you buy the property and its yours. A real estate outfit in Mexico geared to selling property to gringo's is offering a duplex for $69,000 and parcels of land for around $30,000 in La Paz.

The immigration page also states that someone who has official immigrant status is eligible for Mexican government programs - what there are of them.

The statements about needing to be a professional and having a large sum of money are true, as is the one about not being allowed to vote, according to the link above.

That's the problem with Rush. He throws in a mixture of truth and bombast, and you end up being skeptical of it ALL. His statement would have still made the same impact had he stuck to the complete truth. But overkill IS his stock and trade. :eyebrow:

richlevy wrote:

I would like to see a Snopes on this one. I do a lot of fact checking, on items I post and posts that I read, but verifying these claims against Mexican immigration laws would be tough.

Snopes was the first place I went and they said true. It didn't dawn on me until after I posted it that they were saying true to the fact Rush wrote it and not his facts, so they are open to questioning. :smack:

Oh, the other thing Rush appears to be wrong on is that you must be fluent in Spanish to gain immigration status. It doesn't state that ANYWHERE on the immigration page, although one requirement is that you have lived in Mexico for 5 years (I beleive the US has the same requirement). After 5 years, I would think a person would have picked up a couple of words, but it appears to be optional, and the immigration page, itself, is written in English.

marichiko wrote:

Foreigners can own property in Mexico. The laws were changed in 1972. It looks rather convoluted, but bottom line, you buy the property and its yours. A real estate outfit in Mexico geared to selling property to gringo's is offering a duplex for $69,000 and parcels of land for around $30,000 in La Paz.

He says;

If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options.

That sounds like yes you can buy land but their are restrictions. Then he says;

You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. In fact, as a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property.

This makes it sound like Mexico won't allow foreigners to own waterfront property AND have limited or no property rights even though they buy land. But then

These are the Limbaugh Laws.

tells me that he's making these "laws" based on his interpretation of the Mexican laws, which might not be accurate.
But that said, there is probably a grain of truth there somewhere.

I suspect, (besides Rush, which is always wise) that a great many countries have restriction on foreign nationals owning property. :eyebrow:

I waiting for TW to come and tell me I'm unpatriotic.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

He says; That sounds like yes you can buy land but their are restrictions. Then he says; This makes it sound like Mexico won't allow foreigners to own waterfront property AND have limited or no property rights even though they buy land. But then tells me that he's making these "laws" based on his interpretation of the Mexican laws, which might not be accurate.
But that said, there is probably a grain of truth there somewhere.

I suspect, (besides Rush, which is always wise) that a great many countries have restriction on foreign nationals owning property. :eyebrow:

I waiting for TW to come and tell me I'm unpatriotic.

Well, SOMEONE isn't telling the whole truth here. Here's a property offered for sale to US buyers from Milagro Real Estate in La Paz.

Yer unpatriotic, Bruce! :lol:

OK, but do they have full property rights, no restrictions, like who they can sell to or disposition on their death, things like that?

And can they put up a fort with an American Flag?
[SIZE="1"]Don't tell me a Mexican flag is an "american" flag, ok.[/SIZE] :lol:

Well, this is what it says in The People's Guide to Mexico:

wrote:

First, as most folks are aware, Mexican residential property in the coastal or border zones can be legally purchased byforeigners, but only through the fideicomiso (bank trust) method set up expressly for this purpose by the federal government. The trusts are for 50 years, and are automatically renewable (for a nominal fee) at the end of the term. As primary beneficiary of the trust, you have essentially all the rights of fee-simple ownership, including the right to name an heir. (Your heir, or "secondary beneficiary" is written into the trust at inception-thus avoiding probate. Very efficient.) You may improve, rent out or sell the property, as you desire. The only major condition is that the property continue to be used for residential, as opposed to commercial, purposes.

So, yeah, you can buy ocean front property there; you just have to jump through a few extra hoops. Its easier for Rush to just scream that its prohibited rather than go to the trouble of explaining it. :neutral:

I have a bunch of what-ifs but it sounds like we can basically buy Mexican waterfront property. Of course keeping it depends on the stability of the government.

So that's one of "Rush's Rules", not based on reciprocal. Good work Mari, I always found it easier to dump it on the librarian than look it up. :D

OnyxCougar wrote:

You know what? I agree. So why don't we just bring this down to one point: marriage is male/female, civil union is same sex. Make civil union just as legal and binding as marriage, give it the same rights and responsibilities?

I'm 100% happy with that. Semantics? Absolutely. But it goes a long way to pacify the majority of the people.



Upon further reflection, I think I agree with you. Again, call marriage male/female and call saem sex civil union. Legalize civil union. I really dont' see the problem in that compromise, but then I'm actually pretty moderate in my views.

That is unacceptable to gay Chritians, being gay is not a sin, so I don't see the issue with it.

As for separation of Church and state.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison

The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953

None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.

The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly

Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

&#8220;The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One&#8217;s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.&#8221; - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)


As for immigration... I hate the new semantics. I am pro-immigration, pro-legal-immigration, this nation was built on it.
Illegal is illegal.

I happen to be extremely conversant with the issue involved, in fact I have dealt with it all of my life living in the citrus industry working side by side with illegals. You know what, they are good people, salt of the Earth... the one's I managed and worked with (I was not a white hat, though I was the Foreman, it was a family business. I was down in the dirt with them) busted ass and sent every spare dime it took not to live home to their families... but that is the problem, no?
If they were not here we would have paid a fair wage with benefits that Americans would have been happy to take to do the work. Know how I know that... I was doing it when we could not find illegals.
It ain't hard. Hell, I was doing the work as well for a decent wage too.
They do not pay taxes, ever, that they do is a myth and a lie.
We pay for their medicine, their children's school, all social services and more than I can think of. One crew on my farm, one crew had to have have cost the Florida tax payers hundreds of thousands every year, easily.
As individuals, I liked them... but as a groups, as a whole... if your nation sucks, stay and make it better.
Kick some ass and take some names.
Fix it.
Especially when you are so close in a nation like Mexico with such great resources... But no, instead you run away and steal from another nation... People in the US during the depression did not pull this crap.
If you want to be an American do it legally... if you want to work in the US, get a work visa. For those of you who say it is too hard..
I guess that means if it is too hard for me to get a car, it is ok for me to take my neighbors?

Do you what we will do in the citrus industry if you get rid of the illegals or make them get visas?
We will pay a decent wage like we used to, a wage that Americas will be happy to work for....
"Jobs White/Americans won't do", stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have had jobs a hell of a lot worse than picking and cleaning rooms... I know, because I have picked and cleaned bathrooms.
Worked at a distillery (we have our own waste treatment center and you should see the stuff we have to clean-up after a run... sugar and yeast bags can be 100lbs), at an organic fertilizer plant (bet it won't take you long to figure that one out) and go to a state or county waste treatment unit that us union run and see who runs them.... not illegals and not predominantly minorities in Northern states I promise you. They make bank and when a pump or a line breaks.... well, you can just imagine...
Again, it is just a stupid argument pushed by, I am sad to say, the Left... the older I get the sadder I am about the lunacy I see in what I used to align myself with.