Oh Yeah, Homosexuals Are So Oppressed.

[Aristotle]

The choice is clear: Fight the battle of the ballot, or the battle of the bullet.

As LDS, we are admonished to vote for those who represent our values.

If one reads the political party platforms, it is very easy to distinguish which party is aligned closer to Christian values.

- Mrs. A

[sgallan]

The choice is clear: Fight the battle of the ballot, or the battle of the bullet.

That could be fun. Kinda like in the Middle East. Religious people killing those they don't like... including even other religious people. When does the shooting start? When you gonna start gassing Democrats?

Say there 'A'..... you haven't brought a lot of fertilizer and gotten a hold of a rental truck lately have you?

[Fiannan]

Read this on a bumpersticker-

Jesus may not be a Republican, but Satan is a Democrat

Sorry, just had to throw this in.

[Aristotle]

The choice is clear: Fight the battle of the ballot, or the battle of the bullet.

That could be fun. Kinda like in the Middle East. Religious people killing those they don't like... including even other religious people. When does the shooting start? When you gonna start gassing Democrats?

Say there 'A'..... you haven't brought a lot of fertilizer and gotten a hold of a rental truck lately have you?

Sorry, but I wouldn't cast my vote for a satanic vampire. LOL

- Mrs. A

Read this on a bumpersticker-

Jesus may not be a Republican, but Satan is a Democrat

Sorry, just had to throw this in.

And the people say, "Let George do it." Who is George, you ask? Why, Satan, of course!

- Mrs. A

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I do agree with you that they have all the freedoms that all US citizens have. Therefore they are not oppressed. There are not treated as second class citizens, their per capita income demonstrates that by and large they are not being economically challenged, and they can live where they want.

Agreed.

I do not agree that they are subject to unfair practices as they cannot marry -- or maybe in some states cannot adopt. In many states two 1st. cousins who might love each other very much are not allowed to marry -- although they can get married in a state that allows it and then merely move back. Two siblings have no right to marry each other -- are they oppressed? Under these laws Abraham and Sarah would have been barred from marriage (although half-siblings can marry in some European nations from what I understand).

This depends on your definition of "unfair". Again, it is all about the feelings of the person involved. If a person feels that they are discriminated against, then they might call it unfair. That goes for cousins, polygamists, homosexuals, and anyone who wants to be legally married.

Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacred institution...but my conclusion to that belief is different than than Christians.

My conclusion is that ALL MARRIAGES should be considered "non-legal", because law should not interfere in sacred things.

If a person wants to get married to another person (or people), and there is a church willing to perform the service, then they can exchange vows and rings (or other symbolic things)...and call themselves married, even if...for example...an LDS person wants to tell them that the LDS Church does not acknowledge the gay marriage or polygamist marriage...it will not matter unless the couple in question wants to join the LDS Church.

Christians can still consider the gay or polygamist marriages to be illegitimate in the eyes of God, in the same way that they disapprove of them living together (which is what they are going to do if we continue a system of exclusively legal heterosexual marriages).

If the couple is atheist or non-religious, they can form their own "club" and have the club recognize their marriage. Or this could just be a family event, where vows and rings are exchanged with no formal organization involved.

No legal papers would be signed.

On the legal side:

1. People would be able to purchase insurance as usual. Instead of such plans covering a "spouse" (a non-legal term), the plan could cover the residents of the household. Insurance companies would adapt to the new situation, increasing or decreasing rates, depending on household sizes, to stay in business.

2. Inheritance? All inheritance must be done through a will. If no will is signed, then everything is distributed equally among household members. Maybe you can all think of a better idea...their are limitless possibilities on how to handle this law.

3. Citizenship? Can your non-legal spouse become a citizen of your country? I guess there are lots of possibilities there too. Maybe marriage will just have to be disregarded in all cases of immigration, and everyone will have to immigrate as an individual?

4. Of course, the law can interfere in polygamist marriages if a minor is involved. But the MARRIAGE will be irrelevant. In these cases, laws governing rape will be applied.

I'm sure there are other legal issues that will arise, but I think they can be handled without the necessity for a legal definition of marriage.

So, in conclusion, instead of denying gay marriage, the law will deny ALL MARRIAGE...leaving the definition of marriage to churches or other social groups.

Anyone see a problem with this? Sounds like everyone wins.

Adoption? Nothing is preventing a lesbian couple from going to a sperm bank -- hey more power to them if that's what they desire. Two men? Sorry, no womb -- but they could hire a surrogate.

Agreed. Although I think there is room for discussion in our legal system for gay men to adopt.

Then you could say that polygamists in this country live in a state of fear that the government could go after them. Maybe that makes them feel bad.

They do. Those that sincerely believe in it as a religious practice are discriminated against. But they will continue to have non-legal "marriages" even if it is against the law. All the government can do is call it adultry, as long as all spouses are consenting adults.

This is why they might as well make ALL MARRIAGES non-legal.

People in fundamentalist churches tell Mormons they are going to burn forever -- so what, I am not asking for any special hate crimes laws to punish them with.

It is not a hate crime unless a crime is involved. If someone is attacked or murdered, for example. The criminal should be charged with assault or murder...I don't know that "special" hate crime laws are needed.

And speaking of hate crimes laws why should a person who assults a person get more punishment if he makes reference to the victim's race or sexual preferences?

I agree. Assault is assault, regardless of motive.

But are there "special" penalties for such hate crimes? Or do they get the same sentences as anyone else? I honestly am ignorant about this particular topic...

[prisonchaplain]

But what CAN be said is that people have prejudices against them, which apparantly makes them feel bad, especially when those people are their own parents, or their church.

If a prejudice means assuming something that might be broadly true (or perhaps even not--but simply a stereotype) is always true, then yes. However, the bottom-line is that most Christians believe that homosexual practice is a sin. Therefore, those who engage in the activity are sinners. So, if a homosexual is also a Christian, and he feels bad, because he is a sinner, we would describe him as being "under conviction," not unfairly maligned.

BUT--what if the homosexual is NOT a Christian? Well, then Christian parents must be doubly saddened. However, their prayers ought primarily to be for their child's salvation. Why worry about a particular sin, when the greater issue is the eternal destiny of the soul?

In either case, though, there is certain to be feelings of distance and non-acceptance. It's a sad state, but short of changed opinions and practices, what does the homosexual expect from his religious parents? "We love you, but we hate what you do," is not unreasonable from them.

Some are told they will burn in a very real Hell.

Sinners who do not repent, will indeed do so according to Christian theology. If I believe this, and you are close to me, I would be cruel not to warn you.

Some are told they will simply be unable to spend eternity with their families.

Same response, according to Mormon theology.

At the very least, they are told they cannot have a legal marriage in most states.

In a sense, I appreciate a nonreligious colleague of mine, for his integrity. He and his partner have no religious practice, so they do not marry. He explained to me that marriage is a sacred ceremony, so, since they are not religious, they do not want to be hypocritical. Over time their union will be recognized by the government as "common law" anyway.

Likewise, civil unions--with all the legal benefits of marriage--ought to suffice. Homosexuals who demand legal marriage are craving a sacred blessing for a non-sacred union. If they cannot get this recognition, they would take it away from everyone (my prediction--government will eventually get out of all marriages, and only do civil unions).

Its really all about personal feelings, not money.

I absolutely agree with this statement. How ridiculous for the people of God to focus on the sins of sinners who are not even aware of the spiritual state. We cannot clean them up enough to please God. Far better to give them the gospel, then to try to get them to conform to a few of our moral standards.

That could be fun. Kinda like in the Middle East. Religious people killing those they don't like... including even other religious people. When does the shooting start? When you gonna start gassing Democrats?

Say there 'A'..... you haven't brought a lot of fertilizer and gotten a hold of a rental truck lately have you?

Okay, the gig's up. Time to confess. Sgallan is really an incognito evangelical. We were trying to entrap Mrs. A., the U.S. Marshalls would bring her to my chapel, where she might get saved. Don't think it's going to work, though.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

The homosexual lobby has campaigned and enacted special hate crime laws to punish those who speak out against their lifestyle.

What laws prevent people from speaking out agains their lifestyle. Christians speak out against it every day publically and are not arrested, unless an actual crime (assault, murder, etc.) is committed...am I wrong?

Hiding under the guise of "minority group", this has become a freedom of speech issue.

As far as I can tell everyone still has their freedom of speech. Christians speak out against homosexuality, and homosexuals speak back at them. Again, unless a crime is committed, I don't see anyone being punished.

Are Christians oppressed by society?

No.

When special interest groups lobby to subvert our Christian heritage guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

The constitution protects ALL religious groups. Considering it was written by men who were deists, Christianity was not given special status...but if someone has historical data to prove me wrong, please share it. I am often wrong.

removing Christian symbols from public places

Christian symbols should really only be needed in churches or private christian schools.

If you are referring to Christmas trees, Santa Clause, Nativity Scenes, then I agree that they should be displayed in public legally, but as far as I have heard, there have only been a few isolated incidents where such decorations have been removed.

After all Christmas trees and Santa Clause are used by non-practicing or ex-Christians...even non-Christians.

Nativity scenes might be more controversial, but I personally don't have a problem with them being displayed as long as other religions can display their symbols on their holidays in the same public places. For example, during Ramadan, Muslims should be able to display "Happy Ramadan" signs in malls, parks, etc...or whatever symbols might be important to them.

But have there been many attacks on public Nativity scenes? I have heard of a few isolated incidents...hardly the anti-christian revolution you are describing.

eliminating any trace of Christianity in public schools

Public schools should not teach religion. That is why we have private schools and churches. If you are talking about "Intelligent Design", I don't see a problem with schools teaching both. But really, how much evolution is really taught in elementary, middle, and high school. I only remember a very brief mention of it. Maybe an hour of discussion at the most in my 12 years of pre-college education. Most evolution was taught to me in College...and it might be significant to mention that even BYU teaches evolution, and the LDS Church has no official doctrine regarding the truth or falsity of evolution.

and most recently, intimidating Christians into not saying "Merry Christmas", the answer is a definite yes.

Again, I guess these are isolated incidents. I said Merry Christmas many times, and no one attacked me, verbally or physically.

I expect freedom of speech will ensure there is never a law forbidding those words to be spoken.

And if a public place wants to put up a sign that says "Merry Christmas", I don't see a problem with that, as long as they give equal time to putting up signs for other religious holidays throughout the year.

I think it is worth considering that even if Christian symbols in a public place becomes illegal, Christians will still be the majority religion, with plenty of churches, and plenty of money to build more churches, which they can use to counter the anti-Christians. For example, every time a library takes down its Nativity Scene, a church can buy a piece of land and build a small church on it with a big sign that says Merry Christmas and a giant Nativity Scene...private property.

Interesting that this runs parallel to my argument above that Marriage shoud be non-legal. Perhaps religious celebrations should be non-legal too...meaning that churches can use their own money and influence to build their own highly visible symbols.

So there are some ideas to think about...

[Outshined]

Good post, TS. Some very well-reasoned replies there.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Good post, TS. Some very well-reasoned replies there.

Thanks...I don't know if anyone else was convinced, but I think its important to point out that all these issues are hyped up because of fear...the fear that one's religion or lifestyle is under attack.

Not just Christians...all sides are guilty of this type of fear (as pointed out in Fiannan's original post about the fear of "oppression".

I hope that ideas that I presented, or similar ideas, will be adopted by politicians to help negate those fears.

[sgallan]

Great posts TS. I like this idea a lot....

Interesting that this runs parallel to my argument above that Marriage shoud be non-legal. Perhaps religious celebrations should be non-legal too...meaning that churches can use their own money and influence to build their own highly visible symbols.

[Outshined]

Great posts TS. I like this idea a lot....

Interesting that this runs parallel to my argument above that Marriage shoud be non-legal. Perhaps religious celebrations should be non-legal too...meaning that churches can use their own money and influence to build their own highly visible symbols.

Sorry, didn't mean to overlook your point, Scott. True, marriage as we know it at some point becomes a bit of a conflict between government and religion.

[Aristotle]

What laws prevent people from speaking out agains their lifestyle. Christians speak out against it every day publically and are not arrested, unless an actual crime (assault, murder, etc.) is committed...am I wrong?

In your state, you can research the statutes either in a law library, or the public library. There are cases... one which I recall in particular...of the arrest of a minister who spoke publicly against homosexuality. Churches with a 501©(3) tax exempt status would be of particular interest, as this creates a legal contract with the federal government which allows government intrusion into the church.

The constitution protects ALL religious groups. Considering it was written by men who were deists, Christianity was not given special status...but if someone has historical data to prove me wrong, please share it. I am often wrong.

"Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state...we are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment (in the First Amendment) to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the constitution..."

- Joseph Story, appointee to Pres. James Madison

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington (John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, authored The Federalist Papers) stated: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Intelligence, patriotism...and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness... - George Washington, Farewell Address

Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants. ~ William Penn

THE COURT'S EARLY RULINGS -- We are a Christian nation:

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 1892

Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824, Supreme Court of Massachusetts

The People v. Ruggles, 1811, Supreme Court, State of New York

Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838, Supreme Court of Massachusetts

Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844, United States Supreme Court

John M'Creery's Lessee v. Allender, 1799, Supreme Court of Maryland

Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799, Supreme Court of Maryland

The Commonwealth v. Sharpless and others, 1815, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Davis v. Beason, 1889, United States Supreme Court

Murphy v. Ramsey & Others, 1885, United States Supreme Court

City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 1846, Supreme Court of South Carolina

The Commonwealth v. Wolf, 1817, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

United States v. Macintosh, 1931, United States Supreme Court

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952, United States Supreme Court

Christian symbols should really only be needed in churches or private christian schools.

The Williamsburg Charter was signed by Dallin Oaks on behalf of our Church), permitting all religions to be taught in public schools.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Religion in Public Life,” Ensign, July 1990, 7

"On 25 June 1988, in Williamsburg, Virginia, I signed the Williamsburg Charter on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Written by a group of farsighted U.S. religious, political, and community leaders, that charter celebrates and reaffirms religious liberty as the foremost freedom of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution..."

If you are referring to Christmas trees, Santa Clause, Nativity Scenes, then I agree that they should be displayed in public legally, but as far as I have heard, there have only been a few isolated incidents where such decorations have been removed. After all Christmas trees and Santa Clause are used by non-practicing or ex-Christians...even non-Christians

I can only imagine how Jews would feel if Christians campaigned to remove the Star of David in Israel, or if we intimidated Israelis into not saying "Happy Hannukah".

Interesting that this runs parallel to my argument above that Marriage shoud be non-legal. Perhaps religious celebrations should be non-legal too...meaning that churches can use their own money and influence to build their own highly visible symbols.

I agree, the civil government has no place in the Church. However, "We, The People" are the government, (Christians being the majority), establishing America as a Christian nation as our founding fathers intended.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

No one has been "intimidated" into not saying anything as far as I've seen; it is still a free country. And no one is removing crosses from churches, either.

I too wonder how anyone would feel if that ever happened.

And melting pot that it was intended to be, the US is also a mix of just about every religious belief imaginable, with none given precedence over another.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

In your state, you can research the statutes either in a law library, or the public library. There are cases... one which I recall in particular...of the arrest of a minister who spoke publicly against homosexuality. Churches with a 501©(3) tax exempt status would be of particular interest, as this creates a legal contract with the federal government which allows government intrusion into the church.

Are such cases the rare exception, or the most common occurrences?

"Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state...we are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment (in the First Amendment) to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the constitution..."

- Joseph Story, appointee to Pres. James Madison

This man was obviously a Christian, and therefore was stating his own opinion.

As for the framers of the constitution, and those who influenced it:

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."

-George Washington

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels."

-The Rev. Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister and historian (lamented in an 1831 sermon)

More Deist Quotes from The Constitution of the United States

Article VI, Section 3: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

George Washington

George Washington to Tench Tilghman, (March 24, 1784):

"I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Atheists."

John Adams

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787–88:

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind”

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson

Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moore, August 14, 1800

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual."

Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." (referring to Jesus)

Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5, 1817

"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'

Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Jefferson's Autobiography

“[A]n amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination”

James Madison

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

James Madison, introducing the Bill of Rights at the First Federal Congress, Congressional Register, June 8, 1789:

"[The] civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed."

James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822:

"I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Cong[ress], when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat[ional] Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to the Const[itution] the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat."

Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography:

“Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself ”

“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: London, 1757 - 1775

Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:

“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Thomas Paine

Excerpts from The Age of Reason:

"My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories (of the Bible), the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the Word of God."

"...when I see throughout the greater part of this book (the Bible) scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonor my Creator by calling it by His name."

"(The Christian) despises the choicest gift of God to man, the Gift of Reason; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls if 'human reason' as if man could give reason to himself."

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity”

Thomas Paine, Answers to Friends regarding The Age of Reason, Paris, May 12, 1797

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New."

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No. Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?"

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington (John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, authored The Federalist Papers) stated: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

One man's opinion.

And clearly it is in opposition to the Constitution for him to say this.

I quote:

Article VI, Section 3: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Also, it is also my understanding that most deists believed in a "general providence," in which God expresses his will through the laws of nature he set in motion instead of by micro-managing our daily lives. These laws of nature include "reason"...the Enlightenment was, therefore, a natural event predestined by God (not the Christian God, but The Creator). They did not believe the Constitution was inspired by divine intervention, because deists do not believe in divine intervention. Providence is not divine intervention.

Intelligence, patriotism...and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

Abraham Lincoln was not a founding father. His Christian beliefs are irrelevant to the Constitution.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness... - George Washington, Farewell Address

Deism is a religion, and supports morality...he does not specify Christianity here.

Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants. ~ William Penn

Apparantly, Penn was a Christian (Quaker). So this may be his personal opinion. Not all founding father's were deists, but the most important ones were...and so were the first 6 U.S. presidents.

It might also be interesting to you that there was another famous deist:

Aristotle

"Aristotle was considered to be one of the first writers to reconcile logic to religious ideas during the period of prolific Greek philosophy. He wrote, "There is something which always moves the things that are in motion, and the first mover is itself unmoved." At this point in time with the reasoning about God in full stride, the seeds of Deism were planted, although the word Deism which comes from the Latin word Deus and the French word Deisme for Deity or God had not yet been formulated to label this philosophy..."

THE COURT'S EARLY RULINGS -- We are a Christian nation:

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 1892

Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824, Supreme Court of Massachusetts

The People v. Ruggles, 1811, Supreme Court, State of New York

Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838, Supreme Court of Massachusetts

Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844, United States Supreme Court

John M'Creery's Lessee v. Allender, 1799, Supreme Court of Maryland

Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799, Supreme Court of Maryland

The Commonwealth v. Sharpless and others, 1815, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Davis v. Beason, 1889, United States Supreme Court

Murphy v. Ramsey & Others, 1885, United States Supreme Court

City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 1846, Supreme Court of South Carolina

The Commonwealth v. Wolf, 1817, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

United States v. Macintosh, 1931, United States Supreme Court

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952, United States Supreme Court

I do not know what these cases were about, so I cannot comment.

The Williamsburg Charter was signed by Dallin Oaks on behalf of our Church), permitting all religions to be taught in public schools.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Religion in Public Life,” Ensign, July 1990, 7

"On 25 June 1988, in Williamsburg, Virginia, I signed the Williamsburg Charter on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Written by a group of farsighted U.S. religious, political, and community leaders, that charter celebrates and reaffirms religious liberty as the foremost freedom of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution..."

Well, I agree that if we have to make a choice between having our schools teaching Christianity and teaching "all religions", then it would be best to teach "all religions". Sounds like Dallin Oaks made a good decision by signing that document.

I can only imagine how Jews would feel if Christians campaigned to remove the Star of David in Israel, or if we intimidated Israelis into not saying "Happy Hannukah".

As I mentioned in my post above, I do NOT believe that any Christian symbols should be removed. I would prefer that they be legally displayed in public during holidays...but only if other religions are given the same privilige. We should have signs that say "Happy Hannukah" and "Happy Ramadan" and all associated symbols put in public places.

If not...then I stand by what I said after that...which is that churches (and synagogues and mosques) can use their own money to build more buildings for the purpose of displaying religious symbols on private property.

I agree, the civil government has no place in the Church. However, "We, The People" are the government, (Christians being the majority), establishing America as a Christian nation as our founding fathers intended.

As I demonstrated above the founding fathers never intended anything like that.

[Aristotle]

If you are interested in hate crime statistics, I would recommend that you do an independent search on the internet.

It might also be interesting to you that there was another famous deist:

Aristotle

ARISTOTLE ONASSIS

SKORPIOS ISLAND, Oct. 20: Mr. Aristotle Onassis and Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy were married today according to the rites of the Orthodox Church at Skorpios, the millionaire shipowner's island retreat in the Ionian Sea.

The bride wore a two-piece ivory chiffon, long-sleeved lace dress with pleated skirt and had a matching ribbon in her hair. She stood intently watching the priest who, at one point, translated the service in English for her benefit. He chanted: "The servant of God, Aristotle, is betrothed to the servant of God, Jacqueline, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

WHO FATHERED AMERICA?

In recent years, it has become popular for secular humanists, atheists, and other "free thinkers" to claim that the Fathers of our country were not Christians or religious people after all, but at most deists, atheists, or secularists. Some even go so far as to suggest that several were more addicted to French Enlightenment philosophy than they were to Christianity.

Nothing could be further from the truth! Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were orthodox members of one of the three established Christian communions; approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime Anglican, and one open Deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations. - Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers

- Mrs. A

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

ARISTOTLE ONASSIS

SKORPIOS ISLAND, Oct. 20: Mr. Aristotle Onassis and Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy were married today according to the rites of the Orthodox Church at Skorpios, the millionaire shipowner's island retreat in the Ionian Sea.

The bride wore a two-piece ivory chiffon, long-sleeved lace dress with pleated skirt and had a matching ribbon in her hair. She stood intently watching the priest who, at one point, translated the service in English for her benefit. He chanted: "The servant of God, Aristotle, is betrothed to the servant of God, Jacqueline, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

I just thought it was ironic when I went to a list of famous deists and found Aristotle there! But I understand your nickname now

WHO FATHERED AMERICA?

In recent years, it has become popular for secular humanists, atheists, and other "free thinkers" to claim that the Fathers of our country were not Christians or religious people after all, but at most deists, atheists, or secularists. Some even go so far as to suggest that several were more addicted to French Enlightenment philosophy than they were to Christianity.

Nothing could be further from the truth! Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were orthodox members of one of the three established Christian communions; approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime Anglican, and one open Deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.

- Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers

Being a member of a church does not necessarily mean believing in its doctrines.

As an inactive LDS, I am proof of that.

I read somewhere (sorry I don't have the quote right now) that Washington (or maybe it was Jefferson) was a member or one of those churches, but only because Christianity was the dominant religion, and one would not be taken seriously as a politician if one was not at least nominally Christian (sort of like today). Or possibly he was a member of his church for social/family reasons, like I am.

There is controversy over Washington's religion...whether he was Deist or Christian...there are arguments for both sides.

But as you can see in the quotes in my previous post, the most famous founding fathers were either openly Deist or at least emphasized that this is not a "Christian" nation.

I'll have to research this more, but I have a feeling there is evidence for both sides of the debate, and there will be no "proof" for either your opinion or mine.

Also...I gave you direct quotes from founding fathers.

If you can find it...can you tell me what Tim LaHaye's sources were? The quote does not show where he got his information on the religions of the founding fathers.

[Snow]

The homosexual lobby has campaigned and enacted special hate crime laws to punish those who speak out against their lifestyle.

Here's my prediction: I am going to challenge you to specify even one single enacted law that makes it a crime to speak out against homosexual lifestyle and you are going to refuse or ignore the challenge.

The reason: Your assertion is false, definately ignorant and most likely a deliberate lie.

Note: My predictions always come true.

[Aristotle]

<div class='quotemain'>

The homosexual lobby has campaigned and enacted special hate crime laws to punish those who speak out against their lifestyle.

Here's my prediction: I am going to challenge you to specify even one single enacted law that makes it a crime to speak out against homosexual lifestyle and you are going to refuse or ignore the challenge.

The reason: Your assertion is false, definately ignorant and most likely a deliberate lie.

Note: My predictions always come true.

Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls. LOL

- Mrs. A

[Aristotle]

I just thought it was ironic when I went to a list of famous deists and found Aristotle there! But I understand your nickname now

Fooled ya, huh? LOL

I read somewhere (sorry I don't have the quote right now) that Washington (or maybe it was Jefferson) was a member or one of those churches, but only because Christianity was the dominant religion, and one would not be taken seriously as a politician if one was not at least nominally Christian (sort of like today). Or possibly he was a member of his church for social/family reasons, like I am.

"This is a question often asked today, and it arises from the efforts of those who seek to impeach Washington's character by portraying him as irreligious. Interestingly, Washington's own contemporaries did not question his Christianity but were thoroughly convinced of his devout faith--a fact made evident in the first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s."

re: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

If you can find it...can you tell me what Tim LaHaye's sources were? The quote does not show where he got his information on the religions of the founding fathers.

There are quite a few references on the internet under Tim LaHaye advertising his books.

BTW, did you have any luck finding hate crime laws in your area? I found alot of information on the internet, and you can check by state.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

<div class='quotemain'>

The homosexual lobby has campaigned and enacted special hate crime laws to punish those who speak out against their lifestyle.

Here's my prediction: I am going to challenge you to specify even one single enacted law that makes it a crime to speak out against homosexual lifestyle and you are going to refuse or ignore the challenge.

The reason: Your assertion is false, definately ignorant and most likely a deliberate lie.

Note: My predictions always come true.

Well this one did...

[Snow]

"This is a question often asked today, and it arises from the efforts of those who seek to impeach Washington's character by portraying him as irreligious. Interestingly, Washington's own contemporaries did not question his Christianity but were thoroughly convinced of his devout faith--a fact made evident in the first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s."

re: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

If you want the least reliable, most biased source possible - go to a Christian apologetic website whose only objective is to tell you their particular point of view.

If you want an honest, relatively unbiased view go to a quality encyclopedia. If you don't have Enclyopedia Britanica, then go to Wikipedia:

"Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that indicates he, like numerous other men of his time, was a Deist—believing in God but not believing in revelation or miracles. As a young man, before the Revolution, when the Church of England was still the state religion in Virginia, he served as a vestryman (lay officer) for his local church. He spoke often of the value of prayer, righteousness, and seeking and offering thanks for the "blessings of Heaven". He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!" His adopted daughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, and several others have said, however, that he was, indeed, a Christian. Various prayers said to have been composed by him in his later life are highly edited. He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons at the request of his wife, Martha.

Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not burn the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. In 1790, he wrote to Jewish leaders that he envisioned a country "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

You will also find a list of scholarly source that is not hand picked to promote a pre-held religious view point.

Futhermore, if you study the Founding Fathers you will find that far from being a nation founded on Christianity, the Fathers were an interesting group of Christians, Deists and Atheists.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

"This is a question often asked today, and it arises from the efforts of those who seek to impeach Washington's character by portraying him as irreligious. Interestingly, Washington's own contemporaries did not question his Christianity but were thoroughly convinced of his devout faith--a fact made evident in the first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s."

re: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

No one has portrayed Washington as irreligious. Deists believe in God, Providence, Reason. To call Washington a Deist is not impeaching his character...it is just changing his character from a moral Christian to a moral non-Christian.

The website you quote is a Christian website, so I can't say they are unbiased...I would have to actually read the Writings of George Washington to verify their claim.

Anyway, just to give you a different point of view, here is something I copied from a Deist website.

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISM

Deists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.

Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."

On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.

George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."

Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.

The altruism and integrity that Washington possessed is made evident by his restraint in his personal gains. At the successful conclusion of the American Revolution he could have made himself dictator for life. Or he could have allowed others to make him king. Yet, like the Roman General Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus before him, Washington refused to do either.

Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.

Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death.

"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he.

"About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"

Like other Deists such as Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Franklin, and Allen, Washington did not fear death but looked at it as just another part of nature. Though he didn't speculate much on an after-life, he was comfortable to look at his own death as part of God's design.

George Washington offers us a tremendous example of altruism and positive action. His actions tell us stronger than any words could possibly do to persevere in the face of all obstacles. To never give up and to always combine our sincerely held beliefs with action.

Now I can't say that is any more true than the quotes you gave me.

I expect the truth is somewhere in the middle when it comes to the personal religious beliefs of the founding fathers. They were probably good mix of Christians and Deists, from what I have been reading.

On the other hand, we are assuming their personal beliefs affected the Constitution. That is not necessarily true. I still think the quotes I gave earlier show that the founding fathers did not intend a Christian nation, but rather a nation with religious tolerance and separation of church and state.

Maybe there are other direct quotes by founding fathers that contradict that idea...so share them if you like.

There are quite a few references on the internet under Tim LaHaye advertising his books.

Fair enough.

BTW, did you have any luck finding hate crime laws in your area? I found alot of information on the internet, and you can check by state.

I am not sure what you were asking me to look for...

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

The homosexual lobby has campaigned and enacted special hate crime laws to punish those who speak out against their lifestyle.

Here's my prediction: I am going to challenge you to specify even one single enacted law that makes it a crime to speak out against homosexual lifestyle and you are going to refuse or ignore the challenge.

The reason: Your assertion is false, definately ignorant and most likely a deliberate lie.

Note: My predictions always come true.

Well this one did...

I may not be the best educated or most insightful, or most skilled wordsmith, etc on the board, but one thing that four years of internet message board posting has given me is the blessed gift of BULL DETECTION. I can spot nonsense, ill-logic, deceit and idiocy from 3.78 miles away.

It makes predictions like this one a cake walk.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

BTW, did you have any luck finding hate crime laws in your area? I found alot of information on the internet, and you can check by state.

I am not sure what you were asking me to look for...

Were you asking me to find "hate crimes" against Christians? That is, crimes committed against someone who preaches against homosexuality?

If so, I would not know where to look for it.

Maybe you can find one for me. I am in Utah, so I would expect that if such hate crimes are as common as you say, we would find many committed against the LDS Church, right?

[Aristotle]

The website you quote is a Christian website, so I can't say they are unbiased...I would have to actually read the Writings of George Washington to verify their claim.

Of course, I quote Christians, you quote Deists!

George Washington was a Christian, not a Deist.

Said John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court, about Washington, "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he [Washington] was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."

Said the Reverend J.T. Kirkland after Washington's death in 1799, "The virtues of our departed friend were crowned by piety. He is known to have been habitually devout. To Christian institutions he gave the countenance of this example; and no one could express, more fully, his sense of the Providence of God, and the dependence of man."

George Washington was born February 22, 1732, into a Christian family...raised in the Anglican church, Washington remained a member throughout his life. He had a deep appreciation for all religions that produced good character, but he expressed a special appreciation for all Christian denominations.

That President George Washinton was a devout believer in Jesus Christ and had accepted Him as His Lord and Savior is easily demonstrated by a reading of his personal prayer book (written in his own handwriting) which was discovered in 1891 among a collection of his papers. It consists of twenty-four pages of his morning and evening prayers, revealing many of his theological beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, sin, salvation, eternal life, and himself as a humble servant of Christ.

(Exerpts from Faith of Our Founding Fathers, Tim LaHaye).

I would recommend that you buy this book, which includes George Washington's prayers.

I am not sure what you were asking me to look for...

You asked me about hate crime laws/crime statistics and I suggested you look on the internet. I found a diagrahm of the states which have hate crime laws in place. (Search under "hate crime laws").

- Mrs. A