American Constitutional Debate….

Freedom OF Religion
or
Freedom FROM Religion

The following is a two-part facebook exchange that recently took place between myself
and a few others. I didn’t intend or foresee for this to be used in this manner, but it
occurred to me after it was done that it really does quite a nice job of illustrating the
competing points of view and nicely encapsulates the various Freedom OF Religion vs.
Freedom FROM Religion arguments. Presuming that all participants put forth their best
arguments, this could be a summary of the entire issue.

Although I strongly disagree with several points of view stated herein, and even got
quite a bit testy at times, I do respect what they had to say and came away with a
clearer and firmer understanding of why I believe what I believe and my understanding
of why the opposing point of view believes what they believe. We didn’t “solve” it, and I
still think the opposition is wrong, but I’m confident that I fairly represented the
Freedom OF Religion view adequately and pointed out the problems with the
“separation of church and state” AKA: Freedom FROM Religion point of view.

It’s my opinion of course, but I hold to what I believe is the consensus view of the
founders as described in America’s founding documents. You’ll see many references and
quotes from extra-constitutional sources, and outright debate slight-of- hand, but as I
pointed out many times, they are not THE constitution and therefore not useful beyond
academic background knowledge.

It’s clear to me that one side holds to opinions that the facts do not support, to bolster
an anti-religion, vis-à-vis anti-Judeo-Christian agenda that the founders would have
been appalled by. That’s my opinion of course, but you’ll have to decide for yourself
what they stood for and I think you’ll find this exchange helpful in that regard.

Enjoy,
P. Murphy
Part I

Paul Murphy "28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the
schools on the ground that it violates the principle of 'separation of church and
state'."

The phrase "separation of church and state" appears in only one place, one letter
from Thomas Jefferson. It's NOT in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights or the
Declaration of Independence.

From the 45 Communist (Marxist) Party USA Goals (1963) Congressional

Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Communist Party Goals 1963

www.scribd.com

45 Goals of the Communist (Marxist) Party USA, as read into Congressional record in
1963. Bring back the House Committee on un-American Activities!!

May 25 at 1:28am · Comment · LikeUnlike · Share

Ilyn Ross

A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. Americans have the
right to be a religionist or an atheist. Theocracy warriors lust to end this right.

Government is force. When the separation of church and state is pierced, you have
FORCE and religion. Religion and force is theocracy. Advocates of force are evil.
Paul Murphy

I don't know ANY Christian, and I know many Ilyn, that want non-believers to acquiesce
to Christian practices.

I think you are conflating "freedom OF religion", with "freedom FROM religion".

This post indicates the Communist goal to create "freedom FROM religion" through
government force.... See More

There is NO "theocracy warrior" component allowing free people to worship as they see
fit, anywhere they wish.

Ilyn Ross

When the separation of church and state is attacked, that is an endorsement to

combine force and religion. This agenda ensures Obamination's reelection.

Paul Murphy

"Separation of church and state" is not constitutional.

Acquiescing to ultra-leftist atheism, government imposed "freedom from religion",

accomplishes nothing except to aid them in our own destruction.

God will see to Obama's destruction.

Ilyn Ross

"Separation of church and state" is respecting rights. Church and FORCE is the Dark
Ages - it is EVIL.
Paul Murphy

"Separation of church and state" is "freedom FROM religion" and certainly NOT what
Jefferson was referring to.

However, that's your opinion and that's fine. I respect that and have no desire to
require anyone to worship as I do, but you are advocating the use of the very same
"government force" to require people of faith to leave their faith at the door and that is
NOT constitutional.

THAT, is dark ages Atheism Warrior EVIL too.

Ilyn Ross

When has a private individual, in his private capacity, ever been prevented from having
faith?

Paul Murphy

Are you living under a rock? Have you not been reading the news reports? Christians
are under assault by OUR government entities like never before.

I read a story just yesterday where a school kid was suspended (expelled?) just for
having rosary beads in his possession!

Tom Clancy

I agree with u Paul.

Ilyn Ross

"District leaders tell FOX23 News and the school's policy states that students may not
wear beads out of concern they may be gang related." --
http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/UPDATE-Mother-meets-with-school-
adminstrators/aa-5ZmElVEiD-CrtlZt_Fw.cspx

Any beads is prohibited as a school policy. It is not rosary beads that is prohibited, but
beads.

He was warned of the policy: "Raymond said on Monday that the principal at Oneida
Middle School told him to take off or hide his rosary per school policy. But he didn't and
went back to school on Tuesday. When Raymond went in on Wednesday he was
suspended."

Paul Murphy

Right, because we all know how popular beads that look amazingly like a rosary are
with street hoodlums. C'mon Ilyn, you're sharper than that. In 9 years of dealing with
and arresting those hoodlums, of every sort you can imagine, I've YET to find ONE
wearing ANY sort of beads.

Tom Clancy

God doesn't involve himself in human events, we were given a free will by him to do
what we want but someday we do have to face His Angels.

Ilyn Ross

When one enrolls in a school, one must abide by school policy. He is free to go to
another school where beads are acceptable. The school allows it if he wears it inside his
shirt.
Peggy Reed

Thanks for sharing this Paul. I'm going to re post it!

Steven Thomas

The problem with the Libertarian ideal (and I call myself a Libertarian) is that it is a
political as well as a social philosophy and that in order to achieve this ideal, it must be
a complete transformation. In other words its not just enough to institute a libertarian
government, for as long as individuals dont respect the rights of other individuals, there
will always be tyranny of some form. That being said, let's work on re-instating a
Constitutional government before continue to work towards the ideal. From a strict
Constitutional perspective, Ilyn, you are completely wrong about the Establishment
Clause, as is 99% of most Americans.

The 1st Amendment has no bearing what so ever on what the States are not permitted
to do. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a restriction on FEDERAL government.
Thats right, a State can abridge your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, if it
wants to, UNLESS these rights are protected in that respective STATES Constitution as
well (which most are).

If its a private school. Kid's shit out of luck. Take the damn beads off. If its a public,
state school, its pretty damn potentially unconstitional to me for the State to abridge
teh kids right to freedom of expression of religion.

I don't care how much you hate theocrats, or what evils you think they perpetuate. The
law is the law. If you don't like it, you can lobby to have it changed in a legal manner,
ie, an amendment process of some kind .. but you dont get to impose your
interpretation, or your objectivist ideal on everyone else, thats EXACTLY the thing the
Progressives have done to this country and you would be NO BETTER.

Scott Obey

Still worried about Communists?!? The Cold War is quite over and the only Communist
regime left is China and they are hardly Communist these days. Me thinks y'all worry
too much.
Steven Thomas

I know, huh? It's crazy. This is still the same great old America we grew up in, isn't it
Scott? Can't happen here, can't happen here. Take a trip downtown to the pier lately? I
was just there this past January. Its been creeping up, but authoritarianism in general
has been on the rise for a while now. When's the last time you tried throwing... See
More a party till mindnight with half the guests lighting up? Think the cops will still
leave you alone in HB as long as you got the music turned down by 11? Its not just
Communism per se, its about Tyranny in general, and that can manifest itself in many
forms of government, but what it all comes down to, is an expansion of government
control and or ownership. Call it communism, call it fascism, it doesnt matter to me.

Cajun Bob Thx

Scott may have his point, but it is mindless to think that the philosophy of redistribution
of wealth has gone away. It is flourishing more than ever now. It will get worse as the
world's resources become scarcer and scarcer. It is IMPERATIVE the America remain
the beacon of freedom.

Paul Murphy

Scott & Cajun: You need to understand that traditional USSR "Communism" did
seemingly fade away in the form we understood, but this is what you're missing.
Communism IS Marxism, Marxist-Leninist to be more accurate, and that did NOT go
away.

Communists call themselves "socialists" and seek to implement socialism, not

communism. Socialism is also based on Marxist-Leninist thought. The two are really
different shades of the very same thing. You could change the title of that document to
read "45 Marxist goals..., or "45 Socialist goals..." and the meaning will not change one
whit.

I've been studying these people for many years now. The name changed, but THEY did
not.
Can you honestly say that socialism and Marxist-Leninist thought went away?

The wolf has only put on a different set of sheep's clothing.

Paul Murphy

...and if "school policy" is not constitutional Ilyn?

Paul Murphy

ACLJ is ON IT!
http://www.aclj.org/OnTheTv/?aP=32de024f-222e-42ad-acbb-
bdfe4b406ef2&mmType=4&email=prmurphy%40wildblue.net&guid=61DBCA82-94A3-
4F99-803E-6284750C9C1A

ACLJ = THE ANTI-ACLU

Cajun Bob Thx

Paul, I meant that communism, by that name, is now flourishing. Bob

Steven Thomas

They may not be Communists per se, or even think that they are genuinely Communists
or Socialists or whatever, but what we are talking about is a ratcheting up of
government control and power, now that can only manifest itself in certain ways, it
certainly doesnt manifest itself in the form of Liberty. So when you talk about the
expansion of government and that happens to include symptoms such as welfare
redistribution or nationalization, those symptoms by nature take on traits that are
parallel to Socialism or Fascism. The problem is, the ratcheting up of tyranny is a
cumulative effect, and its cumulative effects tend to be only noticed by those who have
perspective, ie, have lived in a time where society and government seemed more free.
Since it is the nature of tyranny to ratchet up like this , the end result if left
unchalleneged is basically Communism, which is a totallitarian form of government
control and the economy. Whether there is a "secret" Commie plot that originates from
the Soviet Union or China or the freaking Bilderbergs is irrelevant, the trend from
Liberty to tyranny still exists.

Myra Davis

The Tenth Plank of the Communist Manifesto really is chilling. It sure would have been
great to have had a Govt. who had their own agenda for Liberty for this country like the
founding fathers and Ronald Reagan.

Paul Murphy

Very true Myra. We could almost just reverse what the 45 Marxist goals called for and
rename it the Freedom Manifesto.

Ilyn Ross

The Constitution is a restriction on the government: Federal and State. It is a restriction

on force. What is rights-infringement for the Federal government is rights-infringement
for any government.

Separation of state and church is separation of force and religion. This is good because
force against non-force is evil.
Paul Murphy

That's all fine and dandy Ilyn, but you have yet to show me just where in the
constitution you divined that from.

We're not structured under ",...In order to form a more perfect union..." through
Jefferson's letters.

Freedom OF Religion
vs
Freedom FROM Religion

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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."

Seems crystal clear to me...

Ilyn Ross

It's not a vs issue because freedom of religion means the right to choose to have faith
or to be free from religion. Freedom of religion means that force, i.e. government, is
out of religion.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --
Thomas Jefferson

Paul, what is your definition of freedom?

Paul Murphy

Which part of "...or prohibit the free exercise thereof..." do you not understand?
Ilyn Ross

Americans are free to exercise their faith or non-faith in the non-government or non-
force realm.

The government holds a monopoly on coercive power - a good government uses force
only on force. It stays out of religion.

You interpret "not prohibit the free exercise thereof" to mean exercise your religion in
the government, i.e. coercive, realm. This is wrong because it infringes the rights of
people who do not share your beliefs. Government should stay out of religion and
protect the rights of all people regardless of their religious beliefs or atheism.

Paul Murphy

I'm not advocating, now or ever, government involvement Ilyn and you know it. If you
disagree, please cite the text otherwise. So you're either intentionally attempting to
frame the argument as a strawman to distort the issue, or you just don't understand
constitutional freedom OF religion, ie; keeping government coercion or "force" away
from my faith. Which is it? If I choose to pray in school or form a bible study at work,
non-sanctioned by either the school or government, it's the constitutional duty of that
public or private entity to back away and restrain itself. That's what the constitutional
phrase refers to and that's what 230 years of American jurisprudence and case law
states. Show me the proof contrary, or we're done.

Ilyn Ross

To advocate AGAINST the SEPARATION of church and state is to advocate government

involvement in religion.

You can pray in government buildings silently. God hears silent prayers. One should
respect their employment contracts. One is free to have bible studies on privately
funded tv, in their homes or churches.
Paul Murphy

Thomas Jefferson - The Mind of the American Revolution "[N]o man shall be compelled
to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be
enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill
D Peterson, ed, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

Ilyn Ross

Kudos to Thomas Jefferson!

The principle of political freedom, i.e., an individual... See More’s freedom from physical
compulsion, coercion, or interference by the government, is the first consequence of
the principle of individual rights. In freedom, government stays out of religion and all
other non-force realms.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative
powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Paul Murphy

Jefferson's writings are a red herring argument Ilyn. Why? TJ's own personal words
from his writings are not found in the US Constitution. I go to the constitution. You go
to TJ's writings. I go to case law. You go to TJ's writings. I go to Supreme Court
opinions. You go to TJ's writings. I go to common practice and beliefs in their day. You
go to TJ's writings. That's a fundamental fail on your part Ilyn.

I could pound you to a pulp with quotes from other founders affirming what I've written
in previous responses, but as I already pointed out, this is a red herring argument and
you would probably continue to quote Jefferson and never address the central points
raised, as you continue to do.

Besides, it does not address the central issue of the words found in the US Constitution,
the law of our land. TJ's writings are NOT the law of our land so if I pummel you with
quotes about faith in government from other founders, I'm indulging your misguided
approach to the issue.

Did you read TJ's words Illyn? Is it a reading comprehension issue?

If I choose, key word Ilyn CHOOSE,... read it carefully... to read a bible in school, or at
work, or to hold a police bible study with other believers, or to express my faith at a
football game, or wear rosary beads at school, or invoke Jesus' name at a council
meeting, or pray before I eat at a government office, on and on, et al, ad
nauseum,.....that it my LEGAL right as an American citizen.

I challenge you AGAIN to show me the legal basis of your claims, other than another
Jefferson quote, from either the US Constitution, case law, court opinions, or something
from 234 years of American jurisprudence to bolster your claims.

If you cannot, game, set, match: Paul

Part II

Ilyn Ross A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.
Americans have the right to be a religionist or an atheist. Theocracy warriors
lust to end this right.

Government is force. When the separation of church and state is pierced, you
have FORCE and religion. Religion and force is theocracy. Advocates of force
are evil.

Theocrats spurn God’s greatest gift: reason. Instead of using reason and
persuasion to advance their values, they advocate using coercion.

Paul Murphy

I don't know ANY Christian, and I know many Ilyn, that want non-believers to acquiesce to
Christian practices.

I think you are conflating "freedom OF religion", with "freedom FROM religion".

This post indicates the Communist goal to create "freedom FROM religion" through government
force....

There is NO "theocracy warrior" component allowing free people to worship as they see fit,
anywhere they wish.

Ilyn Ross
Attacking the separation of church and state is lusting to combine force and religion. This agenda
is evil and it ensures Obamination's reelection.

Man has free will. Even God does not want to force himself on anyone.
Paul Murphy
"Man has free will. Even God does not want to force himself on anyone."

EXACTLY. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Ilyn Ross
Then why do you want to combine force and religion?

The separation of church and state means the separation of force and religion.

Chris Green
The end all paradox is that man cannot separate church and state. If this is done successfully, the
state becomes the church. Man always seeks guidance and in the vacuum of a soulless
government, the government becomes that guide.

Paul Murphy
I believe that's exactly what the government seeks to achieve. They've replaced In God We Trust,
with In Government We Trust. That's the whole point of infesting churches with eco-Marxist
"social justice" programs.

Patrick Dennis
Chris, the guide could be the mind of man just as easily. Each man acting in his own self interest
(and woman too), respecting the rights of others to act in their own self interest. I think the ideal
we seek is a society based on reason and removing the option to use force to get your way in life.
One need not invoke the existence of a god to recognize that a difference exists between
behavior we tend to call, in broad terms , "moral" and "immoral".
I believe that in the founding of America, in its early days, there was some understanding that a
mixing of the powers of government and the rules of a particular religion was an unstable
mixture that would doom this experiment in freedom to failure. So there is a recognition that a
religion is a personal choice, and that there should be a protection that the exercising of the
beliefs of a religion ought to be protected from any interference from government. In a like
manner the exercise of your conscience, out to be protected as well, so while a particular state
may have a dominate religion (I am looking at Utah), it has no right to demand that all its
population believe or attend that dominate religion's churches. The theocracies we see in places
like Iran and the like are examples of the dangers of conflating religion with governance.
Paul Murphy
Who's combining force with religion? I'm simply saying that government should keep it's force
OUT of my religion.
You're advocating using government force to eliminate religion from the public square, yet
referring to people of my belief, the largest majority I believe, as "theocracy warriors".
So who is really attempting to wield government force towards achieving an outcome?

Freedom OF religion is what the founders intended. USSR, Communist China, E. Germany in
it's heyday, Cuba, etc have very elaborate freedom FROM religion laws & policies.

Ilyn Ross
You say that the separation of church and state is unconstitutional, which is exactly the same as
saying that the separation of religion and force is unconstitutional.

Not "public square", but "government realm". There are religious shows on tv. There are many
churches that people can freely go to.

Erskine Fincher
@Paul Murphy As government takes over the public square, religion is necessarily pushed out,
because the two cannot be mixed without impinging on freedom of conscience. If you want to
stop that process, stop the spread of government. Push it back within its natural boundaries. Get
it out of education, healthcare, charity, parks, festivals, recreation, and the many other areas of
public life that it has swallowed up. The only moral purpose of government is to protect
individual rights. When it is once again limited to that purpose there will be plenty of room in the
public square for your religion, so long as it is willing to pay for access.

Michael Edwards
Ilyn, sometimes you make my head hurt. While I agree with most of what you say, I just don't
think there is a need for you to attack everything that is not purely objectivist. I am breaking free
of some paradigms I have lived with for many years, but there are some things that I hold dear
and I will not acquiesce. I disagree with you and all your "hate" toward RR. (Not just with the
above post, but others as well). It was Reagan that led this country out of the darkness of the
Carter years. Reagan restored pride to this country. For that I will be eternally grateful. Sadly it's
been lost now, but I think your railing against him for not repealing anti-trust laws is simply
unfair. Even if he wanted to (and I don't know if he even cared), he could not do it with the
stroke of a pen. A Democrat congress would have stopped that.

Obviously, I have not reached the stage of Objectivist enlightenment that you profess and
perhaps I never will (and I don't know that I want to).
Further, I believe that it is possible to be a Christian and be objectivist too. I suscribe to most
things that Ayn Rand professed, but not all. She was an atheist and I believe that was her biggest
flaw, but I do support her choice to be as she believed. Unless the Muslims take over this
country, there will not be a theocracy, so I think you waste a lot of time on religion. There are
fanatics in every religion and obviously there are anti-religion fanatics. So what.

Raymond Eggers
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor
shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free
to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same
shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D
Peterson, ed, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

END OF STORY. No man (woman or child) shall be compelled to frequent or support any
religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...

Google religion v. America and read that. People like Ronald Reagan wanted religion in schools
and child indoctrinated into religious worship.

Raymond Eggers
Sounds like freedom FROM religion to me.

Michael Edwards

You missed my point but I understand what you are saying. I agree with Jefferson and I'm quite
sure that I've studied the founders and specifically Jefferson as much if not more than you. Being
an atheist, it's interesting and just a little ironic that you chose to quote a diest.

And just because I will defend Reagan to those that have little heart to go with their brain, you
should not assume that I agreed with EVERYTHING that he did or said. That would be
ridiculous and a self serving assumption on your part
Bryan Blakeman

Reagan's largest accomplishment, besides making us feel good to be Americans, was to

circumvent every established rule for government borrowing (going in debt in response to war or
other emergency) and open the spicket for unprecedented deficit spending...money flowing into
the economy makes everyone rick (for a while). All Presidents that have followed him, save
George HW Bush, saw this and continued along the same line. Clinton, who benefitted from the
Internet boom, may have left with a balanced budget (and a recession) only because he
intersected time (and one of the greatest productivity revolutions)...not because he was some
economic genius. Truth is, most of the economic growth that began in Reagan's time (and
engineered by Don Regan) was based on spending what we don't have and we are paying for it
now.

As to the OP, you are absolutely right Ilyn, many theists don't want to be alone in their deluded
thinking and would love to wrest enough control to enforce their thinking on others. As Dan
Dennett pointed out in "Breaking the Spell," theists have tired forever to prove that they live
more moral lives than do non-theists...and after spending much time and money, there is not one
shread of evidence to reinforce this claim...in fact, the truth is, where religiosity is high, so is
crime (some social anthropologists will argue high crime may cause higher religiosity)...but
prisons are not filled with the secular. The secular community enjoys the lowest divorce rate and
few of us use abortion as a means of birth control (that is done by those same people carrying
signs demanding to change the law).

While not all Christians (and I know many who would absolutely abhor government enforcement
of morality) attempt to use political power to force others to lives as they say (but often don't do),
plenty do. The 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to worship, or not. Religion and politics
are a pernitious couple.

Paul Murphy

The issue of wanting religion "in government", schools, etc has been conflated with what people
like myself truly want, and that is to not have religion; ie "us", expelled from government to
satisfy some some twisted freedom FROM religion goal.

I'm a government employee. By Ilyn's views, I should resign today. The truth of it is that I don't
expect anyone to comport to my view, but the same is not true in reverse. We simply don't want
the ACLU and every other ultra-leftist activist group climbing up our rear-ends when someone
says "Jesus" in a public place.

Until that stops, I will not stop fighting it. Ilyn will call that dark ages "theocracy warrior" stuff,
when it's a purely defensive posture from being backed into a corner and relentlessly attacked by
Marxists seeking to create a freedom FROM religion America. (She should really read up on the
crusades too. Ilyn, you have it backwards.)

America has always been a freedom OF religion country. That's what the founders envisioned.
That's what the constitution calls for. That's what Jefferson wrote about. That's what existed until
the Marxist 60's. Call it what you will, but I will not submit to less.
Bryan Blakeman

Paul, I'd be curious to see just how tolerant you would be if the local school system wanted to
celebrate the Prophet Mohammad's birthdate with some days off and a play. While some in the
secular community are bent on hyperbole, the religious community is not daily bombarded with
references to competing faiths...nor are your kids. All those unsolicited Jesus references don't
bother you...

James W Rollins

http://mises.org/daily/1544

Paul Murphy

Bryan: More conflation. You said "the school system...." I'm saying individual, and I repeat, the
government needs to keep their "force" out of my faith.

Bryan Blakeman
It goes both ways Paul. I volunteer at my son's elementary and am constantly bombarded with
"Jesus." As a former Christian, it does not bother me in the least...but I don't think that is the
place to advertise or proselytize faith (of any flavor). You are not sensitive to this as it does not
go the other way.

Most of my friends and family are ... See MoreChristians...and wonderful people. I don't want
anyone impeding their rights of belief or to worship. But they, knowing my philosophical
opinions, have the respect not to force that on me or my family.

With 3 out of 4 people in this country voluntarily calling themselves "Christian," they are clearly
in the majority and are neither being persecuted or forced to do anything...accept being asked to
respect others.

Paul Murphy
#1: Define "respect others"

#2: What is unconstitutional about a personal expression of faith?

Bryan Blakeman
Paul, I know how difficult it is to have to rationalize your "a priori" conclusions about the
universe. It feels better if others will also claim knowledge that they cannot possibly have...this is
why I call myself an agnostic, I don't know if you are right or wrong, I just can't personally claim
any experiences with metaphysical events or cosmic ... See Morewizards. And I have no need to
express that view. Image if I, every time you or someone else felt the need to say "Jesus" or pray
in public or in some other way express your faith, I piped up and challenged your viewpoint...
We all know that is not respectful (or necessary). But you have no reason to advertise in the first
place...religion is a personal matter.

The constitution neither implies your right to express your religious views in the public square
nor does it repress them - it is not the final arbiter of every possible behavior. Just tell me how
willing you are for your kids to hear about Lord Shiva or crediting Allah with victory over the
Jews in the campaign at Khaybar? Does the constitution prevent that from happening? Do you
think that is OK or would you have a problem with anyone other than Christians expressing
personal faith?

Paul Murphy
Praise Jesus, yet MORE conflation...

Government and the individual are NOT THE SAME. The constitution protects individual rights
by restraining government force.

In your examples you are advocating using that very same government force, through the
schools, to spread the very religious thing you say I should not express in a public setting. Can
you not see the conflation and contradictions in that?

I didn't rationalize a thing. You dodged a simple question.

In a complete educational historical context, I have no problems with any of your examples. That
is NOT what is happening now....

Bryan Blakeman
Religion is a private matter.

Paul Murphy
Face it. You want "freedom FROM religion"
Bryan Blakeman
No...that is far from the truth. Many seem to benefit from faith. Why would I wish to take that
from others?

Michael Edwards
Agreed Bryan. Religion is a private matter and many do benefit from it. I just disagree with the
anti-Christian PC trends of today. Public schools will tolerate any religion today except
Christianity simply because it is politically correct thing to do

Paul Murphy

ACLJ is on it!
http://www.aclj.org/OnTheTv/?aP=32de024f-222e-42ad-acbb-
bdfe4b406ef2&mmType=4&email=prmurphy%40wildblue.net&guid=61DBCA82-94A3-4F99-
803E-6284750C9C1A

Ilyn Ross
Raymond, I posted your TJ quote here: Thomas Jefferson - The Mind of the American
Revolution -- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Thomas-Jefferson-The-Mind-of-the-American-
Revolution/367591548897

Thank you.

Ilyn Ross
Posted on Paul's thread:

Separation of state and church is separation of force and religion. This is good because force
against non-force is evil.

It's not a "freedom of vs from" issue because freedom of religion means the right to choose to
have faith or to be free from religion. Freedom of religion means that force, i.e. government, is
out of religion.... See More

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas
Jefferson

Americans are free to exercise their faith or non-faith in the non-government or non-force realm.
The government holds a monopoly on coercive power - a good government uses force only on
force. It stays out of religion.

Paul interprets "not prohibit the free exercise thereof" to mean exercise his religion in the
government, i.e. coercive, realm. This is wrong because it infringes the rights of people who do
not share his beliefs. Government should stay out of religion and protect the rights of all people
regardless of their religious beliefs or atheism.

Paul Murphy
You continue to advocate freedom FROM religion. A position only atheists and Marxists divine
from constitutional text, case law and 230 years of American jurisprudence. Tear up the fill in
the blank constitution you're using and read LAW.

Ilyn Ross
In freedom, people have freedom from religion.

Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders were not Marxists.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by
the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the
tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson ...
See More

Government, i.e. force, in religion violates the rights of the individual.

Ilyn Ross
Michael, I never bash one's personal stand on faith, on atheism, or on anything. I say it's no one's
business. I am against those who lust to impose their religious-based or atheism-based or non-
objective-based values.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Founders are the proof that reason and faith can coexist, parallel to
each other, in the same man. Like them, their moral descendants revere reason, freedom, and
happiness. -- http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2009/11/can-reason-and-faith-coexist-parallel_29.html

One need not be an atheist to fight for rights and capitalism.

As to private faith: “The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of
their proper relationship is — Hands off!” -- Howard Roark, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

-- http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2009/12/ethics-of-self-interest-pursuit-of-ones.html
Ilyn Ross
Are you a Jeffersonian or a Reaganite? -- http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-you-
jeffersonian-or-reaganite.html

Ilyn Ross
Religion vs. America
Monday, November 11, 2002
By: Leonard Peikoff

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5360&news_iv_ctrl=1225

1) In this article, Dr. Peikoff extols Thomas Aquinas.

2) Dr. Peikoff describes what I call Objectivist-Thomists:

"Many of the Founding Fathers, of course, continued to believe in God and to do so sincerely,
but it was a vestigial belief, a leftover from the past which no longer shaped the essence of their
thinking. God, so to speak, had been kicked upstairs. He was regarded now as an aloof spectator
who neither responds to prayer nor offers revelations nor demands immolation. This sort of
viewpoint, known as DEISM, cannot, properly speaking, be classified as a religion. It is a stage
in the atrophy of religion; it is the step between Christianity and outright atheism."

3) Dr. Peikoff explained the evil of the religious right (THEOCRACY WARRIORS):

"What we are seeing is the medievalism of the Puritans all over again, but without their excuse
of ignorance. We are seeing it on the part of modern Americans, who live not before the
Founding Fathers' heroic experiment in liberty, but after it.

The New Right is not the voice of Americanism. It is the voice of thought control attempting to
take over in this country and pervert and undo the actual American revolution."

4) "The early Christians did contribute some good ideas to the world, ideas that proved important
to the cause of future freedom. I must, so to speak, give the angels their due. In particular, the
idea that man has a value as an individual--that the individual soul is precious--is essentially a
Christian legacy to the West..."

5) "There are many good people in the world who accept religion, and many of them hold some
good ideas on social questions. I do not dispute that. But their religion is not the solution to our
problem; it is the problem. Do I say that therefore there should now only be "freedom for
atheism"? No, I am not Mr. Kemp. Of course, religions must be left free; no philosophic
viewpoint, right or wrong, should be interfered with by the state. I do say, however, that it is time
for patriots to take a stand--to name publicly what America does depend on, and why that is not
Judaism or Christianity."
Ilyn Ross
“What reason shows to be true is absolutely true, so that the opposite is absolutely false and
impossible.” – Thomas Aquinas

“If religion, therefore, teaches something that is opposed to reason, … it would teach what is
absolutely false and impossible.” - http://www.radicalacademy.com/aquinas1.htm

Bryan Blakeman
Paul, you are all about freedom as long as you and like thinkers can define the concept. My
visceral reaction to the video you provided was that the school is legally wrong...who does it hurt
if this kid wears his rosary beads. This is typical hyperbole. Would you defend the boy if he was
wearing a shirt that said "The Jews killed Jesus." Why wouldn't you, it says as much in the book
of John. Legally defending your right to your personal faith is an ocean away from defending
your right to impose on others who don't share your view. Fortunately, our kids see what
hypocrites you and your frends are and your superstitions are heading to obscurantism. Someday
they will ponder why we spent billions to protitiate a silent, unseen deity while millions of fellow
sedient beings were starving.

And BTW, there are plenty of concervative seculars out there who are quite moral. We view the
rantings of Karl Marx (and most of us are studied enough to know how dishonest his "writings"
were. Lumping one group with another hated group is such a loving, Christian ploy. You might
want to check with Matthew 5 (entire chapter...but especially verse 43).

Bryan Blakeman
@Michael...it is my duty as an American to defend Paul and anyone else who exercises their 1st
Amendment rights. But your statement about only filtering Christians is tautology from
Christians, who are over 73% of Americans. This kind of paranoid delusion is without example
on any scale. You can't be simultaneously in the majority and persecuted.

Michael Edwards
Bryan, my wife is a public school teacher. She has been in meetings where the staff actually
discussed this sort of thing. While my wife is a Christian, I cannot speak for ALL the teachers in
those meetings and since I was not there myself, I can only offer 2nd hand information, but I can
tell you that more tolerance IS GIVEN to those that profess... See More different faiths. Frankly,
I think the staff does the best they can and much of this goes back to the multi-culturlism of the
Clinton years. Hardly delusional my friend.
Bryan Blakeman
My wife has taught for over a decade and has never experienced any of that. So either we
tolerate everyone's religious remarks or we invite all to keep their faith private - you can't have it
both ways. Ask a Muslim, they will say that they are the ones who are picked on. Asks Jews or
Hindus...the same. Your anecdote does not support evidence of such behavior empirically and
amounts to "Teacher...little Johnny said a bad word."

Michael Edwards
OK, Bryan, I think we have exhausted this thing and frankly I'm not here to change anyone's
mind anyway. I'm more interested in tolerance and I realize that is not the case for many on both
sides of the arguement. Have a great day

Bryan Blakeman
Michael, you are not here to promote tolerance...you came to define it and who it would apply to.
You may infer that others, not like you, are guilty of something but lack the first shread of
evidence. It's OK for Paul to lump non-believers in with Marxists and you to paint non-
Christians with the intolerant brush...both are imagined straw men.

Michael Edwards
No, I did not come "here" to define or apply tolerance. I simply made a comment to Ilyn about
RR bashing and faith vs objectivism. It's morphed into tedium.

Paul Murphy
There's too much background to go over, to make and counter the points made by Bryan, etc. If
you don't already know that American schools are a Marxist battlefronts in the ideological war
for their minds and our future,....then you just don't know it. It's been proven many times, by
words, deeds, and their own writings. If you still don't get that... See More, I can point you to
some good books, articles, government documents or lectures on the topic. It's beyond question
now.

If you do "get it", then you are knowingly playing right into the Marxist-Leninist, AKA:
"progressive" game plan to eradicate Judeo-Christian beliefs from public life and we are not
brothers. True freedom, the freedom the founders envisioned and wrote extensively about, allows
for Judeo-Christian thought and practice to exist in public life, just as it did in the days of the
founders and throughout American history, until about the 60's when the KGB-DGB-GRU-Stasi,
infected radicals went to work implementing The Plan to take America from within.
All the pseudo-intellectual arguments of "separation of church and state", which oddly the
subversive KGB and Communist elements planned to use to exploit American culture from
within, don't mean a thing anymore.

Choose a side. You are either a Marxist totalitarian or a freedom loving American Patriot, or a
witting or unwitting affiliate of one of those two groups. An in-between choice is really a choice
to side with the adversary.

Bryan Blakeman
Paul, what you consider the backdrop story for an exclusive soteriology I see as a watershed
moment in the evolution of human morality, a reflection of one of Hellenism’s unintended
consequences, the deterioration of xenophobia, tribalism and the beginning of individual rights.
When you posit that people are "either/or" it demonstrates reductionism and certainty that does
not exist. Every comment in your diatribe is without empirical proof.

You said: “If you don't already know that American schools are a Marxist battlefronts in the
ideological war for their minds and our future,....then you just don't know it. It's been proven
many times, by words, deeds, and their own writings. If you still don't get that, I can point you to
some good books, articles, government documents or lectures on the topic. It's beyond question
now.” Why don’t you offer even the first proof? You are a fear-monger and you hate any
intellectual discussion because frankly you don’t have anything to offer buy speculation and
tautology.

Your hyperbole comes to a crescendo when you write: “Choose a side. You are either a Marxist
totalitarian or a freedom loving American Patriot, or a witting or unwitting affiliate of one of
those two groups. An in-between choice is really a choice to side with the adversary.” You are
the product of a bigoted, intolerant evangelical movement that our Forefathers would have found
repugnant. Benefactors of the Enlightenment, our Christian forefathers moved from the
repressive teachings of the state church and feared the association. They had no way of even
predicting today’s angry Christians (not to imply many, most or any majority are). They loved
freedom, and unlike you, were patriots as they risked their lives to stand up for their ideas.

People today, Christian, non-Christian alike, are not tired of the wisdoms and truths of the New
Testament, they are sick and tired of hypocrites like you. Christians enjoy the highest divorce
rate according to every anti-abortion group in the country that keeps statistics (here is an
example: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html ). Evangelical Christians have the
highest divorce rate (per population) in this country:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html . Seculars, like me, hate both divorce
and abortion (thought I am divorced and happily remarried years ago). Why can’t you just enjoy
your freedom of religion without feeling the need to force it on everyone else?

I love and would fight for the liberal and loving Christianity of my saintly mother. People like
you Paul do it more harm than do bumbling drunks like Christopher Hitchens. Never mind there
are many Christians in this country who don’t agree with your untrue statements above. You are
paranoid and delusional. Jesus spent time with the tax collectors and prostitutes as a lesson for
you…try to understand that love and stop all this needless blaming.
Paul Murphy
Despite all of your lofty rhetoric and $10 words, you still managed to miss the point entirely and
misstate my position entirely. A+ for the ad hominem attack. D for reading comprehension and F
for subject matter knowledge. I suspect you are a graduate of one of the very institutions
subverted by Marxist-Leninist thought. Would it help if I draw it out for you in crayon?

Bryan Blakeman
Well Paul, you do recognize good ad hominem when you read it...but, I'm attacking all self-
righteous pharisees...not just yourself.

Paul Murphy
How about the reading comprehension and subject matter knowledge? We thinking about
spending any time there?

Bryan Blakeman
I enjoy your debate....please offer it

Paul Murphy
No. Real "debate" leads to conceding facts and truth. You're just here to quarrel. I have better
things to do frankly.

If ever a time comes where you choose to expand your horizons beyond where you are now, I'm
here.

Bryan Blakeman

No Paul, I'm not here to quarrel. I read Ilyn often as my economic leanings are neo-Randian...but
ask her, we debate quite passionately.

You and I agree that our constitution protects both of our rights to practice faith, or not - where
we disagree is your and other Christian's unfounded allegations as those who disagree with you
philospohically... See More. One can be conservative and secular as easy as one can be "born
again" and liberal - niether is mutually exclusive. I am a secular, fiscal conservative/social
liberal, humanist who abhors abortion (but do not advocate the government solving this
problem), advocates marriage, father of 5 beautiful kids who geeks out on studying language,
history, politics, religion, anthropology and NT exegesis. At 51, I still surf and I'm amazed how
little I know. I've studied Marx and know what a complete failure he was as a man and fraud he
was as an economist/philosopher. While I will be the first to point out that the French
Revolution, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Stalin's Russia serve as excellent examples of
atheist rigimes that committed atrocities, I will point out as well that non-belief had zero to do
with these sociopaths (who represent humanism and secular morality about as well as witch
hunts, the Inquisitions and the Holocaust represent the peaceful loving ideas of Jesus). While I
disagree with atheist authors, like Sam Harris, who seek to "End Faith" and offer their own
"Religion will end the world" eschatology, I would remind all who are unfamiliar with non-
believers that non-belief is our one and only denominator...not world domination. The truth is
Paul, I don't even like many of the atheists I've met as many seem quasi-nilhilists and most base
their "non-belief" on "a priori" assumptions that probably require as much faith as theists would
require (whatever that might be).

You made broad statements above as to "either/or" and I quoted you. You still have offered
nothing, besides trying to expose my glaring flaws, to substantiate any of this hyperbole. Truth
is, we both generalized and painted with a broad brush.

Paul Murphy

Incredible. You managed, yet again, to misstate my position and my beliefs. Dude. Seriously,
reading comprehension...

Paul Murphy

So it's purely coincidental that the most brutal regimes and numerically highest democide
atrocities were committed by Marxist & Darwinist based ideologies?

Bryan Blakeman
I'm sure I did.

Bryan Blakeman

As paradoxical as the higher rate of murder in areas of high religiosity and priests raping children
(not that this indicts anyone's faith...these are individual acts).
As to the former, a good social anthropologist might posit that the rough area increases the
populations need for faith...thus higher religiosity...the latter might be more easily explained in a
biology class.

Religion or Atheism can both serve as platforms for many behaviors, good and bad...neither
endorses genocide (well, there is Joshua 6 and about half of the Koran).

Paul Murphy
The Catholic Church is infested with Marxism, as well as "social justice" across the realm of
Christianity at large. It's ideological compromise with Marxism and the root of the problems you
cite, but that's another issue for another time.

First, please point to where I've ever advocated government coercion (force as Ilyn would say)
upon anyone to bring them into alignment with my personal beliefs.

Bryan Blakeman
I don't think you did Paul...I think you suggested that non-believers were Marxist by default and
there is some (the small minority in this country that are non-Christian...many whom are theists
as well) nebulous conspiracy that is seeking to silence your beliefs...is that correct?

As to what Ilyn wrote, she referred to the implied threat of government.

Bryan Blakeman
But Paul, let's test where you are on a real issue and the personalities involved. Sarah Palin,
while marching out her pregnant unmarried teenager, still thinks "Abstinence Only" is a better
policy than sex education. The CDC reported that Teen Pregnancy and STDs rose sharply for the
first time in two decades as a consequence of Bush's replacing ... See Moresex education with
"Abstinence Only." ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/07/usa.suzannegoldenberg ) .
Being the father of two beautiful adult daughters, both single and neither having ever been
pregnant, I think it is a good thing to teach abstinence and restraint. But Palin, and many
Evangelicals want the government to make laws. Do you?

Paul Murphy
You're correct. I didn't, nor would I ever, yet that is exactly what Ilyn and a few others attempted
to lay at my feet. I believe strongly in freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

"...is that correct?" Close, but it's not a "nebulous conspiracy". They aren't hiding it and it's not
my personal beliefs, but Judeo-Christian beliefs in general. No one is going to silence me. lol

People of Marxist-Leninist beliefs, best exhibited by, but not exclusive to, Communists, ARE
actively seeking to silence and discredit everything Judeo-Christian. This is not the case for any
other faith system and there are good reasons for it. The evidence exists for those with the
courage to recognize it and accept it. It's been at play for a long time and has jumped to warp
speed in the past couple of years.

The KGB primarily (now the FSB), in concert with other Marxist nation intelligence agencies, in
fact sought to subvert "western culture" ie; American culture, and this is well documented. They
targeted American educational institutions, American media & film and American politics. We
are dealing with the consequences of that infiltration and subversion to this day.

Would you like to see some of the intercepted documents, KGB defector interviews, etc?

Ilyn Ross
Paul, did I misunderstand that you are against the separation of church and state?

George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Since government is force and since force against non-force is evil, the good is to have
separation of state and (church economics, science, education, art). The Declaration of
Independence states the only proper function of the state/government: "to secure these rights".

Paul Murphy
Yes Ilyn, you continue to err on that point. *exasperated*

I'm for the prohibition of church control of government, or a state religion, as the founders wrote
at length and specifically about. The founders did not want a state religion, nor do I.

That is NOT the same as eradicating Christian faith from American government, as best
demonstrated by the lives of the founders, their own words and the actions they took while in
office.

Your position and the Marxist position are simpatico. My position is in line with the founders.

You are for freedom FROM religion.

I'm for freedom OF religion.

George Washington also said:

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
[speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"Although guided by our excellent Constitution in the discharge of official duties, and actuated,
through the whole course of my public life, solely by a wish to promote the best
interests of our country; yet, without the beneficial interposition of the Supreme Ruler of the
Universe, we could not have reached the distinguished situation which we have
attained with such unprecedented rapidity. To HIM, therefore, should we bow with gratitude and
reverence, and endeavor to merit a continuance of HIS special favors". [1797 letter to John
Adams]

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to
be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

Also, during his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but
added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he
summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of
the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Paul Murphy
Does this sound like your mythical "separation of church and state"?

President George Washington, on October 3, 1789, from the City of New York, proclaimed a
National Day of Thanksgiving:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey
His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the twenty-sixth day of November next,
to be devoted by the people of these Unites States...that we then may all unite unto him our
sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous
to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions
of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility,
union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which
we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and
particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which
we are blessed...

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the
great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other
transgressions...to promote the knowledge and practice of the true religion and virtue...

Given under my hand, at the City of New York, the 3rd of October, A.D. 1789.

Ilyn Ross
You posted this thread: The phrase "separation of church and state" appears in only one place,
one letter from Thomas Jefferson. It's NOT in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights or the
Declaration of Independence.

And then said this: "Separation of church and state" is not constitutional.
You say: "That is NOT the same as eradicating Christian faith from American government"

You want a tie-up of religion and force. That is a theocracy.

I want separation of force and (church, economics, science, education, art). I am for a coercion-
free society. For freedom.

You are not content with practicing your faith - you want your government to practice your faith
- to favor your faith. You evade that what you want discriminates against others and imposes on
them. You are not for freedom.

Ilyn Ross
John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:

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

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief
which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!"

Additional quotes from John Adams:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and
whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the
people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the
northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of
mankind."

Ilyn Ross
From Jefferson's biography:
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our
religion,' which 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 the Mohammedan, the
Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"

Jefferson's "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom":

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in
physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no
god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Ilyn Ross
Jefferson's Notes on Virginia:
"Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry
must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every
state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same.
Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"

Ilyn Ross
James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:

"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 laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Additional quote from James Madison:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Ilyn Ross
Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 89:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the
Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know
of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them
all."

From The Age of Reason:

"All natural 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."

Paul Murphy
Wrong. Again.

Am I writing in Chinese here?

You have STILL not demonstrated the constitutionality of "separation of church and state",
despite my quoting the actual language in the constitution.

I want government to STAY OUT OF MY FAITH.

I do NOT want the government to adopt my faith. That would be a state religion.

I want free and unencumbered passage, wherever I may go.

That's as clear as I know how to make it Ilyn. It's the difference between my "freedom OF
religion" and your "freedom FROM religion".

If you still can't grasp that, I suspect duplicity on your part.

Paul Murphy
John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the
strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made
only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--October 11, 1798

Paul Murphy
Elias Boudinot:
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Paul Murphy
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence

" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying
the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining
the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Ilyn Ross
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Paul Murphy
Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. 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 in
the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly
believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in
this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Ilyn Ross
Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:

"My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious
education in the principles of Calvinism. But 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."

From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:

"...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."

Paul Murphy
Benjamin Franklin:
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily
prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they
were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
[Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

Paul Murphy
Alexander Hamilton:
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of
God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of
interests."
[1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
Paul Murphy
Patrick Henry:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by
religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this
very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of
worship here.”

Paul Murphy
John Jay:
“ 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.”

Paul Murphy
Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when
we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
(excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital)

Ilyn Ross
Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth - 2009) and Pope Paul’s Populorum
Progressio (On the Development of Peoples - 1967) -

These encyclicals blame the PROFIT motive for all the world’s problems, and call for a
worldwide REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH by a world government as the solution.

Pope Paul’s Populorum Progressio declares that capitalism is worse than Marxism and that the
only morality is altruism (self-sacrifice). ... See More

Paul Murphy
I have hundreds of these Ilyn. Shall I go on?
Ilyn Ross
Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
(January 1, 1802):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he
owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions... See More, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act
of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a
wall of separation between church and State."

Ilyn Ross
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."

Paul Murphy
Yes, that is a reference to his thoughts in that letter. It's a reference to his thoughts about a "state"
religion, NOT personal expression of individuals.

BTW: That is NOT the constitution.

Ilyn Ross
That is freedom.

Paul Murphy
That's exactly what I want, but then again I'm not a religiophobe.

"Reason Reigns" huh? lol

Ilyn Ross

You deride reason. You worship irrationality and force.

Ilyn Ross
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal 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

Ilyn Ross
9. “What reason shows to be true is absolutely true, so that the opposite is absolutely false and
impossible.” – Thomas Aquinas

“If religion, therefore, teaches something that is opposed to reason, … it would teach what is
absolutely false and impossible.” – The Radical Academy

Paul Murphy
I'm still waiting for something that resembles "reason". Proceed.

Ilyn Ross
Separation of force/state and religion/church equals freedom.

Paul Murphy
The majority of the founders were Christian. The ones that weren't practicing Christians were
still men of non-denominational Judeo-Christian faith. The remaining few were deists.

You are positing that those men intended to build a framework of government to eradicate their
own beliefs.

This actually makes sense to you?

Ilyn Ross
The Founders were passionate about freedom. They did not want to impose their personal beliefs
on anyone. They were men of self-esteem and did not need to have their faith validated by
anyone.

Eradicating religion in the realm of force (i.e. government) is freedom. Keeping religion in the
non-force realm is the good - the opposite is evil.

Ilyn Ross
Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence include this: ‘He (King
George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of
life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare
of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should
be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to
prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want
no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and
to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he
also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one
people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.’

Ilyn Ross

There are good Christians (e.g. Aquinas) and evil Christians like the following:

Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth - 2009) and Pope Paul’s Populorum
Progressio (On the Development of Peoples - 1967) -

These encyclicals blame the PROFIT motive for all the world’s problems, and call for a
worldwide REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH by a world government as the solution.

Pope Paul’s Populorum Progressio declares that capitalism is worse than Marxism and that the
only morality is altruism (self-sacrifice).

Ilyn Ross

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas
Jefferson
"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy
against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason." -- Thomas Jefferson

Paul Murphy

And...yet...AGAIN....you managed to step over obvious facts to miss a crystal clear point,
entirely? Truly amazing "reason". lol

Unfortunately, I can no longer sustain trust in your sincerity or your pursuit of truth Ilyn. To miss
such a simple point, repeatedly, without seeking clarification, without ever properly identifying,
without ceding any factual points, can be nothing other than duplicitous.

Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.

As far as your religiophobic crusade to eradicate Christianity from government. Good luck with
that. Read the founders' writings and you'll understand why. You as well come out and advocate
religious litmus tests for government office/employment, because that it what you seek.

Me: Freedom OF Religion and aligned with the founders.

You: Freedom FROM Religion and aligned with the Marxists.

Ilyn Ross
You are a theocracy warrior. You are not for freedom. You are not aligned with the Founders.
They revered reason, you deride it. Your kind of religion spurns reason and such kind is evil.

Marxists are not for freedom. You are not for freedom. You are alike in that you want to rule, to
impose on others, to use force.

Ilyn Ross
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Freedom of religion includes respecting the
rights of atheists and the rights of non-Christians.

You want Christianity in the US government. That is the same as Islam in the Iranian
government: a theocracy.

Paul Murphy
*yawn* zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bryan Blakeman
So Paul, where do we bifurcate religious practice from government? Do all religions qualify
equally? What amount of religion in the public square constitutes a Theocracy? Please guide as
to how to define what the founding fathers, who were products of the Enlightenment and
discussing the governance of less than 10 million people in an agricultural society, intended the
balance to be? How can you separate Washington's quote (that you listed above) from that of any
deist?

I offered a very specific illustration of Evangelical Christians trying to use the government to
enforce their failed policy of "Abstinence Only" (
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html ), even after it has been proved
ineffective and while Christians represent the largest groups of people in this country receiving
abortions. Is this a government issue or not?

Paul Murphy
First, it's amazing to me how people who allegedly seek "freedom", while touting "reason" and
"objectivism", can be such anal retentive control freaks. You are either for freedom, or you are
not, but you cannot lay claim to be "for freedom" while simultaneously attempting to suppress
and eradicate all things Judeo-Christian from the public square.

Second, you apparently don't recognize it, or are simply duplicitous on the subject, but your
comments seethe with contempt for Christians. That's fine as a personal point of view, to each
his own, but don't tell me in the same breath that you are sincere, oh specially qualified too, in
your efforts to arrive at truth with such obvious bias.

For people who ask for so many answers, you provide very few. The broken record of "force, eh
theocracy warrior, eh government....yak yak yak....separation of church and state.....yada yada
yada....uhh force....theocracy warrior... blah blah blah..... That doesn't work for me. When that
changes I'll consider investing time in honest discourse, not a competition. See: Law of
Reciprocity.

In regards to the issue of your read of abortion data, decidedly a handy club you developed with
which to beat Christians over the head. Your scale of reference is too small. The issue can be
traced right back to the introduction of Marxist thought into American public schools and Roe vs
Wade. It foisted death upon American society and it has been a downhill slide ever since.

Indoctrinate kids to devalue life, skew their understanding of when it actually begins with
ridiculous 100 year old disproven charts, and the results are predictable. I'm sorry, but people of
Christian faith are not Jesus himself and are as impacted by deteriorating and corrupting societal
influences as anyone else.

BTW: The founders were NOT control freaks. If you disagree, cite the reference indicating
otherwise because everything I've read indicates they were not.
Bryan Blakeman
Most of my friends and family are Christians...I study and live by the morality of the NT and
your baseless indictment is false...why don't you just admit that you cannot answer the question.

The statistics I quoted on abortion came from a Christian Pro-life group...they too ask why
Christians are the largest recipients of abortions.

None of your statements have offered any data and are speculation.

Bryan Blakeman
Christians make up and are the deteriorating society you are discussing...them, Hindus,
Buddhists, Muslims, Seiks, and Seculars (all other groups included as well).

You are dishonest to assume that you or others are righteous when this country spends 13 billion
a year on porn, our leaders are bought liars, and television spews images of the horror show that
passes for a society today...you are the majority, not me. Unless we fight every day for
something better, we are complicit. The followers of Jesus and other theists have had centuries to
create some better place...it's never come, the Parousia is an empty idea or legend that is never
coming. Quit blaming the society you are part of...it's not good guys and bad guys...its just guys
(and gals).

Paul Murphy
From Ilyn's original post:

"A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. Americans have the right to
be a religionist or an atheist. Theocracy warriors lust to end this right."

Government is force. When the separation of church and state is pierced, you have FORCE and
religion. Religion and force is theocracy. Advocates of force are evil.... See More

Theocrats spurn God’s greatest gift: reason. Instead of using reason and persuasion to advance
their values, they advocate using coercion."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence by sentence decoding:

"A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission." - Agreed

"Americans have the right to be a religionist or an atheist." - Agreed

"Theocracy warriors lust to end this right." - With what I've seen thus far of Ilyn's definition of
"theocracy warrior", I'm inclined to say this is delusional at best, but it really depends on how the
paragon of objectivism defines "theocracy warrior".
"Government is force" - Agreed

"When the separation of church and state is pierced, you have FORCE and religion" - Strongly
disagree

"Religion and force is theocracy" - Undetermined. In what I've gathered from Ilyn's responses
thus far, I'm inclined to disagree as her definitions appear to include the individual level and
ANY outward expression of faith, anywhere. The terms "religion" and "force" are far too
amorphous and undefined to determine at this time.

"Advocates of force are evil." Strongly disagree. Are police evil? Is the military evil? Is it wrong
to use force to stop violence?

"Theocrats spurn God’s greatest gift: reason" - Sounds like atheist mumbo jumbo to me, but
could make sense depending on the definition of "theocrat".

"Instead of using reason and persuasion to advance their values, they advocate using coercion." -
More atheist mumbo jumbo that "could" make sense depending on the definition of "theocrat"

Paul Murphy

"The statistics I quoted on abortion came from a Christian Pro-life group...they too ask why
Christians are the largest recipients of abortions.

None of your statements have offered any data and are speculation."

I answered your question. You didn't like the answer.

QUOTE:
"In regards to the issue of your read of abortion data, decidedly a handy club you developed with
which to beat Christians over the head. Your scale of reference is too small. The issue can be
traced right back to the introduction of Marxist thought into American public schools and Roe vs
Wade. It foisted death upon American society and it has been a downhill slide ever since."

This may be speculation to you, but I've seen the charts and the graphs. It's a fact. I'd furnish the
graphs and charts if I had them handy, but it's not speculation to me.

Bryan Blakeman

I agree that "Thocracy Warrior" is hyperbole. Some people take things too far but unless we all
agree on what this means, and have some standard to measure it with, this is kind of like using
the term "Atheist mumbo jumbo."
Bryan Blakeman
The links were provided with the statements...go up the page. When I make a statement I link the
epistemology...that is why I am asking for yours.

Bryan Blakeman
Here is the link again : http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/links.html

Bryan Blakeman

This is quoted from their website: "Sadly, many Christians take the attitude that abortion is not
their problem or responsibility. Even more tragic is the fact that one out of every five women
who abort in the U.S. identifies herself as a born-again/evangelical Christian."

When they show the break down on abrotions performed by religion...Christians are 3/4

Paul Murphy

Dude, I'm serious: Reading Comprehension

I didn't contest your data, anywhere. I referred to it being a club, but would it be a club if it were
not true?

I don't have the graph's or charts handy (links). All I have are hard copies buried somewhere that
would need to be scanned and uploaded. They are probably on the web somewhere, but can't lay
my hands on them right now.

Bryan Blakeman

Fair enough...and BTW, I don't think religion in the public square is necessarily wrong either,
what is next...take all color and culture out of the public square. I just don't think secular law can
be referenced back to anyone's religious views - religion has done a wonderful job of codifying
morality but today, whose will we agree is correct (reference your statement earlier about
Catholics).
Paul Murphy

That's a demographically representative stat. It doesn't surprise me.

As I wrote earlier:

"Indoctrinate kids to devalue life, skew their understanding of when it actually begins with
ridiculous 100 year old disproven charts, and the results are predictable. I'm sorry, but people of
Christian faith are not Jesus himself and are as impacted by deteriorating and corrupting societal
influences as anyone else."

While Marxist thought reigns in public indoctrination centers (formerly known as public schools)
the social problems are guaranteed to worsen over time.

Paul Murphy
"...whose will we agree is correct (reference your statement earlier about Catholics)."

Despite all the Marxism, indoctrination, etc The Bible has not changed its views or been
influenced one whit by Marx's lunacy :)

Bryan Blakeman

***shaking my head*** You must be right (no pun) Paul. It's always the conspiracy of some
"other" group. Life was perfect before Karl Marx and his deluded followers...

Chritians (and all others) = humans = sinners (or biological/mammals) = not perfect

Something I learned while studying the Apostle Paul (who wrote in Greek), Hebrew has no word
for "Perfect."

Bryan Blakeman

"The Bible has not changed it's views or been influenced" can only be the statement of a man
who has not studied it's epistemology. Just looking at the NT, the redactions and interpolations
are many...Mark 16:9-20 and John 8: 1-11 are undisputed interpolations and most Bibles will
reflect this in tiny print. Please read Eusebius "History of the Church" and see if you wish to trot
out that theory.
Any person who studies history will begin to realize that people don't really change. The moral
zeitgeist moves to and fro, and has shown some improvement as we have civilized...but not
much. Though I will admit that the writings of the NT were more revolutionary than
evolutionary, in the end, they are polemics that reflect politics and peoples of the 1st century.

Paul Murphy
I don't disagree Bryan, but in our modern era, there's just no doubt about the corrosive and
deteriorating effects of Marxist-Leninist thought on American culture. As I said previously, it's
well documented.

The Bible teaches of mankind's fallibilities and "fallen" nature (sin) and I'm well aware of my
own and the underlying biblical doctrine.

It's amazing to me that the uniformed can so casually dismiss as "conspiracy", well established
fact, despite all of the evidences hidden in plain sight.

Paul Murphy
For serious bible study, I go to the original languages.
http://www.scripture4all.org/

Bryan Blakeman
Thanks for that link...cool site. I've spent some time the past couple of years trying to understand
the hermenuetics as simple translation is often tough to understand (2000 years later). I find the
period of history from Agustus to Constantine the most formative and relative to Western
history/culture and it would be hard to take aim at this period without studying the early church
and church fathers. Justin Martyr, Ireneaus and Tertullian are my favorite reads of them. If that
early church existed today, prior to Augustine-types, I would have much in common with those
folks.

Paul Murphy
People lose sight of what "the church" is. In the beginning it was people. "The Church" was only
people and they worshiped and prayed wherever they found themselves. There was no building,
no carpets, no bands, no fancy wooden pews,...just people and the Savior. What mankind has
added or subtracted from the ideas and doctrine taught in scripture is what has facilitated the
acceptance of things like Marxism.

I'm convinced that Marxism, had it existed in the days of the founders, would have been flatly
rejected. It was their faith and understanding of biblical truths that led to the creation of the most
important governing document in human history. It was the "salt" that preserved and protected
the ideals they created with our American Constitutional Republic.