If this was burning, what would you do? C vs. S again...

Pat Robertson has been known to distort issues in the past and will continue to do so. He points to a very extreme person that noone could agree with and tries to paint that person as being in the mainstream of the left. The Christian Broadcasting network announced on the radio that during a Kerry event that he sat on a throne with his assistant fanning him with palm leaves while the audience chanted his name. This in order to promote their view that he is anti-Christian. How Christian is it to set up lies in order to further your cause?

In defense of Robertson, I have heard myself such statements (about letting Churches burn) on Sean Hannity's radio show, when of course Hannity was badgering the individual that made the statement. Robertson's comments jogged my memory in that area, and hence I posted this article to get a discussion going.

Whoman can claim this is out of the mainstream, but it falls back on the issue of how much is too much, and when is enough enough?!

I'm glad that some people don't think that people like this and views like this are part of the mainstream or majority, but I would also point out that it's views like this that are driving the Church vs. State separation fight in this country.

Most reasonable people probably have no real problem with a casual mention of Christ, God, Jesus, Buddha, or other religious references, but those same people have no problem bending to the will of a few that are trying to drive any and all references out of society.

I'm sure alot of people do

A lot of people think the earth is flat or hollow too but that doesn't make them representatives for the mainstream or the majority.

Pat Robertson has been known to distort issues in the past and will continue to do so. He points to a very extreme person that noone could agree with and tries to paint that person as being in the mainstream of the left. The Christian Broadcasting network announced on the radio that during a Kerry event that he sat on a throne with his assistant fanning him with palm leaves while the audience chanted his name. This in order to promote their view that he is anti-Christian. How Christian is it to set up lies in order to further your cause?

I'll agree that Pat Robertson can be a bit "eccentric," but I definitely wouldn't brush away the idea that some liberals would think such a ludicrous idea. After all, in another topic, there were actually liberals that supported restricting the right of students to express their religious beliefs on the grounds that it might hurt somebody's feelings yet were appallingly silent when asked about restricting the many freedoms students have that divide and cause discrimination among them. So, although I'll swallow his words with a grain of salt, I wouldn't be surprised if his depiction of whomever was accurate.

Accusing the left and people who advocate allowing a church to burn because it may conflict with the separations of church and state is nothing short of hyperbolic nonsence, and is not advocated by ANYONE. It's inflammatory and hateful and so totally false that the allegation is tantamount to libel and slander.

How we've progressed to such a place in our country, I just don't know,

You [B]should know it, terpfan. You're perpetrating the absolutely false notion of such hate. Shame on you.

Reply #6 By: dabe - 12/25/2004 9:19:20 AM Accusing the left and people who advocate allowing a church to burn because it may conflict with the separations of church and state is nothing short of hyperbolic nonsence, and is not advocated by ANYONE. It's inflammatory and hateful and so totally false that the allegation is tantamount to libel and slander. How we've progressed to such a place in our country, I just don't know, You should know it, terpfan. You're perpetrating the absolutely false notion of such hate. Shame on you

Talk about perpetrating the absolutely false notion of hate.

Reply #6 By: dabe - 12/25/2004 9:19:20 AM Accusing the left and people who advocate allowing a church to burn because it may conflict with the separations of church and state is nothing short of hyperbolic nonsence, and is not advocated by ANYONE. It's inflammatory and hateful and so totally false that the allegation is tantamount to libel and slander.

I'm not the one that espouses the idea.

If you don't like the man in the mirror, than change it yourself.

Obviously, this particular person has so little following that one has to question why someone would choose to provide it with air time. I assume that the goal is either to fan hatreds or raise ratings, because no such movement exists.

However, the Pat Robertsons have, to a large extent, been incited to behave this way by the treatment of atheism over the last 50 years. Atheists simply cannot have it both ways -- if they claim that freedom of religion extends to them (and I have no problem with this), then they have to realize that atheism is a religion that cannot be forced onto others. It is all well and fine to insist that schools not tell students how and when to pray -- that is a legitmate separation of church and state. However, the enforced silence about God in all public affairs is tantamount to establishing atheism as the state religion, as is the insistence that groups of religious people not speculate about God's purposes when discussing politics.

I believe that torture of prisoners is morally wrong, and I base my beliefs in the words of Jesus. I believe that that is just as legitimate a political view as that of my atheistic friend who supports torture, in large part because he denies any absolute morality largely because he does not believe in God or scripture.

When we live in a country that discounts religious views, we open the doors to extremist retaliation, such as this particular televised piece -- which is ridiculous in content but probably motivated by deep frustration.

pat robertson has a very pragmatic approach to the truth--very much like the tabloids.  it's pure showbiz.  the more hateful his claims, the bigger the audience...and the paycheck.  christians have been warned about false prophets. the warning should have also mentioned tax-free profits. 

on the other hand, maybe all the residents of florida who suffered thru last fall's hurricanes are gay and only have themselves to blame?

i'll happily go on record (altho i dont officially represent anyone but myself):  all developed property--be it a whorehouse or a church--should be protected against fire, vandalism, damage, etc. by law enforcement and firefighters.  i know of noone who'd claim a church should be allowed to burn for any reason...much less advocating some ridiculous claim that putting the fire out would violate the first amendment. 

robertson is the christian equivalent of the mullahs, imams and ayatollahs who make equally ridiculous and irresponsible hateful harangues about christians to muslim audiences. 

they have to realize that atheism is a religion that cannot be forced onto others.

atheism isn't a religion.  those who don't believe have no command to go forth and evangelize. 

It is all well and fine to insist that schools not tell students how and when to pray -- that is a legitmate separation of church and state. However, the enforced silence about God in all public affairs is tantamount to establishing atheism as the state religion, as is the insistence that groups of religious people not speculate about God's purposes when discussing politics.

i agree with your first sentence completely.  there is no enforced silence about god in all public affairs, nor is there any effort to establish atheism as a religion of any type.  noone is insisting or suggesting (or even hoping) that groups of religious people speculate or not speculate about god's purposes when discussing politics. 

you've just proved that with your statement...as did the presidental candidates during this year's campaign.

while the us is a civil secular state, ours is clearly a christian culture.   those christians who complain about ethnic minorities being overly sensitive might want to take a few moments to consider just how hypersensitive the christian majority has become.  if it's innappropriate and unseemly for a minority to engage in that mind of narcissim, isnt it even more so when a majority indulges itself in the same thing?   

It'll never happen.

Yeah, some doofus said it, maybe, but it'll never happen. Pat Robertson is playing Chicken Little, and once again demonizing everyone who doesn't believe in what he does/doesn't have Jesus in his heart, etc. The reason it'll never happen is for the simple reason of if the fire doesn't get contained, it gets spread. If the fire spreads, it'll leak into damaging state funded buildings and those buildings will begin to burn down. When a fire starts, it almost immediatedly becomes a public safety issue, and that falls under the same thing as 'your rights end when your nose begins'. You're permitted to have rituals in your church, but not child sacrifice.

How we've progressed to such a place in our country, I just don't know, but the thought that it's ok to let a Church burn because we can't have the state involved in saving it is just disgusting.

...Public safety. For those two words alone, it'll never, ever happen. Think about it this way: if a chruch chose to burn their building down for whatever religious reason, the state would probably charge them with arson. Ironically, the extremists who are refered to in the first case (the church burns down, no fire department comes) would be the ones crying bloody murder on behalf of the chruch, for what reason would the state have to impede their civil rights? "The US Constitution may be interpreted to permit suicide, but it forbade taking anyone with you."-And the Band Played On

Whoman can claim this is out of the mainstream, but it falls back on the issue of how much is too much, and when is enough enough?! I'm glad that some people don't think that people like this and views like this are part of the mainstream or majority, but I would also point out that it's views like this that are driving the Church vs. State separation fight in this country.

So...this means I can cite that Jerry Falwell blamed homosexuality for 9/11, and this has driven the homosexual marriage debate in this country? It's a similar argument.

I believe that torture of prisoners is morally wrong, and I base my beliefs in the words of Jesus. I believe that that is just as legitimate a political view as that of my atheistic friend who supports torture, in large part because he denies any absolute morality largely because he does not believe in God or scripture.

This is patently so totally false, that I cannot let it go unanswered. It's tantamount to perpetrating exactly what Pat Roberson, and Falwell and all the others do. They incite their audiences with lies and hyperbole to make some questionably "Christian" point. Frankly, I cannot understand how any Christian can buy such unchristian beliefs.

I am an athiest. I do not believe that there is a higher being other than the laws of science and the universe. But, this isn't about debating the absence or presence of God. It's about the claim made by the above quote that morality is religion based. That's frankly nonsense, bullshit, and a lie. Morality does not require religious beliefs. It required a sense of common good and decency, of concern and caring for others, and for knowing what's right and teaching your children well. It's not about lies and fear mongering going on at the pulpits of some extreme religious nutcase. Yes, nutcase. I consider Roberson, Fallwell and the others to be fundamentalist nutcases, who make an absurdly wealthy living off their fear mongering and bible thumping.

And, as an athiest, I would never, ever attempt to deny anyone their religious beliefs. Two of my dearest, closest, most wonderful friends are deeply religious Christians. But, they don't hold my beliefs against me. They know me. The love me. They trust me. I would never hurt anyone, and certainly not because of their religions. To think that I, or any athiest or believer in a secular government would allow a church to burn because of their misguided beliefs that that is what the separation of church and state ultimately means is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a notion perpetrated by nutcases to proves some false point, that being that the separation of church and state would ultimately mean that we are trying to take religioun away from people. Nonsense extraordinaire. Hyperbolic morons, perpetrating lies and fear.

Frankly I don't put it past Robertson to have lied about the whole thing. Does he have it on tape this unnamed person making these statements?
I would agree with Dabe that an atheist has to have a set of moral values. Anyone without moral values ends up in jail.

I am an athiest. I do not believe that there is a higher being other than the laws of science and the universe. But, this isn't about debating the absence or presence of God. It's about the claim made by the above quote that morality is religion based. That's frankly nonsense, bullshit, and a lie

As a fellow atheist I totally agree. Basically, my moral values consist of things that can be interpreted as Christian values, but do not necessarily come from Christianity. For example, I believe that killing is wrong, and I don't need the 6th commandment to tell me so.

In this issue, as well as the exit polling of the election, we also need to define moral issues when we talk about them, because these are different for everyone. For example, a lot of people think that gay marriage is immoral because it goes against Christian teachings, however I believe that not allowing gay marriage is immoral because it unfairly infringes on people's right to pursue happiness. So John Doe can say that I am immoral because I don't go to church, and I can say that he is immoral because he opposes gay marriage and tries to attack the rights of homosexuals to pursue happiness.

torture of prisoners is morally wrong, and I base my beliefs in the words of Jesus. I believe that that is just as legitimate a political view as that of my atheistic friend who supports torture, in large part because he denies any absolute morality largely because he does not believe in God or scripture.

although we will never know whether the men and women who've tortured prisoners are religious or not, one thing is beyond dispute: it happened on the watch of an administration that misses few opportunities to portray itself as a the vanguard of religious and moral values.

Reply #12 By: dabe - 12/26/2004 9:07:11 AM I believe that torture of prisoners is morally wrong, and I base my beliefs in the words of Jesus. I believe that that is just as legitimate a political view as that of my atheistic friend who supports torture, in large part because he denies any absolute morality largely because he does not believe in God or scripture. This is patently so totally false, that I cannot let it go unanswered. It's tantamount to perpetrating exactly what Pat Roberson, and Falwell and all the others do. They incite their audiences with lies and hyperbole to make some questionably "Christian" point. Frankly, I cannot understand how any Christian can buy such unchristian beliefs. I am an athiest. I do not believe that there is a higher being other than the laws of science and the universe. But, this isn't about debating the absence or presence of God. It's about the claim made by the above quote that morality is religion based. That's frankly nonsense, bullshit, and a lie. Morality does not require religious beliefs. It required a sense of common good and decency, of concern and caring for others, and for knowing what's right and teaching your children well. It's not about lies and fear mongering going on at the pulpits of some extreme religious nutcase. Yes, nutcase. I consider Roberson, Fallwell and the others to be fundamentalist nutcases, who make an absurdly wealthy living off their fear mongering and bible thumping. And, as an athiest, I would never, ever attempt to deny anyone their religious beliefs. Two of my dearest, closest, most wonderful friends are deeply religious Christians. But, they don't hold my beliefs against me. They know me. The love me. They trust me. I would never hurt anyone, and certainly not because of their religions. To think that I, or any athiest or believer in a secular government would allow a church to burn because of their misguided beliefs that that is what the separation of church and state ultimately means is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a notion perpetrated by nutcases to proves some false point, that being that the separation of church and state would ultimately mean that we are trying to take religioun away from people. Nonsense extraordinaire. Hyperbolic morons, perpetrating lies and fear.

You know sometimes I wonder about your reading ability or is it just hatred? Show me just where in his reply that he advacates letting a church burn. He also makes NO claims about morality other than what his atheist friend *believes* and what he believes.

Reply #9 By: ChristianDog - 12/25/2004 5:02:41 PM Obviously, this particular person has so little following that one has to question why someone would choose to provide it with air time. I assume that the goal is either to fan hatreds or raise ratings, because no such movement exists. However, the Pat Robertsons have, to a large extent, been incited to behave this way by the treatment of atheism over the last 50 years. Atheists simply cannot have it both ways -- if they claim that freedom of religion extends to them (and I have no problem with this), then they have to realize that atheism is a religion that cannot be forced onto others. It is all well and fine to insist that schools not tell students how and when to pray -- that is a legitmate separation of church and state. However, the enforced silence about God in all public affairs is tantamount to establishing atheism as the state religion, as is the insistence that groups of religious people not speculate about God's purposes when discussing politics. I believe that torture of prisoners is morally wrong, and I base my beliefs in the words of Jesus. I believe that that is just as legitimate a political view as that of my atheistic friend who supports torture, in large part because he denies any absolute morality largely because he does not believe in God or scripture. When we live in a country that discounts religious views, we open the doors to extremist retaliation, such as this particular televised piece -- which is ridiculous in content but probably motivated by deep frustration

You know sometimes I wonder about your reading ability or is it just hatred? Show me just where in his reply that he advacates letting a church burn. He also makes NO claims about morality other than what his atheist friend *believes* and what he believes.

drmiler, you're as predictable as the sun rising and setting.

I'm not saying that the poster specifically advocates this. But, sometimes when someone watches this crap, then comes to a public, international blog site and repeats the "possibility" of maybe this could happen, then they have to shoulder some responsibility for spreading this hate. If terpfan had mentioned that he saw this on CBN, and was disheartened by the fact that Robertson was spreading this crap, then my reply would have been different.

The fact that you take issue with me no matter what I say means to me that I'm saying something right. The fact that you take issue with me and what I say, rather than what is actually discussed by the original poster is laughably pathetic. Or, pathetically laughable. You're a joke.

Most reasonable people probably have no real problem with a casual mention of Christ, God, Jesus, Buddha, or other religious references, but those same people have no problem bending to the will of a few that are trying to drive any and all references out of society.

Terpfan, this is patently not true, and is only a myth perpetrated by the likes of Robertson and Hannity. No one is trying to take religion out of society. We are only trying to maintain the separation of church and state, as defined in the Constitution. It is the radical right who seem to be buying into the Robertson/Hannity hyperbole by saying that the separation of C&S are tantamount to trying to eradicate and descriminate against Christians. This is so patently false that it should be laughable. But, unfortunately people are buying it. Fact is, they are buying it from their own fear and hate mongers. Please, please, please don't think that we would ever let a church burn down. That would be so morally bankrupt as to be completely criminal. It's just not going to happen, at least by anyone advocating the separation of church and state, or anyone with any modicum of a sense of decency and moral compass. Fact is, most people are, fact, very reasonable.

It is the radical right who seem to be buying into the Robertson/Hannity hyperbole by saying that the separation of C&S are tantamount to trying to eradicate and descriminate against Christians.

That's the whole crux of why they are doing it. They find an issue where they know they can get a rise out of people and see if they can raise it to the level of absurdity. They then want to see how many they can get to believe it. Hence the argument this time around that Democrats were for banning the bible. The key is to throw just enough believability for the lie to be effective.

Terpfan, this is patently not true, and is only a myth perpetrated by the likes of Robertson and Hannity. No one is trying to take religion out of society. We are only trying to maintain the separation of church and state, as defined in the Constitution. It is the radical right who seem to be buying into the Robertson/Hannity hyperbole by saying that the separation of C&S are tantamount to trying to eradicate and descriminate against Christians. This is so patently false that it should be laughable. But, unfortunately people are buying it. Fact is, they are buying it from their own fear and hate mongers. Please, please, please don't think that we would ever let a church burn down. That would be so morally bankrupt as to be completely criminal. It's just not going to happen, at least by anyone advocating the separation of church and state, or anyone with any modicum of a sense of decency and moral compass. Fact is, most people are, fact, very reasonable.

Weren't you one of the people who supported the idea of restricting students from expressing their religious beliefs in schools because they are on public property and it is tantamount to putting religion into government though? Is that what you consider reasonable?

Reply #17 By: dabe - 12/26/2004 7:54:15 PM You know sometimes I wonder about your reading ability or is it just hatred? Show me just where in his reply that he advacates letting a church burn. He also makes NO claims about morality other than what his atheist friend *believes* and what he believes. drmiler, you're as predictable as the sun rising and setting. I'm not saying that the poster specifically advocates this. But, sometimes when someone watches this crap, then comes to a public, international blog site and repeats the "possibility" of maybe this could happen, then they have to shoulder some responsibility for spreading this hate. If terpfan had mentioned that he saw this on CBN, and was disheartened by the fact that Robertson was spreading this crap, then my reply would have been different. The fact that you take issue with me no matter what I say means to me that I'm saying something right. The fact that you take issue with me and what I say, rather than what is actually discussed by the original poster is laughably pathetic. Or, pathetically laughable. You're a joke. Most reasonable people probably have no real problem with a casual mention of Christ, God, Jesus, Buddha, or other religious references, but those same people have no problem bending to the will of a few that are trying to drive any and all references out of society

This is patently IS true and I *see* it happen on a daily basis. And I dare you to *show* me where in the constitution it shows separation of church and state in the context that you are using it.

drmiler, I double dare you to show me where in the Constitution it doesn't show the separation of church and state in the context I'm using it (which is ridiculous considering the fact that you haven't got the mental capacity to even know what I'm talking about).

Weren't you one of the people who supported the idea of restricting students from expressing their religious beliefs in schools because they are on public property and it is tantamount to putting religion into government though? Is that what you consider reasonable?

I was/am one of the people who am vehemently against a government sponsored advocation of one religion, two religions, or any religions at all. This is why I advocate keeping religion out of public education completely, out of courthouses, and out of police stations, hospitals, etc. That does not mean I would ban a student who wants to pray in the school from doing so. If a student wants to quietly pray, without having their teachers lead the prayer, then that is their right. That is the meaning of separation of church and state. The complete freedom to practice your own individual religion without institutionalizing in in a public place. I don't understand why that is so hard for you people to fathom.

As for letting a church burn, I've already stated how I feel about that. I'm not going to go into it again.

Reply #21 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 12:04:09 AM drmiler, I double dare you to show me where in the Constitution it doesn't show the separation of church and state in the context I'm using it (which is ridiculous considering the fact that you haven't got the mental capacity to even know what I'm talking about).

And you don't have the mental capicity to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions printed on the sole!

Reply #21 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 12:04:09 AM drmiler, I double dare you to show me where in the Constitution it doesn't show the separation of church and state in the context I'm using it (which is ridiculous considering the fact that you haven't got the mental capacity to even know what I'm talking about).

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote: I contemplate with solemn 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. (1) The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said: When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2) The "wall" was understood as one-directional;its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government. There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity. Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's. Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible. Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state? Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4) In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably. There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).

article ll, section 1 of the constitution declares the oath of office taken by the president as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

furthermore, article VI, paragraph 3, specifically states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

as far as your source's wishful thinking about the danbury letter, on the library of congress' site, youll find a long discussion by a curator who had the fbi use cutting edge technology to help restore jefferson's notes and deletions on the original letter.  using those and jeffersons other papers, he notes the following (i bolded the text for emphasis):

Airing the Republican position on church-state relations was not, however, Jefferson's principal reason for writing the Danbury Baptist letter. He was looking, he told Lincoln, for an opportunity for "saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did" and latched onto the Danbury address as the best way to broadcast his views on the subject. Although using the Danbury address was "awkward" -- it did not mention fasts and thanksgivings -- Jefferson pressed it into service to counter what he saw as an emerging Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel.

Jefferson's hand was forced by the arrival in the United States in the last week of November 1801 of what the nation's newspapers called the "momentous news" of the conclusion between Britain and France of the Treaty of Amiens, which relieved the young American republic of the danger that had threatened it for years of being drawn into a devastating European war. Washington had proclaimed a national thanksgiving in 1796 to commemorate a much more ambiguous foreign policy achievement, the ratification of Jay's Treaty that attempted to adjust outstanding differences with Great Britain. Would Jefferson, the Federalists archly asked, not imitate the example of his illustrious predecessor and bid the nation to thank God for its delivery from danger by the Treaty of Amiens? The voice of New England Federalism, the Boston Columbian Centinel, cynically challenged Jefferson to act. "It is highly probable," said the Centinel on Nov. 28, 1801, "that on the receipt of the news of Peace in Europe, the President will issue a Proclamation recommending a General Thanksgiving. The measure, it is hoped, will not be denounced by the democrats as unconstitutional, as previous Proclamations have been."

The Centinel and its Federalist readers knew that Jefferson would never issue a Thanksgiving proclamation, for to him and the Republican faithful in the middle and southern states, presidential thanksgivings and fasts were anathema, an egregious example of the Federalists' political exploitation of religion. Federalist preachers had routinely used fast and thanksgiving days to revile Jefferson and his followers, going so far in 1799 as to suggest that a Philadelphia yellow fever epidemic was a divine punishment for Republican godlessness.*

During the Adams administration, Republicans organized street demonstrations against presidential fast days, ridiculed them in the newspapers and boycotted them. Since Federalists knew that Jefferson would never proclaim a national thanksgiving to praise God for the Treaty of Amiens, they calculated that they could use his dereliction as evidence of his continuing contempt for Christianity, which had spilled out again, in their view, in his invitation to "Citizen" Thomas Paine to return from France to the United States.

To offer the nation's hospitality to Paine, author of The Age of Reason, the "atheist's bible" to the faithful, was, the Washington Federalist charged on Dec. 8, 1801, an "open and daring insult offered to the Christian religion." Here, for the Federalists, was the same old Jefferson, the same old atheist. Political capital, they concluded, could still be made from sounding the alarm about presidential infidelity.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

*sounds like a certain 700 club demagogue whose intitals are pr dont it? 

Link