From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
like it or not...
Published on June 12, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In History
A lot of rhetoric gets spent in the political arena over our founding fathers and their intent in regards to our religious status as a nation. Many on the right contend that we are somehow a "christian" nation. Others, trying to seem more inclusive, call it a "judeo-christian" nation.

But fact is, we're not.

I've written in the past on this subject and have had discussions on the subject on other threads as well. I'm not gonna rehash old debates here, but just present a few key pieces of evidence that show that our founders, despite whatever faith each of them individually held, were intent on ensuring our church and state remain seperate.

Using metephoric "God" references does not make us a Christian nation. Einstein used metephoric references, but was indeed, an athiest. As have countless others thru history. That does not a christian nation make.

Remember, these founders, not only those who were directly involved with the process of writing our early documents, but the entire citizenry they represented, left England, many of them, to escape a country where a country's religion and government were one in the same. This caused them, members of different sects and faiths, to flee, seeking a land of non oppression.

When it was their turn to set things up, they did not want their religion and goverment mixed like a boilermaker. Thus the words in the 1st article of the Constitution.

But of course, everyone wants to disect those words for their own purpose or side of the argument. Let's do something different. Let's look at how the founders themselves acted after the United States was established.

In 1791, John Adams signed a treaty written by his predecessor and founding father, Thomas Jefferson. It was a treaty with the muslim nation of Tripoli. this is what the treaty said...

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ...
-- Article 11, "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,"

And Adams had this to say about the treaty...

Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.-- John Adams, upon ratifying the Treaty of Tripoli quoted from Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, Vol. 2 (1776-1818), (1931)

This treaty was ratified by the US Congress and was extremely clear on how our nation, and our founders, were about church and state dating, let alone get married.

Jefferson also wrote to the Baptists and assured them that the Constitution article ensured they had "built a wall of seperation between church and state." And obviously, when he wrote the treaty of Tripoli, he hadn't changed his mind, nor was he isolated in his belief. President Adams and the Congress concurred.

Things like "one nation under God" which people argue is proof that we are a Christian nation, weren' teven added until the 1950's. "God Bless America" was another 20th century invention.

And the fact is we are a secular nation. And that 's the way the founders wanted it. It wasn't that they wanted religious freedom for all, but we were a christian nation, as they contend. The early work of the founders in official government business shows that all too clear. this non interventionist policy between government and religion does not only apply to christians and jews, but to all religions.

James Madison said...

" ...seperation of church and state is to forever keep them from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soils of Europe."

In the 1789 case, Minor v Ohio, the court again firmly and clearly established that government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible when they said...

Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. It's laws are divine, not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human government. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better is for both.

Whereas certainly, Christian values did influence many of the founders to think as they thought or act as they acted as individuals, it is clear that when they were speaking as or for the government, they knew to keep their religion out of it.

They knew the dangers of co-mingling government and religion and kept them seperate. they saw how England and Europe had been hurt by that arrangement. We need to as well.

Or to paraphrase someone who once said some very wise words on the subject, "Only when the government is free from religion do we truly have freedom of religion."

That does not mean that individuals will not use their own religious faiths and values when making their own decisions. But when it is the government making the decision, whether or not god would be pleased or displeased should not be considered. The only thing that is under consideration is the health and well being of our nation.

As Jefferson said...

"Question even the existence of God. If there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason over that of blind folded fear."







Comments (Page 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Jun 28, 2007
"it's like if someone started referring to the sacrament of holy communion as an exercize in canibalism... what would be the purpose of such a statement except to drive hate and prejudice? "

I don't know, Eddie Izzard did it and it was funny. And the blood was vampirism.

"You didn't happen to say anything about the wine to further muck up our religion, did you, Jesus?"

"No, no, I said... drink this wine... it is a merlot."

"Jesus..."

"Okay, Dad, I said drink this wine for it is my blood."

"That's VAMPIRISM! Now we have vampirism, and cannibalism. The pagans do those! You've messed everything up!"

"Don't worry Dad, no-one will notice until a transvestite points it out in 2000 years."
on Jun 28, 2007
What body parts the abortuary isn't able to sell, either gets ground in a garbage disposer or placed in plastic bags and put in a dumpster and then taken to the nearest dump or landfill.


and what would be your solution to what they should do with the fetuses? putting the abortion question aside for a moment, the fact remains that after a fetus is aborted, there are only a limited number of things that can be done with it. either they are going to try to use them for some sort of research or they are going to properly dispose of them. describing a proper disposal in the inflammatory way you do trying to make it sound improper is laughable.

tell me, what is the proper way to dispose of something properly? from what i know, you put it into a container, take it to a proper holding place to be picked up by a waste management company to be transported to a safe, government approve disposal site. that seems to be exactly what they do.
on Jun 28, 2007
The use of baby parts port-abortion furthers the cause of abortion supporters, as they can now cry "But it's helping!" That's why I have a problem with using them. Abortion isn't a good thing, even if they can use the parts afterwards. Yeah, it's a waste to not use the parts, but it's a waste of a lot more to even have the abortion to begin with. You can't put aside the abortion question when talking about the parts that come from it. Those parts shouldn't even exist. If we could cut that out, we would. Since they do exist, we want to lend no additional creedence to this abomination by trying to make a disgusting situation a little less horrid.
on Jun 28, 2007
Yeah, it's a waste to not use the parts, but it's a waste of a lot more to even have the abortion to begin with. You can't put aside the abortion question when talking about the parts that come from it.


i agree about it's awaste to have the abortion to begin with. i personally abhor abortion.

but using the use of the fetus to further inflame the pro life crowd is not right in my view. the fact is that once the fetus is aborted, something must be done with it, and those choices are limited.

i ask, what would be your suggestion on what to do with the aborted fetus? if pro-lifers care so much about this, why don't they pull these fetuses out of the dumpsters or make an arrangement with the clinics and give these fetuses a christian burial? but that doesn't happen. just more inflammatory rhetoric.

The use of baby parts port-abortion furthers the cause of abortion supporters, as they can now cry "But it's helping!"


that is just wrong. that implies that fetuses are aborted for the purpose of study. like there are scientists standing around trying to "up the quota" because they don't have enough to work on.

nonsense.

on Jun 28, 2007
if pro-lifers care so much about this, why don't they pull these fetuses out of the dumpsters or make an arrangement with the clinics and give these fetuses a christian burial?


Pro-life organizations do exactly that every chance they get.
There have been bags found at dumpsites full of aborted babies who have been named and given proper funerals and buried.

Planned Parenthood and other "family planning" organizations doesn't like giving up the evidence of their nasty, wrong doings. Burying the babies gives the dignity they are as humans made in the image and likeness of God something which the government and PP denies from the getgo.


that implies that fetuses are aborted for the purpose of study. like there are scientists standing around trying to "up the quota" because they don't have enough to work on.


The reality of it is--is that some are Sean, no kidding. This comes out of the eugenics which took hold bigtime in Nazi Germany.
The sick mentality is that killing a few for the supposed betterment of the many is perfectly justifiable. It isn't and God won't bless this kind of thing with good fruit. Take embryonic stem cells as an example. YOu and I and all who are reading this were in that tiny stage at the beginning of our life...we were allowed to grow and were nourished in the warmth of our mother's womb.

Science has proven time and again that nothing beneficial has come from using embronic stem cells. ON the other hand, any other kind of stem cells has great, great promise.
on Jun 28, 2007
The reality of it is--is that some are Sean, no kidding. This comes out of the eugenics which took hold bigtime in Nazi Germany.


ok, now you are going WAY over the line...comparing scientists to nazis. you should know better than that...oh that's right, you don't care. you just care about winning an argument.

Science has proven time and again that nothing beneficial has come from using embronic stem cells.


Nonsense.

WWW Link

plus it's funny how ya wanna embrace science now...BAHAHAHAHA!!!!
on Jun 28, 2007
SEAN POSTS:

being against abortion doesn't make it necessary to try to fix the argument in advance. if your position is legit, you should be able to argue it on legit grounds, not the crap you spew and parrot.


Reread my posts I have rebutted your position with the utmost of legitimate arguments.. and for you come back with coarse, childish, elementary school-yard dribble such as this:

funny how ya wanna embrace science now...BAHAHAHAHA!!!!



I stand by my statement that thus far embryonic stem cells have not yet yielded anything that shows promise. All the good that has been produced is from adult stem cells from other parts of the body.


The link you cited has this paragraph: I've capitalized and highlighted the words in the paragraph that show it's a pipe dream. Has science yeilded conclusive results from Embryonic stem cells---NO. Adult stem cells---YES.

For example, researchers recently turned human embryonic stem cells into blood-making cells, a development that MAY EVENTUALLY lead to treatments for blood disorders as well as a safe and continuous source of blood for transfusions.3 "There is almost no realm of medicine that MIGHT not be touched by this innovation .... It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has THE POTENTIAL to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life," said Harold Varmus, the former director of the National Institutes of Health.

After this I didn't pay too much attention to the link becasue I saw the bottom half is under the heading of an advertisement and that just doesn't cut it.

In any event, Sean, we certainly have our differences on these very weighty, important and timely topics of the day and that is where I would like to focus. Instead most of your remarks imply a lack of respect and, agree or disagree, an unwilligness to take what I say seriously.





on Jun 28, 2007
Instead most of your remarks imply a lack of respect and, agree or disagree, an unwilligness to take what I say seriously.


well, it is my blog. i'm not going over to your blog and starting crap by using the same old parroted lines and using as much inflammatory language and terminology as possible.

do you see anything disrespectful or childish towards you in the article? no, you didn't. that only happens when you start with me. you seem to think i have some obligation to seriously entertain every crack-pot idea you spew at me,,,i don't. i wrote my article, and stand by it.

but the fact remains that whenever someone mentions secularity in our government, wing-nuts like you want to take everything down to abortion and other wedge issues. then all you want to do is paint the opposition as slithering , greedy for more blood, psychopaths following in the tradition of nazis.

and sister, crap like that will never be taken seriously by me and will always be called out for what it is...hate filled, ignorant propoganda.

and on stem cells, you are wrong...you should have read on.
on Jun 28, 2007
stand by my statement that thus far embryonic stem cells have not yet yielded anything that shows promise. All the good that has been produced is from adult stem cells from other parts of the body.


I've heard this as well Lula. Everything I've read or heard seems to say that it's the adult stem cells we need to be concentrating on, not embryonic. It definitely seems to make more sense anyhow. Taking a life to save a life is a no brainer.

on Jun 28, 2007
Taking a life to save a life is a no brainer.


except that is not what happens. most of these stem cells will be properly discarded, or "thrown in a dumpster and taken to a landfill" as lula would put it. do you think that we have endless resources to store these things?

no life is being wasted, period.
on Jun 28, 2007
After this I didn't pay too much attention to the link becasue I saw the bottom half is under the heading of an advertisement and that just doesn't cut it.


Come on, Lula. "Find Articles" is a reputable site that needs to increase revenue somehow. Are you telling me you won't pay attention to the website for CNN, FOX or any other news source? Because they very often have an advertisement in the middle of their articles.

It's not the exception on the internet. It's the quid pro quo. If you're going to base your judgment of the article on that alone, that's rather insipid.

(Besides, the reason that pharmaceutical companies have done any research on adult stem cells is because they're federally funded. The only reason that they haven't found anything yet with embryonic stem cells is because, try as they might, the federal government can't fund them. If embryonic stem cell research were to get the federal support that adult stem cell research currently gets, the results would be enormous. But that's a topic for another thread. )
on Jun 28, 2007
SANCHONINO POSTS:
The only reason that they haven't found anything yet with embryonic stem cells is because, try as they might, the federal government can't fund them. If embryonic stem cell research were to get the federal support that adult stem cell research currently gets, the results would be enormous. But that's a topic for another thread.



I have to agree that most oftentimes it comes down to money being thrown into the mix. However, this is not the case with embryonic stem cells (ESC).

The clear facts are that both ESC and adult stem cells have been tested and EST to not perform or produce helpful tissue.

Just last month, the American College of Pediatricians called for an end to ESC research and recommended the exclusive support of already proven effective adult stem cell research. These people understand that shuffling money to ESC is a waste of money when it could be going toward adult stem cell research which has shown astounding promise.


The following is a quote from the report. Dr. Michelle Cretella wrote, "Not only does embryonic research require taking the life of human embryos, it also prolongs needless suffering by delaying the development of more promising adult stem cell treatments and cures."

Research using non-embryo sources of stem cells, including amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, placenta and adult blood, fat and various organs, have yielded impressive results.

These results include the routine use of adult stem cells in certain forms of cancer therapy. Over the last decade, these cells have been used to successfully treat spinal cord injuries, heart failure, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and dozens of other conditions in human trials.

Instead, embryonic stem cell trials have produced the wrong tissue, forming tumors and triggering immune rejection.

"Every dollar spent on the failed and unnecessary process of embryonic stem cell research, steals resources away from the potential of adult stem cell research. This is fiscally irresponsible and medically unconscionable," said a statement from the American College of Pediatricians.

KFC POSTS:

It definitely seems to make more sense anyhow. Taking a life to save a life is a no brainer.


Exactly, KFC. No use mincing words...it's a no brainer. The ends never justify the means. Never. To quote George Orwell.."To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."
on Jun 28, 2007
Come on, Lula. "Find Articles" is a reputable site that needs to increase revenue somehow. Are you telling me you won't pay attention to the website for CNN, FOX or any other news source? Because they very often have an advertisement in the middle of their articles.


I didn't cast negative aspersions re: the "Find Article" site itself. Did you check out the link? It seemed as though the article that was attempting to promote ESC research was using an Advertisement. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I thought I was reading. Sean cited the link as proof of success in ESC research and as I read it, there was nothing conclusive there and that was my point.

Common sense says that IF there was anything promising in ESC research, then the Left would be all over it. It's empty talk. They aren't because they know, as we do, there isn't anything there. It's adult stem cell research that we should be focusing on and excited about.

6 PagesFirst 4 5 6