Is there a Special version of the Constitution that Libs read?

They not only read the real US Constitution, they are fighting their hardest to keep conservatives from destroying it.

And we do know that the First Amendment DOES NOT SAY that stupid white-trash Christians get to make the rules and run the country.

Conservatives and the religious right want to destroy the real America and replace it with a Theocratic government based on the evil morality of their rape-torture-kill Christian God (or, as John Adams said, they want to, “"whip and crop, and pillory and roast.")

America was founded as a secular democratic republic. By unanimous approval of the 1797 U.S. Congress:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbar...

This is hardly the first time Christians have tried to undermine the government and overthrow the country. In 1864, 1874, 1896 and 1911, they tried to pass amendments that would rewrite the Constitution to include references to God. Furthermore, there has never been a time in the history of Christianity when it had political power and did not use it for evil purposes.

And today’s Christian terrorists wish America harm as well. On 9/11 both Falwell And Robertson said that God had brought down the trade towers and killed 3,000 because he was angry with America and that we deserved it because we had brought it on ourselves. Of course, on 9/12 they began denying it when it became clear that most Americans were not in the mood for that kind of talk.

We will never know if Adams was right when he wrote,” This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”, because we likely we never find out.

But we do know that if the Christian religious-right gains control of America, then only terrorists will control the world. How can deal with Islamic terrorists abroad when we have Christian terrorist traitors at home?

Here’s some interesting reading from the founders of our great country:

JOHN ADAMS: “How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?” (Letters to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816)

THOMAS JEFFERSON “In every country and in every age the priest [any and every clergyman] has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”

JAMES MADISON: Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law. Feb. 10, 18

The establishment of the chaplainship to Cong[res]s is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

JOHN TYLER: “The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvationand the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” (to Judge JS. Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death)

MARY TODD LINCOLN: “Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian.”

ULYSSES S. GRANT: “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.” (Address to the Army of the Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875)

*****************************************

AU CONTRAIRE questioner

In public, the Founding Fathers tended to ‘when in Rome do as the Romans do’ as all politicians have always done. It is precisely in their private correspondence to one another that they are most critical of religion – of organized religion especially – and of Christianity in particular (that, of course, the one whose abuses of humanity they were most familiar with, having some first-hand experience, in fact).

The US Constitution can hardly be mentioned without the mentioning of Christianity, because Christianity is in a 24/7 full-court press to insert itself where it was not wanted (it was no accident that US Constitution does not contain a single reference to, or mention of, God, Jesus, or Christianity – Christianity was deliberately kept out of the formation of the government) and to try to convince people that it is already there.

The Constitution is THE document establishing our government and, therefore, the blueprint for our society. There is nothing more valuable or precious in America – because it IS America.

*********************************************

spongeworthy_us –

Anticipated my own question.

This happens to be from American Heritage (but it does not really matter) and is their definition of Agnosticism:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Yet indeed, you do seem to be advocating for a specific religious perspective.

Your criticism of Atheists is equally puzzling since, by definition, they oppose special treatment, seeking only to not have religious beliefs advocated for by the public domain. You seem to think that denying Christianity special consideration somehow provides special consideration to atheists.

Why is that many Christian groups think the Constitution and law apply to everyone except them?

****************************************

spongeworthy_us –

I was the one who was unclear. All I meant to say was that I had the same question as you. I don't think I misunderstood you. In any case I agree with you.

Cheers, Gary

***********************************

questioner -

The dna strand is just as you say - after death. The dna can remain, potentially and under proper circumstances, indefinitely.

What does that mean?

In reading this, it means that the government can not legislate religion. In order to do so would violate the rights of the athiests. Which is what you listed spoke of. Legislating anything based on "religion" is putting the views of one religion above another belief. So THAT is what I speak of when I speak of the separation of church and state.

What is the right religious view? Catholics think birth control is a sin, whereas Protestants see it as something necessary for the times. You gonna legislate which view? Both are very "mainstream" religions. . .

The Supreme Court defines that constitution - the same Supreme Court that right now is mainly Conservative.

So stick all that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

Is there a Special version of the Constitution that Cons/Repugs read?

I have seen this so many times, Cons/Repugs talking about "separation of church and state" have any Cons/Repugs actually read the Constitution? Has any Cons/Repugs actually read the establishment clause and realized it is the duty of the goverment to supress the recognition of a religion IN A PUBLIC, TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED place, because to not suppress any one religion is tantamount to establishing that religion as the state religion?

That Jefferson's opinions are NOT in the constitution but were written in a letter, which most conservatives accept as not just good government but very good ideas as well? There IS a "wall of seperation between church and state", the first amendment:

Article I

"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. "

Additional Details

One thing i would like to add...

All I am saying is it's the Goverments role NOT to remain neutral to religion, to not endorse and to supress religious activities IN PUBLIC, TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED places. Let no Religions if they have a member speak their will at graduiations, because since there are several hundred religions, if everyone is going to have their fair say, a two-hour graduation is now stretched out to 18 hours so every religion can be heard, this goes for prayer meetings in public buildings.

As for abortion it is absolutely a religion thing, because some whacko religions think an embryo, a ball of a few cells which cannot exist for even a minute outside the mother, is equal to the mother and that destroying an embryo is even more wrong than destroying the mother; most of the non-whacko religions do not agree.

Killing an embryo is no more killing a living thing than killing a cancer cell or removing an appendix or a spleen. yep, cancer cells have their own weird DNA, that's why they grow out of control. But, I didn't realize that the whacko religionists made a distinction between one DNA and another, that's a new one on me, more hair-splitting religionism. Put it this way: if it's not a religion thing, why do whacko religionist call an embryo innocent life but they have non problems killing the mother, if that's what it takes or putting people to death for crimes or sending our soldiers off to die in pointless wars? Seems to me like the mother, soldiers or even criminals are more human that a ball of cells dependent on the mother. WTF are you people thinking?

There is enough information out there and free or low cost birth control that abortion should be consitered an outdated practice,

and it might be were there not such things as rape and failure of birth control, which, by the way many whacko religions such as the ones that consider abortion murder have outlawed. So maybe if the whacko religions would permit their members and people outside their religion to use contraceptives and condoms, abortion would be less prevalent.

"much like using leeches and maggots to clean a would..", an interesting point since maggots are in fact being used to clean out necrotic and gangrenous wounds nowadays.

Most unwanted children should't be concieved in this day and age they say that each form of birth control is at least 98% effective so using more than one method should make the chance of conception less than .01%., but since the same whacko religions who have a problem with abortion also have a problem with the 98% effective contracption AND because women who are raped are not always practicing contraception, kind of blows your whacko theories, eh whacko?

Funny for someone who claims to be agnostic, you really are pushing hard for whacko religionists to have all these rights to influence the way our government works, eh whacko? And if you really are an agnostic as you claim to be, what is it about atheists that p!ss you off so much? Atheist believe in no religion, agnostics believe in no god, I don't see a lot of difference between the two, eh whacko?

To Gary, I didn't make myself clear: I'm not criticizing Atheists or Agnostics, I'm just pointing out that if you go up and look at what the questioner has put there, he starts out saying that all religions ought to be able to practice in public venues, then he says he's an agnostic, then he says "Atheists p!ss me off..." I'm not in favor of any particular religion and I don't deride atheists or agnostics - I just don't like religion mixed with my government, that's all.

Then why do conservatives supoort this as well?

James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Walsh); "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.", and he declared "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

The only thing that is "special" about the way the libs "read" the Constitution, is that they "read" it with an underlying attitude of sophistry. And, of course, there is their underlying attitude that the Constitution was written by liberals who didn't want conservatives to have much if any political control, so every time judges "strike down" laws made by conservatives, the liberals will simply applaud and assume that it's what the Founding Fathers wanted. Last year on one website I told a group of liberals that they interpret the Constitution selfishly -- they think they can interpret it any way they want to suit their goals but they would fight tooth and nail to prevent conservatives from doing the same.

sigh A) it quite is the preamble, that's no longer legally binding. B) merchandising the overall welfare and providing welfare aren't any further a similar challenge. in the different case, how do you clarify the actual shown actuality that the founding fathers did not create any welfare classes? No federal welfare classes existed till the Thirties. How did we are residing to inform the tale for 100 and fifty years without welfare classes in the journey that they are in the structure? C) examine the 10th change.

Apparently. They don't want Christianity, but Secular Humanism, an atheistic religion, is just fine by them. You can't be a liberal unless you subscribe to their sacrament of Abortion on Demand and preach the Gospel of 'Rob the Rich and Give to the Poor to attain total power over all'.

Would you be OK with Islamic law getting shoved down your throat by Big Government? Islam is the fastest growing religion in America now, so it is only a matter of time until they have the numerical majority necessary to vote their religious laws in to law for all the rest of us to obey. Do you think then you might want separation of church and state? Or what if you moved to Utah, would you want the schools indoctrinating your kids that Jesus came to America after He died, and that He married several English wives? Please understand, separation of church and state PROTECTS RELIGION. Thank you.

So what you are saying is that religion should pay taxes like any business and the working masses.

No it's the same one Bush said is a god d piece of paper.