I wish they would stop blasting this as "lesbian couple this" and "lesbian couple that." The words of Dr. King apply here as well that we should just label them "a couple" or two young girls. Throwing the lesbian tag line in there is just inflammatory without further information.

DAM-- I agree. These are two young women, two human beings that were shot, one of them killed. My condolences to her family.

I agree this is a horrible tragedy and the pos who did this deserves to suffer.

This was done by an evil person who has no soul.

RIP My condolences to the family

Murder is always tragic.

Hope the survivor can ID the criminal(s) responsible.

(Not sure why the folks in the last photo are smiling? Just nervous w/media, probably.)

Her???? Have I missed something or isn't the Gov. Rick Perry?

Disgruntled,

You beat me to it. Thank you for those thoughtful words.

RT

really? Gov of Texas cares about a young lesbian couple? I doubt it. How incredibly sad. Two young women with everything to live for.

Furthermore, the Governor of Texas, and any other governor, doesn't investigate crimes; that's why we have police. But, never miss a chance to throw some s**t at a conservative, right Nebraska001?

And, they probably identify the lesbian angle because they suspect that this is a crime of passion, possibly committed by a spurned lover....of one gender or the other.

Texas is not homosexual friendly. Just stating the facts after observations while living there. That is why they have such huge closets.

Why am I not at all surprised that this happened in Texas, the "hang 'em high" state?

I would hope so. It is a crime no matter who the victims were, a hate crime? If a homosexual kills a straight person that would have to be a hate crime also, in order to make common sense? I'm sorry for them and thier family and friends, no one deserves to be murdered for any reason.

Texas has a Male governor not a her. And sorry Suds I think you might have had one to many suds. I lived in Texas both Houston and Dallas areas, Texans do not go around beating up gays or shooting them yelling YEEHAWWWWW BOYS LOOKEE HERE, SHOT ME A COUPLE OF HOMO'S. So you can stuff the stereo type child like mantra. It is sad, but when it starts to get in your face attitudes, and having to hear about it every day I believe you get pissed off people every where.

how do you jerks take a horrible murder like this and put political overtones in it ..get a life its not about right or left...its just wrong!

Some of you will be exposed as fools if this turns out not to be a crime based on their sexual orientation. Also, there was a murder of an opposite sex couple here in D/FW recently, but for some reason the press did not report it that way. How strange. Had to have been a hate crime according to some, right?

..

They use the terms "lesbian" to blame thier sexulaity for the shootings. Ugh makes me sick. If only poeple understood, that people's orientation is determined by dna (chromosones). Same-sex relationships have been going on even way before the romans and before the bible. STOP IT AMERICA>YOUR ACING LIKE THE BRITISH DID WHEN THEY RULED

I wish they would stop blasting this as "lesbian couple this" and "lesbian couple that." The words of Dr. King apply here as well that we should just label them "a couple" or two young girls. Throwing the lesbian tag line in there is just inflammatory without further information.

Really? Because those of us who live through the horrendous torture at the hands of others, and denigration of a situation like you've done, merely because you have a problem with connecting the dots and realizing this just isn't a random shooting, we'd emphatically support calling it out for what it is.

If I were killed for being who I am, I would want the world to know it.

Who the hell could possibly think that two affirmed lesbians shot execution style were shot for any other reason?? Neither appear to be drug addicts, nor have there been any reports as such. So again, what other reason can you possibly imagine??

Just because you're not comfortable swallowing the fact that bigotry like yours or that of others creates these scenarios does not mean the rest of us should have to listen to your criticisms.

My heart aches for these two...they've gone through what many of us fear happening (and by "us" I don't mean you, I mean "us" as in the millions of Americans who are forced to live in fear because of your bigotry), now one is dead and the other is in critical condition.

If that isn't enough for you to change the way you act, speak, and believe, I'd say there's no redemption for you on Earth or in the eyes of God.

great case fpr stamping of bullets...this way we would know the culprit

For whatever reason, in whatever state, this is a sad, sad thing and I hope they catch the rats who did this and give them what they deserve. Rest in peace, Mollie, I hope Kristina recovers and can identify your killer(s).

Delete, duplicate post.

The headline labels them as a "lesbian couple" because the victims were most likely shot by someone who is prejudiced of gay people. You have to understand how journalism works--headlines that will draw the most attention are the ones that are used. So sad and stupid that people like this kill just because they don't agree with the way others are living their own lives.

Repubs and Dems just cool it! The sad story here is the fact that two young people were shot in the head. Without a doubt that's 2 lives wasted because of some intolerant jerk. They're not unique to Texas. The dumb-ass redneck affliction (DRA) is all over the country and spreading fast as the country turns against itself. We all sit around talking smack about each other. Meanwhile we're all getting a good screwing from our government on both sides of the fence.

My condolences to the families of both young ladies.

You're making a HUGE leap of inference to declare it a hate crime. How do you know they weren't shot by another female who was jealous? Or someone they pissed off for some unknown reason? The bottom line is, you don't know ANYTHING yet, but because it suits your agenda, you make a a big assumption and start throwing bricks at all the groups you hate (republicans, texans, etc.)...

The prudent thing to do would be to wait until someone finds out why they were killed. It may have nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Why am I not at all surprised that this happened in Texas, the "hang 'em high" state?

What exactly does one have to do with the other? Please explain.

I am fairly certain if they catch the animal that did this not too many people are going to be upset when that person is on death row. Except HoneyJo of course.

Suds,

Texas is not homosexual friendly. Just stating the facts after observations while living there. That is why they have such huge closets.

Ever been to Austin, Houston. Dallas??? I have seen a couple dancing cheek to cheek at a country bar in West Texas and no one bothered them. What did you see?? Please explain and give proof. I have lived here most of my life and have never heard of ANYTHING that comes close to this........!!

"Without a doubt that's 2 lives wasted because of some intolerant jerk"

Do we know that? The person who committed this crime is a POS I agree and I support the state in killing them if they find them. But there is little to no evidence that the person committed the crime because they where lesbians. It's just as likely that they where killed in a robbery, gang violence, sexual assault ect.

To assume that they where killed due to their sexual orientation is a tad offensive.

Texas is a conservative whore house, where hate speech is considered a value, and people of minorities are still being murdered by white supremacy groups.

Well, up until the late 1990's, Texas was totally Democratic, but has changed over the decades. Wonder why? Man, I must not be paying attention. All of this going on all around me and I didn't even know it!! Probably because it doesn't happen here anymore than ANY place in the world, much less the United States.

However, here as well in every state in America minorities are killing minorities daily, BUT that's okay. OR is it??

They use the word Lesbian to establish it as a Hate crime, it needs to be documented that way, two very pretty girls its a tragedy..

There is a special place in Hell for this type of Evil, rock bottom burning trenches with no chance of love for eternity.

Well, up until the late 1990's, Texas was totally Democratic, but has changed over the decades. Wonder why? Man, I must not be paying attention.

Apparently you aren't...I said c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.

Why is MSNBC jumping to conclusion that it was a hate crime when the authorities clearly stated the motive is still unknown? "Same-sex couple" and "lesbian killing". Stirring up hate against hate is MSNBC. The sensationalizing media of visceral hatred for profit! Even so...condolences to the families.

Some of you people have some warped ass opinions. What's with the politics? Pure fact is some asswipe took the life of one young girl, and possibly the quality of life from another. Who cares what the sexual orientation was, or their color, or in what state it happened. Facts are facts and this should have never happened to these two young ladies. My sympathy and apology to the friends and family of these young ladies. And for you homophobes, no I'm not gay. I'm a 65 year old married male cop.

wow, and here I thought they were listed as "a lesbian couple" because thats exactly what they are.

and who knew saying exactly what they are is called "inciting"

back in the closet gays, the straights cant handle it!

*face palm - arent you folks embarrassed of yourselves and the thoughts you let spew?

And for you homophobes, no I'm not gay. I'm a 65 year old married male cop.

That was an opinion not necessary..

If I had a daughter, she would look just like these girls.

Probably because it doesn't happen here anymore than ANY place in the world, much less the United States.

Bull. The FBI hate crimes statistics emphatically show that the states with common presence of hate groups and highest conservative populations report the least amount of hate crimes annually, yet consistently make the news for the most violent crimes involving bias. Texas has been host to numerous confirmed incidents of horrifyingly violent racial and sexuality-bias crimes, including hanging, dragging, murder with a deadly weapon, and even torture.

Dustin - I think you missed Disgruntled American Man's point that the headline is sensational and inflammatory. It may be a hate crime, but as some have pointed out, ANY murder is tragic, so the fact that they were a lesbian couple should not matter. In addition, the editors got that much more mileage out of their headline by using the terms "teen lesbian couple", though they are in fact legal adults. (Yes, I realize they are eighTEEN and nineTEEN.) Hopefully, they catch the perp.

why is offensive to at least accept that this might be a possibility? after all it might be. And speaking of "intolerant jerks", why is it so important to conservatives, to quickly jump to the airwaves, and not be the least bit sorry for the horrendous loss of life and humanity, but to make sure someone doesn't think it's a hate crime. that is insensitive and you wonder why the gay and lesbian communities crap all over you. you are intolerant. your words betray you.

I think Nebraska meant to spell it "Herr"...

I live in Austin and have never heard of any hate crime towards lesbian or gay couples. Matter of fact they live openly in Austin and no one pays much attention anymore. I see trans-gender, gay and lesbian couplesdown on 6th street and don't really pay much attention to it. It's a free America...to each his/her own!

People kill. Guns are just the instrument.

The assailant could just as easily used a club or a knife we are told - in other words, walked courageously right up to the victims to do the dastardly deed, rather than cowardly shoot them while safely hiding from view.

Cowards use guns from a safe distance, without personally engaging the victim. It takes a person of courage to take on your prey mano-a-mano.

So in order not to inconvenience those whose partial 2nd ammendment (ignoring the words " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") trump of the state to protect its citizens, we allow these wretched cowards to obtain an instrument whose purpose is to kill, with as much trouble as buying a dozen eggs.

It is simply unfathomable that somebody would use a killing device for killing. But we'll sure show'em what's what once we catch them. And their victims? Well, we just think that their right to be shot far exceeds ANY other right. It's harder to vote than buy a gun.

One More "Why is MSNBC jumping to conclusion that it was a hate crime when the authorities clearly stated the motive is still unknown? "Same-sex couple" and "lesbian killing". Stirring up hate against hate is MSNBC. The sensationalizing media of visceral hatred for profit! Even so...condolences to the families."

I get the feeling you are jumping to conclusions, or you just plain stink at reading comprehension - so im going to repost the ONLY part of the article that mentions hate crime as POSSIBLE motive (not the only motive)...and then you tell me who's "stiring up hate" - me thinks it's folks like you.

from the article:

When asked if police had been able to determine if the girls' sexuality played any role in the shootings, Wright told msnbc.com on Monday: “That’s always something that we’re looking for, but as of this point, we have not been able to establish that that had anything to do with the attack.”

He also said they had been in communication with Chapa. He noted all indications were that “third parties” were involved in the assault.

Classic reasoning skills and deduction leads the reader to conclude the exact opposite of what you got out of this article.

The police dont know - one way or the other - and the reporter simply inquired if they did, and reported that the police do not - as of yet - have any evidence to support that.

The Third Parties statement is interesting...this to me suggests that the victim quite possibly knew the person who shot them, but either doesnt know their name or is unwilling to id them...

that does not rule out the possibility that this is a hate crime...not even in the least. knowing the person who does this, doesnt mean their motivation wasnt based on pure hatred of "what they were"...as one friend quoted in this article put it (and put it like a true texan would). for someone who doesnt live down south, and who has friends who dont put things in a backhanded compliment like that - it took me back for a second. but then I realize, this is texas...and "overlooking what someone is" is a compliment. The idea of embracing "what someone is"...they arent there yet.

It may be a hate crime, but as some have pointed out, ANY murder is tragic, so the fact that they were a lesbian couple should not matter

It DOES matter. It matters more than you know, that we are so perverse a people that we still kill each other over creed.

If you can't see that, it's not my problem.

I'll assertively tell ya a couple of things about this... Texas may be conservative, yes. But we ain't Florida and the Texas Rangers (the real ones) are damned good at what they do. If the police in Corpus Christi don't get on the ball and apprehend the shooter, I betcha the Rangers do. Then I can also guarantee that person will receive the death penalty. Because in Texas if you kill somebody... we kill ya back!

Dustin 265090: Maybe you should join the police in the hunt or admit to the crime as you appear to know everything about it, case solved? Seriously dude, you don't know any more then the rest of us so get off your soap box and quit your preaching. Honestly all your noisy "fact based" talk is taking away from the terrible crime that occured here. And as for "your" community, you prick, as a vet I consider the US my community so I'll mourn over these girls along with the rest of their straight friends and family and the rest of the straight people in the country who hear of it. You jackwagon, just sthu before you get your butt kicked for being stupid, with your preferences having nothing to do with it. You know what, you are giving "your community" a bad rep just by all your bs. Maybe you should think of that before you keep preaching. Just mho.... My best wishes to the friends and family of the victims and pray for justice.

People kill. Guns are just the instrument.

Exactly, so why do we make these instruments more accessible for everyone? Murder happens, but I'd rather die fighting someone off with my own bare hands, than be shot by some cowardly little bastard with a projectile death device.

Hey. maybe it was just somebody standin' his ground and felt attacked. Accidents do happen.

Ok... let's get something out of the way before I make my point here. This "liberal media" thingy has long been studied and debunked. http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm, so conservatives, please give it a rest or find some other soundbite to use.

Now, on to the topic..

This is a very sad crime, but I am by no means surprised it happened in Texas, where intolerance seems to be growing day in and day out. Unfortunately, this happened to two young women with quite a bit of life to live. This frenzy with the 2nd amendment and the need to take every bit of it literally is probably the biggest blunder ever. We no longer see the second amendment as a way of defending ourselves against tirany, but also an artifact to do away with people who don't think or act like the rest of us.

The only one thing I hope for is justice for these two young ladies.

Funny that everyone wants them to be labeled as a "couple" rather than a "lesbian couple", when they want to exclude them from marriage and benefits... Sigh. The reason that it's so important that they're lesbian is because it was possibly a hate crime. Since the country has, y'known, shown an overpouring amount of respect and support for the gay community, especially in Texas...

I feel I have to not that the last line is sarcasm, since people obviously won't get it.

The police state this attack "has earmarks of a targeted attack" These girls were shot in the head at close range. That sounds pretty pre-meditated to me. And when a pre-meditated murder happens the victims are targeted for a very specific reason.

This is a hate crime and will be proved as such.

For all the tings Texas does wrong (and there are lots of them), you can rest assured if they catch the perp (or someone close enough) he will be put to death.

@Bruce

I felt the same way. No one knows why on earth this occurred. It could have been a mugging gone bad, a love triangle, a random act of evil, the result of road rage, or even money. Who knows!!! For anyone to sit back and say it's a hate crime is so ridiculous! Wait for facts people.

Jessica Your opinion is noted. I stand by mine. And if it turns out it was not a hate crime, the headline of the story will not leave the consciousness of those who had their attention apprehended by it.

Total sadness ..... the loss of the young lady, the loss of the living one's innocence and health....if she lives.
This is purely a HATE crime on these kids! Yes, KIDS! They are just KIDS! And since it's a hate crime, who the h311 is going to come to stand up for THEM?

Here's the thing people....I am a married straight woman who has become an internet mom to a LOT of teenage girls in the past 15 years. I walk them through hard decisions and times that they can't or are afraid to walk through with their own parents. MANY of these young girls have "hooked up" with other young girls throughout the years. They need people to love them and approve of them no matter WHAT they choose in life, just like the rest of us do.
MANY of them are just experiencing and exploring natural occurences in their growing lives....and MANY young girls are not even AWARE of which way their sexuality is going to go when they mature. I know several of these young ladies that went through that growing period with a female, and then switched to a male partner later as they matured. I also know several who have married the same sex. Right or wrong as it might be in anyone's eyes, it is NOT for us to judge, and it certainly doesn't give anyone a right to take their lives!
What the heck is the government feeding us for people to be such cruel animals these days?

marmaduke "Its probably someone who got tired of hearing We have to accept the LGBT views, or maybe their getting tired of reading news articles every day of how people NEED to accept the gay movement. I am NOT condoning what this person did, but we are here trying to think why , or what would set a person off like this. Being told you have to accept a view, can set people off."

I dont recall ANYONE telling ANYONE they have to accept LGBT views. What I do hear people saying is that it's not LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE to treat a portion of the populatin (gays) as 2nd class citizens and not give us equal rights and equal protection under the law.

Allowing a gay person to marry another gay person DOES NOT REQUIRE YOUR ACCEPTANCE. not in the least. Ya know, I dont accept that people cheat on their spouses, and walk out on their families and get married again - BUT THATS PERFECTLY LEGAL - right?

Wow Marmaduke, I realize you have no clue how pathetic your statement makes you sound...but christ almighty...this is ALL ABOUT YOU, ISNT IT? of course it is...poor you having to "hear about and read about" gays...omigod, are you ok? maybe we should take you to see a doctor...would have for your fragile sensibilities to be destroyed over "hearing" about all this...

poor straight christians, however do you all survive?

*EPIC FACE PALM

Onemore "I stand by mine. And if it turns out it was not a hate crime, the headline of the story will not leave the consciousness of those who had their attention apprehended by it."

i bet it felt like someone stabbed you when you had to read the words LESBIAN...yikes. hope you recover...best wishes.

Dustin, get off your gay pedestal. You're not special. Very sad that an innocent life was taken and another altered in a tragic way. You don't know all of the facts and are assuming it was a hate crime.

Flip flopping Republican, you are just completely hateful and your attitude and words are just as polarizing as those you bash. Hypocrit.

Guns...

Guns...

Guns...

shooting for fun

why, it's america. you're supposed to be an american and uphold american ideals, like freedom of speech, living free from other idiots intrusions into your personal life. and you wonder why people call you the teliban.

NEBRASK001 - The Texas governor is Governor Perry and not a "her!" Your thinking of Kate Perry the pop author of "I Kissed a Girl and Liked it."

FOLKS - We must first and foremost apologize to the family for MSNBC's horrible banner headlines that are mean to sell news paper and not report the truth. This is no truth in the report that these two young teens were lesbians. Nor that the crime was one of hate. It is speculation at best and poor reporting for the same of sensationalism.

Dustin, get off your gay pedestal. You're not special. Very sad that an innocent life was taken and another altered in a tragic way. You don't know all of the facts and are assuming it was a hate crime.

why do people consistently treat gay people different, isolate them from society and treat them like sea-rap essentially putting them in a box...and then turn around and complain because the gay individual doesn't like being in a box. if you want them to stop acting differently, then treat them with respect and stop treating them differently.

Sad that something like this happens to 2 innocent young teenage girls & all people can do is turn this into something about politics. Those denying that this could have been a hate crime need to wake up & realize that in this sad world we live in it probably was. Someone probably seen them together & didn't like it & like some psycho thought they deserved to be shot. On the other hand, its possible that it wasn't a hate crime, it could have been maybe an ex of either girl who was jealous (scourned"lover"). It's pathetic that law enforcement even have to take into consideration that it could be a hate crime just because of who these girls chose to love. Just because two people of the same gender fall in love doesn't make them any less human then anyone else. Gays/lesbians have been around for ages, it's not like it's all of a sudden some "hip new thing" sweeping the country. Regardless of their sexual preference, these two girls did not deserve this. I hope they catch the s.o.b that did this & regardless of the reasoning, give them what they deserve. I offer my condolences to the family of Mollie & prayers & well wishes for recovery to Mary. These girls deserve justice I think that everyone should agree with that.

First let me say to JACK1792739, They refer to Treyvon as a "unarmed black teenager" because that's what he was. If he was white he would still be alive. You are a jackass for bringing it up. Second for Tired of hearing it and TXHorseman Texas gets bigot crown because it deserves it. I lived in Houston for four years. The lowlifes I worked with thought it was fun to go down to Montrose and beat up gays. They only refered to blacks as blacks when they were in the room. As soon as they left it was ni--er. So quit whining when people call Texas the bigot State. It's unlikely they will catch the murderer for the same reason they are not charging the guy who killed his daughters rapist. Not much chance of a conviction unless the shooter is black or Mexican. So, don't mess with Texas, it's already a mess.

Jessica-You are very adept at twisting a quote. Now go off and play with the rest of the children.

Dustin. Really!!

Just take some more happy pills and go to sleep - your out of control young lady!!

This comment of mine needs completion for clarity:

"By the way, ever figure we don't want you? We don't. We don't want to see"

I meant to end with "we don't want to see you minimize this situation like the countless LGBT deaths that the conservative moment swoops in to make certain are not recognized what they are...a pointless, sorrowful death that came on the wings of bigotry."

Jessica, if you want to debate with Marmaduke and Onemore about your superiority, go right on ahead. But the grouping of "poor straight Christians" just put us all in a category that you are obviously tired of hearing about. So as usual, in defense of "your group", you just chastised "mine" .

Well Kevin,

So quit whining when people call Texas the bigot State.

Add the other 49 and I will. We do not have a lock on bigotry or any other hate. People kill other people of all races every single day. In this state and ALL the others.

It's unlikely they will catch the murderer for the same reason they are not charging the guy who killed his daughters rapist.

She is 5 years old and he caught the man "in the act"!! So he "got away with it" because the man was hispanic??? BS!! NOT a state in this country would have prosecuted him. Did you read the 911 transcirpts?? He tried to save the POS!!!

Go back to your troll hole. We have no more bigotry or hate than anywhere else.

Dustin, Really am sorry you feel the way you do. I don't agree with your life style choice, but NO ONE should live in fear. Just my thoughts on that.

Unfortunately our beloved liberal media has to incite and do what they can to make stories so much worse.

Yeah it's not so bad. I mean one didn't even die. Now if they had been shot in the head with an RPG, that would be bad!!!!!

Just take some more happy pills and go to sleep - your out of control young lady!!

Absolutely NOT.

We're sick and tired of it. You don't wake up every day and hear of another senseless tragedy like this...you don't have to deal with the reality that you could full well encounter the same situation, or people who you love and care for like family.

MY community feels the heavy heartache of deaths and attacks like these EVERY day!!!

Many of us have lost our patience, and refuse to sit idly as more of us are attacked, bullied, and killed!! You can either join us, or get the hell out of the way...or we'll push you out of the way. We will no longer tolerate this insanity!!!!

Dustin- Bring your "push"........LOL. See how well that it works out for ya. Get off your moms computer, go back to playing with your Barbie dolls and dressing up in yo mommas undies.

TXHorseman had this to say:

Ever been to Austin, Houston. Dallas??? I have seen a couple dancing cheek to cheek at a country bar in West Texas and no one bothered them. What did you see?? Please explain and give proof. I have lived here most of my life and have never heard of ANYTHING that comes close to this........!!

This is an extraordinarily disingenuous comment. Yes, there is a "gay friendly" part of Austin, there is a large "gay-friendly" part of Houston, and there is a "gay-friendly" part of Dallas. This does not make Texas gay-friendly. There is a gay-friendly section in Tulsa and another in Oklahoma City--this definitely does not make Oklahoma gay-friendly.

In both Texas and in Oklahoma, it is not uncommon to find the local preachers quoting Leviticus 20:13 in its King James Bible, inaccurate, version. And, no, the original text does not actually say that homosexual people should be put to death--it would be nice if people would read the original, which is a lot more ambiguous in its meaning.

Thus, when a two young women, a lesbian couple, with no ties to drugs, crime, or anything else which would explain their being taken from an area where young lovers might sit holding hands and looking at the stars, and being found shot in the head, AND the young couple is in Texas, it is most likely that the young couple was executed by someone who thought that he (most likely) had a biblical injunction to do so.

If you don't often hear about this, it is because the local police and family and friends would not, in the past, have noted the lesbian relationship. They would have just been two young women, found shot. This would make it a heck of a lot easier to hide any GLBT murder sprees.

There is some slim possibility that this happened with a gang of girls, led by a "spurned lover." Not a huge possibility, but it is there. Notice that there is no mention of any struggle (a single lover, confronting a pair of people, would not have been easily able to avoid a struggle against two people). This makes it a lot more likely that the two were physically out of their league (meaning it was a male), that they were taken to the area where they would be less likely to be seen, and then were shot in the head.

Look--when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras, unless you are in Africa or the zoo. You are most likely to be right. This is a version of Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation is the most likely.

That some religious nutcase--perhaps a spurned male--followed the two young women to this location, or took them to this location, and shot them is the simplest and most likely explanation, given the fact that this took place in the South, and particularly in Texas where it was only very recently that European Americans actually got prosecuted and convicted for murdering a black man.

In Oklahoma and Texas, gay people are most often murdered via "suicides" (which are obviously not suicides, but the sherriff chooses to call it such) or "accidents" (again, obviously not accidents) and particularly in "hunting accidents" or "gun accidents." It doesn't take much to cover up a murder of a single person--and this has been done for many decades, whether you want to admit it or not.

This would, of course, be true in any anti-gay area in the largely evangelical Christian South, just as it would be in a community that is heavily Islamic. Why it is that people are so unhappy with others pointing out that conservative right-wing evangelical Christians are just as likely to murder others due to their sexuality or "heretic" beliefs (such as performing abortions) as Islamists, when it doesn't take much to find examples of such murders, is beyond me.

The simplest answer is that some male, whose motive was jealousy or religious extremism or both, either followed these women to the area and murdered them there or took them to the area and murdered them there. I fail to see why mentioning the obvious is anything of a problem.

Dustin

The truth may hurt your little feelings - so hang on to something tight honey . . . but I believe it's time for a reality check. It's YOUR COMMUNITY that is patronizing and encouraging innocent children to join your ungodly deviant life style and its the media and Hollywood who want to glamorize your disgusting behavior. If this is a HATE crime - its all on you.

In Texas, Really? Who'd have guessed something like this could happen in such a fair and just state. D.A.M. frowned upon the calling of these two Innocents "Lesbians". Yet in a state where profiling has become as common as Hunting I guess that someone has declared open season on what they consider a new form of animals, homosexuals.

Call a Spade a Spade if you will. I truly believe that these youngsters were targeted for that word which some feel is inappropriate to use, "Lesbian".

Dustin, you do realize don't you that you are spewing your own form of bigotry? You have no more facts that anyone else on this message board,but yet you are inserting your own suppositions into this incident, exactly what you are accusing others of.

Most of you have jumped to the conclusion that the murder, and attempted murder have to do with them being lesbians. It is possible that a former lover could be involved or some other personal issue other than them being lesbians. I was in law enforcement nearly 30 years and heard the "everyone liked them story" on many occasions. Further investigation usually revealed that not so true. Give the police some time to investigate and determine a motive. You can't call it a hate crime yet because we don't know the motive yet. I will say that the media sensationalize a murder of a homosexual, but when a homosexual murders someone it seems never to be reported like the sexual abuse and murder of a 13 year old boy by two homosexual men in Arkansas a few years ago. The story was buried by the mainstream media. Then there was that homosexual IRS agent that hung himself and tried to make it look like a murder. I heard some hateful conclusions before the truth came out. Further, I don't know where some of you get your information, but i think you need to show some proof before you can claim that murders in Texas and Oklahoma are frequently covered up if the person is a homosexual. That is a bunch of crap without any actual facts of multiple incidents.

Good thing they had guns to defend themselves with, right Texas?

@Swagganaut -- ...damn. just..... damn. I can't believe someone wrote that.

Yes Jojnjon. You and Bean had it figured out from the title of the story. MSNBC told you ALL you needed to know!!

Lesbian teens killed in Texas..!! Happens all the time!! NOT!!

I would put my money on a family member or possibly a "spurned wanna be lover" or once lover. Boy or girl. ; ] The fact is to kill to young women in such a manner shows intent. Not a random act in the least. Such a large caliber of weapon strikes me as an over kill. A wilful intent to see them dead. What is more is that they were done together and a point was made. That point ONLY being recognized by the perp who did it.

Whoever did do it I feel feels they were wronged in an irreparable manner as to not want to even see them again. As to refrain from the embarrassment by taking the figures out of the equation completely.

Cheers

I read the article above and felt there were parts of it that needed comment. As I scrolled down the string of comments one thing was evident. Most here have an agenda that has nothing to do with justice for these kids. There is no possibility of discourse with these people. They are here to grind their respective axes, then plant them solidly in the heads of non-believers.

1. Way to go Tyler suspend those multiple screen name trolls.

2. Describing the girls a lesbians may be germane to the story and the reason the crime was committed. Just like the Martin case describing him as a unarmed black youth because it may be the very reason he died, for being unarmed and black. (stuff like that doesn't happen all that often to whites) Whites are killed during robberies but rarely because of a racists paranoia. Time will tell if we ever find out why they died. Could be a jilted lover or someone following some of the comments made by church pastors about rounding up all gays and solving the gay problem. (sound familiar, kind of like a final solution. 1940s style) It could just as easily be a serial killer or a crime of opportunity with nothing to do with their sexuality.

bean,

In both Texas and in Oklahoma, it is not uncommon to find the local preachers quoting Leviticus 20:13 in its King James Bible, inaccurate, version. And, no, the original text does not actually say that homosexual people should be put to death--it would be nice if people would read the original, which is a lot more ambiguous in its meaning.

Only problem is that you left out the other 48 states!!!!!!! What a crock!!

Liars in denial are still liars. I love how so many of you say, "We Texans don't have a grudge against 'homosexuals'". You're liars. And being from Texas that means you're BIG liars 'cause everyone knows everything is bigger in Texas, right?

Let's start with the fact that you call us homosexuals. The fact that you are unable to even use the word that we, and a large majority of the public, have come to identify us as, gay, shows more than a modicum of discomfort on your part. That discomfort often translates quickly to a desire to elevate yourselves in order to subjugate and then into violent confrontation and attacks against us.

Let's talk about the incidents that occurred recently in Arlington, shall we? You know, the ones in which five teens ranging from 16-18 were arrested for their 'alleged' role in over a dozen anti-gay vandalisms there.

Let's also talk about Burke Burnett, liars since he is one of the more recent, violent attacks which comes to mind. In 2011 he was attacked at a party solely for being gay. His attackers were charged with a hate crime incidentally. But then I'm sure that the fact that his attack was meant to additionally instill fear in a minority had no bearing on the crime, right?

This is just two recent incidents that came quickly to my mind. But please, don't let your lies get in the way of your ability to deny that anti-gay hate crimes occur in your little world.

Is it surprising this happened in the conservative, Christian state of Texas which teaches hatred of everyone not just like the conservative right?

My sympathies to the families of these young ladies. There is no excuse for such hatred and ignorance.

This is an incredible tragedy. I think it is worthy of noting that it happened in Texas - the racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-toting capital of the world. I live in Texas, and have all of my life. The backwoods attitudes of so many of my fellow Texans is deeply disturbing and embarrassing to me. I would not be surprised in the least if this were a hate crime and these two young women were targeted due to their sexual orientation and relationship. This is sad and disgusting.

Jessica-1170252

marmaduke "Its probably someone who got tired of hearing We have to accept the LGBT views, or maybe their getting tired of reading news articles every day of how people NEED to accept the gay movement. I am NOT condoning what this person did, but we are here trying to think why , or what would set a person off like this. Being told you have to accept a view, can set people off."

I dont recall ANYONE telling ANYONE they have to accept LGBT views. What I do hear people saying is that it's not LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE to treat a portion of the populatin (gays) as 2nd class citizens and not give us equal rights and equal protection under the law.

Allowing a gay person to marry another gay person DOES NOT REQUIRE YOUR ACCEPTANCE. not in the least. Ya know, I dont accept that people cheat on their spouses, and walk out on their families and get married again - BUT THATS PERFECTLY LEGAL - right?

Wow Marmaduke, I realize you have no clue how pathetic your statement makes you sound...but christ almighty...this is ALL ABOUT YOU, ISNT IT? of course it is...poor you having to "hear about and read about" gays...omigod, are you ok? maybe we should take you to see a doctor...would have for your fragile sensibilities to be destroyed over "hearing" about all this...

poor straight christians, however do you all survive?

*EPIC FACE PALM

Your wrong, about it being shoved down my throat. Every day I have to read about gays in the news about something. Special celebration day for gays in the military, Wow what about a day for Heteros ? Or a day for people who served and gave their lives in one of our wars. Lets celebrate and put in the news for every gay that comes out of the closet and feels the need to announce it to the world. Who cares if your gay, is there really a need to let the whole world know ? Unless your just looking for a date and this was the perfect way to find one. Gay pride day, where is Hetero pride day ?

Yes it is forcing me to accept something when I am told that I need to accept marriage for every one. I dont, it wasnt meant for same sex to be together in such a way. I DONT CARE if they are together, but I am PRO family, Pro Marriage. That means I believe that man and woman are meant to be together , its the norm, and nobody is going to make me see it any different. I dont hate gays, Love them as human beings, but oppose their homosexual ways. I have that right to be free to think that, and have supporting evidence to feel that way.

poor straight christians, however do you all survive?

Funny and ironic you ask that question, easy answer though. How do i survive ? It started with a Man and Woman :D LOL Wouldnt be here any other way ..

@Dustin.

I didn't realize the LGBT community held elections? They obviously have, because after reading all of your posts here, it is obvious that you must be the spokesperson for every single person in the U.S. that identifies with the community.

What a small person you must be. Your posts, assertions, & self-righteous assumptions have made me laugh.

Which is very sad. Sad when I consider the subject matter of this article. I feel nothing but utter sadness for these two seemingly wonderful women. And this is one of those times that makes you wonder about our society. I have teenage daughters trying to make their way in this world that I love more than life itself, and I have not idea what I would do if something like this happened to one of them.

My sincerest condolences go out to the families and friends of these young ladies.

Whoever did this needs to be found and hung!

Wow....

People seem to forget that this isn't about being gay, or republican/democrat, the state you live in, or what you believe in.

This is about someones children that were shot in the head, and left for dead.

Imagine if one of them was your child. All the things that are being thrown around about states, politics, etc; would not matter a bit.

One is dead, the other is probably on life support and clinging onto life.

I don't know what actually happened, and the only people that do are the ones that were there at the time. One can't say, the other might be able too if she recovers.

And I hope that she does recover and have a normal life.

When they do find the person(s) responsible for this, we still will not know the whole truth.

The only thing we will know for sure is:

1. One young woman has died
2. The other is clinging to life
3. Many of you think injecting other things into the story is actually helping in some way.
4. The impact of this will affect more than just the two that were shot.

Loosing a child is something that no parent should have to go thru.

My condolences to the family and friends of these two young women.

thats right we hate you..so move to California

This could have been just as easily done with rope, rocks, clubs, knives, swords, poison, etc, etc. If we should ban anything it should be reckless hate.

Q: What can men do against such reckless hate? (Theodin, LOTR Two Towers)

A: Ride out and meet them! (Aragorn, LOTR)

I say that this town should get a gay pride rally such as they have never seen. I usually don't like them because they often go too far the other way (Balance is good, not intolerance from either side), but in this case, I would even march with them. The streets should be covered in red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.

@Marmaduke --

Sorry, buddy, but you live during an historic time. Gay rights are going to be in the news, just as the black civil rights movement was in the news before it.

But I tell you what, people don't commit double murder just because they're tired of seeing something they disagree with in the paper. I'm tired of hearing about the Palin family, but I'm not going to stalk Bristol with a shotgun in the back seat. I'm appalled that I live in a world where erotic Twilight fan fiction outsells real literature, but you won't find me skulking outside barnes and noble with a tire iron waiting to vent my nerd rage. Something like this happens because of a pre existing prejudice.

By the way, I respect you sharing your perspective, and thank you, but if you think that an understandable response to widespread social change is to start killing people who happen to benefit from it... please, take a step back and look at yourself.

There is no evidence at this point that the sexual orientation of these beautiful young women played any part in their brutal murder/attempted murder! Does anybody here remember the Son of Sam murders? Just a sick wacko that targeted lovers parked in their cars doing what lovers do.

I don't understand the definition of just what a hate crime is. Can anything be more hateful than a random murder?

The shots were heard around midnight. The girls were found in an area of waist high grass. Was the park they were found in known to be frequented by young lovers? No doubt this was a sick and brutal act of a twisted and sick individual.

The motive is unknown at this point but some a--holes on the vine today need to get on your soap boxes to fight for your cause. I call bull@!$%#! I'm disgusted by the people on here that try to make this about themselves and their own lives. Dustin I've no interest in your "personal" outrage. This is a sad day for humanity, not just your "community". The world doesn't revolve around you. Get over it! I hope the survivor recovers, I feel for those that knew and loved the deceased victim, and I pray that the sick bastard that shot them is caught and executed before he/she/they can hurt someone else.

Swaggunut----It sounds like you are describing yourself as the person who can't stand the dykes and homosexual males but can tolerate the good looking females who might let you join in----Disgusting mentality----I will bet that you aren't racist because you have had a black friend at work too....I will bet that you wouldn't bring that friend home and let him eat off of your dishes? You have double standards like most closet racists and homo-phobes....Some people are right out in the open and honest with their hate and then there is the likes of you....Don't worry you are not alone as a matter of fact you have a whole political party dedicated to your kind of unaccepting theology...It is called the Grand Ole Party in case you didn't know..And there is a cable news network dedicated to this thinking too....It is called Fox News,even though it has nothing to do with news....Someday you all will be gone for the most part...Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream about it....But his dream is only half way here. 51 or 52% according to the 2008 election....I am afraid we may have gone back a percent or two though since good old Fox News has been indoctrinating so many with its hate filled bias, unfortunately people are very swayed by the idiot box and let it make up there mind for them and they have alot of people convinced that it is us against them with their divisive tactics...And in the GOP mantra they accuse the rest of us of doing exactly what they themselves are guilty of....Kinda like them saying the left is practicing class warfare by pointing out the fact that the rich are hording their dollars and demanding to pay even less taxes while that action in itself is the true warfare....NOT pointing out that they are doing it....And racist homophobes like yourself will defend the rich because you think they are on your side because of your hate and Hannity told you so......

sw philly, you need some therapy from the obvious indoctrination that you suffer. lots of people have been brainwashed over the eons to follow tyrannical leaders, you are no different but i would still defend your humanity. my posts are just writings from my knowledge and experience and are not meant to constitute facts even if they do contain facts, this is called having an opinion and maybe you should learn to accept that other people may have different thoughts than you. you injected assumptions throughout your post that make you look like a bigot because in none of my posting do i give mention to anything you assumed i am and you blindly bash one side of politics/news while ignoring the culpable other.

i find this to be a waste of time but the time is wasted anyhow so why not.

I gotta say that all of the thin-skinned Texans complaining about the most likely reason for this horrible crime amazes me. You have a strong reputation whether you care to admit it or not.

Texas is the reddest of the red states. Texas executes more people than any other state. Texas has more bible thumpers than anywhere else in the world. Those bible thumpers are eager to take any stage(even the Governor's office) to teach all of us about the wrath of God. They pick and choose which archaic rules to follow from the Old Testament (a book of old laws that Jesus replaced with His own new laws). One of their favorites is the the book of Leviticus. Does that book not say that homosexuals should be put to death?

Why do you feign surprise and indignity when the entire world looks at you with suspicious eyes concerning this tragic event? You worked hard for your reputation. You own it.

Hmmmm.... Maybe it was just a random PSYCHO PATH!!!

Dustin wrote:

"

We're sick and tired of it. You don't wake up every day and hear of another senseless tragedy like this...you don't have to deal with the reality that you could full well encounter the same situation, or people who you love and care for like family.

MY community feels the heavy heartache of deaths and attacks like these EVERY day!!!"

There are an average of about 12 gays murdered every year because of hate crimes. People get killed for so many other reason, a lot of them silly. I'll bet there's way more murders of gays killing gays for whatever reasons every year.

Any murder is tragic. How can you say you wake up and read about hate crimes every day when the murder rate of hate crimes is so low is low?

" However, there is no current evidence to indicate the attacks were motivated by that relationship," he said.

But lets use the lesbian relationship title to draw attention to our story and website...

"Who the hell could possibly think that two affirmed lesbians shot execution style were shot for any other reason?? Neither appear to be drug addicts, nor have there been any reports as such. So again, what other reason can you possibly imagine??"

There are a lot of other possible "reasons" for their murders. It is possible they were random victims of a nut-case....kind of like The Son of Sam killer David Berkowitz (sp) that killed COUPLES for the most part. He usually killed the female but mistakenly killed one male that had long hair that was in the passenger seat . Was hate of heterosexuals his motive? Just so you know, the answer is no. He was basically just a loner nut-case killing for the fun of it. So it could be a serial killer, disgruntled ex-lover, or many other possibilities. Also, I do not think being shot in the head necessarily means they were killed execution style. It was not reported that way or commented on by law enforcement from what we read here. No matter what the motive behind the murder and attempted murder they did not deserve what happened to them. Live and let live.

Swaggunut----Once again I will point out that you said it is okay in your eyes for two goodlookin' gals that might invite you between them, but you could see other people's problems with " Dykes " and male " Homos"....And yes I am projecting and stereo-typing about your full ideology....But it's just my opinion and I can express it....That is what the comment section is for...I am not trying to insult you and I respect your views...I like it when people are honest...But I am saddened by the fact that we can't in this FREE country except everyone and treat everyone equally...If you hate fine but don't treat people different because of hate...And you would it seems treat a " Butch/Bull Dyke " different then a threesome of fine chicks.....That I have a problem with....If they aren't useful to you, you would find them not worthy....Kind of like slavery days....I have heard the joke " I don't have a problem with N****RS , I think everyone should own a few " Which relates directly to your " Usefulness thinking with the pretty lesbians you mentioned being "OKAY" with you......And I would have to assume that if they are "OKAY" others are not....YOU TYPED IT....

Marmaduke

Gay pride day, where is Hetero pride day ?

Any day to celebrate gay pride, or to show acceptance of gays in general, is there because gays don't get that every day. You might not get a parade to celebrate it, but your heterosexuality is fully accepted by the vast majority. You don't have to worry about being bullied in school hallways, or fired from work, or jumped while on a date, because of your sexual orientation. But there are a lot of people that do, and they're the ones that need a public show of acceptance, because there are so many public shows of intolerance. It's not all about you. It's about the ones that are beaten down.

I DONT CARE if they are together, but I am PRO family, Pro Marriage. That means I believe that man and woman are meant to be together , its the norm, and nobody is going to make me see it any different. I dont hate gays, Love them as human beings, but oppose their homosexual ways.

Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's the only "right" way. Just because the majority of people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, doesn't mean that everyone should, or that everyone can. But everyone can love, and it's none of your business who they love or how they show it. The "homosexual ways" of people who have found love, in relationships you don't condone, have still found love, and that love should be respected. It doesn't mean you have to attend any weddings. Just don't stand in the way of their happiness.

@ TxHorseman; my sister lives in TX with her HETERO family; I get reports and would say that you had better start looking at the numbers. Texas law is more likely to cover-up possible gay related problems than to make a true effort at solving them; Why? Could it be that you're skirting the possibility of bias and that could very well bring in a FEDERAL Investigation. YOU know that they DON'T need or want that to happen.

Wow, so many hate-filled and double-standard comments here. For instance:

Dustin: "You sick people came in here full force to deny a hate crime"

weruledthaworld: "thats right we hate you..so move to California"

Vince: "I think it is worthy of noting that it happened in Texas - the racist, sexist, homophobic,

gun-toting capital of the world."

The fact of the matter is that this was a terrible tragedy. The motive behind it has not been proven, or released, yet. Trying to make sense of the crime is fine; it MIGHT be hate-related, but it MIGHT be something else. There is no further evidence, yet.

As for the ones that bash the LGBT community, what's the problem? I know you have opinions, and I respect them. All I ask is that you do the same thing. Why does the government have to get involved with gay rights? This country wasn't founded on equality, but it has (thankfully) evolved into one that depends on it. It's been a long, hard road to get where we are, today, and I don't understand why it's now "equal rights for most". It is equal rights for all. Everyone. Employers can't discriminate based on age, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, so why impose those on people that only want to live their life?

My favorite: guns. People are using this to call for the ban, or tighter control, of guns. How will that prevent shootings? The only thing that will happen is the criminals that already have the guns will be the only ones that do, and criminals that want guns will STILL be able to get them. The ones that will suffer will be the ones that can't get them.

People are correct when they say the Constitution says the Second Amendment applies to setting up a State militia. However, it has been given a broader interpretation over the years, mainly from the Texas Constitution, to apply to all citizens. I can tell you that if someone breaks into my house with a gun, calling the cops will only be a formality.

Finally, saying these crimes happening in Texas is no great surprise, take a look at this crime rate by state put out by the Census Bureau, here. Violent crime in Texas is high, but several states are higher, in some cases MUCH higher. Yes, Texas has a hard-earned reputation, and, yes, most houses have multiple guns (mine is one), but we are not the worst out there. In point of fact, some of those states surprised me.

My final point: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even sharing it. Everyone should, also, be entitled to equal rights. And I mean everyone. The only exception should be the ones that blatantly don't want them; criminals. Let the LBGT community, blacks, Hispanics, whatever, have the same legal rights as everyone else. The law should be applied equally to everyone, not most everyone.

well VOR, you are actually trying to be reasonable here.

I tend to be quite "liberal" regarding most social issues, but I have never been for gun control. as far as that is concerned, there are examples of countries with extremely strict gun control laws and countries with mandatory gun ownership and a gun culture (i refer to Japan and Switzerland for examples) that have much lower violent crime rates than the US does, the problem in the US is cultural, not regulation.

I agree with you on equal rights, my problem lies with the fact that certain groups within the US are trying to enshrine their religious beliefs into US law. they are absolutely free to live their lives as they think god intended them to, they are not free to force others to live as they think god thinks they should.

Jordan Ridenervia Facebook

Marmaduke

Gay pride day, where is Hetero pride day ?

Any day to celebrate gay pride, or to show acceptance of gays in general, is there because gays don't get that every day. You might not get a parade to celebrate it, but your heterosexuality is fully accepted by the vast majority. You don't have to worry about being bullied in school hallways, or fired from work, or jumped while on a date, because of your sexual orientation. But there are a lot of people that do, and they're the ones that need a public show of acceptance, because there are so many public shows of intolerance. It's not all about you. It's about the ones that are beaten down.

I DONT CARE if they are together, but I am PRO family, Pro Marriage. That means I believe that man and woman are meant to be together , its the norm, and nobody is going to make me see it any different. I dont hate gays, Love them as human beings, but oppose their homosexual ways.

Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's the only "right" way. Just because the majority of people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, doesn't mean that everyone should, or that everyone can. But everyone can love, and it's none of your business who they love or how they show it. The "homosexual ways" of people who have found love, in relationships you don't condone, have still found love, and that love should be respected. It doesn't mean you have to attend any weddings. Just don't stand in the way of their happiness.

I dont care if hey love each other, or want to be a relationship. But I will not be brain washed by liberal media, to try to change my beliefs of one man one woman being the best and ideal relationship. I stand by the intent of man and woman. That is why i am pro family, pro marriage man woman. Any other was opposes my belief, and I wll not be told I need to accept something I find wrong.

Gays don't care about your acceptance, Marmaduke; they just want equal treatment under the law.

And why Do i need to accept something , a view that goes against what my view of marriage and family is ? You tell me why do I need to accept it ? I dont, I wont. They have all the equal treatment that want.

They can love each other, I dont stop them.

They can adopt kids, even though they cant have their own with their current partner, I dont stop them.

They even could, if they wanted , marry someone of the opposite sex like me, even if that isnt their preference, they do have that equal right like I do.

You missed the point, Marmaduke: it's not about what YOU accept; it's only about equal treatment under the law. YOU don't have to accept anything, only the law is required to treat them fairly.

And your comment about marrying someone of the opposite sex is a tired one made by so many ignorant bigots. When anti-gay marriage laws are ruled unconstitutional, it will allow ANYONE to marry the consenting adult of his/her choosing, not just homosexuals.

BTW, would YOU marry someone to whom you were not attracted? Didn't think so.

Im saying according to law, and the standards, the guildeline, the norm, what ever you want to call it. It is one man, one woman. I have the right to believe that was the intent for man and woman. Since I believe from a biblical perspective that Woman and man were made in ways to compliment each other, I view only male and female as married. I have that right to believe that, as do majority of americans. I stand by those who believe in something that we have every right to believe in and doesnt need to be changed. Leave marriage alone, its fine the way it is.

I have that right to believe that, as do majority of americans. I stand by those who believe in something that we have every right to believe in and doesnt need to be changed.

You have the right to believe what you wish -- but the government is specifically prevented from promoting your personal moral view or belief, unless it has a secular purpose in law. And preventing gays from marrying the consenting adults of their choosing has NO purpose in law, except to further discrimination -- which is against the law. Your "biblical perspective" has no bearing on our laws.

BTW, the "majority of Americans" support legalizing gay marriage.

ErinNJ

I have that right to believe that, as do majority of americans. I stand by those who believe in something that we have every right to believe in and doesnt need to be changed.

You have the right to believe what you wish -- but the government is specifically prevented from promoting your personal moral view or belief, unless it has a secular purpose in law.

Marriage has always been between man and woman, when our country was founded, the norm was still man and woman. A traditional marriage is one man , one woman, Man and woman are meant for each other just not for sexual needs, but the role and purpose , meaning of our sex. I can think of a secular reason why government could insist one man one woman, because to preserve the human race, to reproduce and have kids. Promote Marriage between man and woman because by statistics it is what is ideal for the home setting.

And preventing gays from marrying the consenting adults of their choosing has NO purpose in law, except to further discrimination -- which is against the law. Your "biblical perspective" has no bearing on our laws.

As i stated above, no one is preventing gays from marrying. You may not agree with what I said, but it is a hard fact, that gays do have the right to marry opposite sex just like I do. I think your overlooking the point im trying to make with that. I know marrying someone is who you love, or who your attracted to, I understand that, but from a legal non biased point of view, a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex, so legally they do have the same right. I can not marry someone of the same sex, and neither can gays. So , they and we, have the same set of rules.

And biblical perspective has great influence on our laws. Laws that were made by the majority who believed in a creator, and who made that are influenced by men who believed in God.

I stand firm in upholding traditional marriage and I hope the american people keep putting pressure on our representatives to support our views.

BTW, the "majority of Americans" support legalizing gay marriage.

Well that really depends doesnt it ? On which poll you read, one from the left side, or from the right side. Also would like to point out that in truth we could never know what the majority wants because you would have to actually get everyone in the USA to make a vote. Since we will never get that , we can never really know for sure what the majority think. Also there could easily be 75 % who believe in traditional marriage, but if only 35 % of them come forward to make a stand then that does statistics no good at all.

I can think of a secular reason why government could insist one man one woman, because to preserve the human race, to reproduce and have kids.

with 7 billion people in the world and rising, there is no reason whatsoever to worry about a lack of children .

what I support is the "legal fiction" of marriage for gays, this does not mean you have to let gays marry in your church, and is not the same thing as "holy matrimony" (unless some particular church allows it in their branch)

what happens now is that many states won't allow gay couples to adopt, they don't have inheritance rights and it is far easier for blood relatives to challange a will in court. lifelong gay couples can be denied the right to visit their partner when one is dying, and many other examples. a gay couple can be raising a child, and if something happens to the individual that has adopted the child, the child is taken away from the other parent who has no legal right or recourse to keep the child.

Marriage has always been between man and woman, when our country was founded, the norm was still man and woman.

Actually, that's WRONG. Yes, in our country, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but in civilization as we know it, same-sex marriage was legal in some ancient societies -- until religion stepped in, specifically Christianity, and outlawed it.

Well that really depends doesnt it ? On which poll you read, one from the left side, or from the right side.

So provide some polls from the "right side" that show the majority does not support gay equality. So far, the only credible, reputable polling organizations are showing the data as skewing the other way.

Also would like to point out that in truth we could never know what the majority wants because you would have to actually get everyone in the USA to make a vote.

You really seem to have no clue of these organizations, and how they got be so respected as polling organizations due to their methodology and systems. Of course, if the data supported YOUR position, you would probably be quoting them chapter and verse.

As i stated above, no one is preventing gays from marrying. You may not agree with what I said, but it is a hard fact, that gays do have the right to marry opposite sex just like I do. I think your overlooking the point im trying to make with that. I know marrying someone is who you love, or who your attracted to, I understand that, but from a legal non biased point of view, a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex, so legally they do have the same right. I can not marry someone of the same sex, and neither can gays. So , they and we, have the same set of rules.

That is the same bull@!$%# argument that was used by the bigots against allowing interracial marriage in the 1960s: "Since white people cannot marry outside of their race, either, nor can any other race marry outside of its race, the anti-miscegenation laws are not discriminatory". Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw that for what it was, and IS: bull@!$%#. This is about changing the law to allow ANY adult to marry ANY OTHER consenting adult of his/her choosing, without regard to their relative genders.

And biblical perspective has great influence on our laws. Laws that were made by the majority who believed in a creator, and who made that are influenced by men who believed in God.

"Laws" are not made by the majority; legislators are elected to make laws. And when enacting laws, they must use the Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman):

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

So even if those lawmakers are "influenced by" or "believe in God," they are not allowed to use that religious belief to dictate what is being legislated.

Here is a list of how marriage has been redefined in this country since our inception:

• 1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
• 1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
• 1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons.
• 1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
• 1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
• 1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
• 1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States.
• 1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
• 1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
• 1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
• 1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
• 1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
• 1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
• 1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
• 1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban.
• 1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
• 1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
• 1969 - The first no fault divorce law is adopted in California
• 1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
• 1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker v. Nelson).
• 1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
• 1973 - Maryland became to first state in the US to define marriage as between a man and a woman in statute.
• 1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name. 3 states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.
• 1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
• 1993 - All fifty states have revised laws to include marital rape.
• 1994 - 40 out of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage.
• 1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which outlaws both same-sex marriage and polygamy through a statute under the federal Government.
• 1998 - 2 states (Alaska and Hawai’i) for the first time outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy by their state Constitutions, because of fear from Courts striking down statutes. South Carolina was the penultimate state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2000 - Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy, while Alabama became the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2002 - Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2004 - Massachusetts grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rushed to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions in response.
• 2005 - Texas amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2006 - 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2008 - Since March, New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but do not grant such marriages. Since November Connecticut grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Briefly from June 2008 California grants same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 later in the year, but continues recognizing marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2009 - Iowa and Vermont grant and recognize same-sex marriages; Since July the District of Columbia recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but does not grant such marriages. Maine rescinds planned legalization of same-sex marriage with 53 percent of a popular vote on November 3, 2009.
• 2010 - New Hampshire (from 1 January) and the District of Columbia (from 3 March) grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Maryland (from 24 February) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
• 2011 – New York begins granting same-sex marriages.
• 2012 – A federal appeals court upholds the district court decision that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage (the case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court)

Actually, that's WRONG. Yes, in our country, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but in civilization as we know it, same-sex marriage was legal in some ancient societies -- until religion stepped in, specifically Christianity, and outlawed it.

Im not from another civilization. I was born here in america , where rules and laws were already in place before any of us were born. If i dont like it, I can choose to leave the country and go else where.

That is the same bull@!$%# argument that was used by the bigots against allowing interracial marriage in the 1960s: "Since white people cannot marry outside of their race, either, nor can any other race marry outside of its race, the anti-miscegenation laws are not discriminatory".

Well with out the cussing in it, let me see if i can give some input. I agree that it was outrageous that whites and blacks couldnt marry. Its silly that people would talk about race. We are all one race, and that is Human race and that is from a biblical standpoint. No where in the bible did it ever advocate interracial marriage, the marriage it talked about was being un evenly yolked, as between a souse who believes in God with one that Does not. It is a relationship that is to be avoided. So i agree that people were bigots, or I would say they just didnt understand the bible, or misinterpreted it, because it was never meant to be about skin color.

So even if those lawmakers are "influenced by" or "believe in God," they are not allowed to use that religious belief to dictate what is being legislated.

You don think our forefathers were influenced by their belief in God ? What would make them any different from those of us in todays society ? You all on here talk and ridicule Christian believers and our beliefs , what we believe in and how we view life and our decisions are based off of a biblical point of view. If your a christian, you are going to make your decisions based from a biblical viewpoint. I find it hard to believe that devout men of faith of our past would be making the foundation of our country on personal opinions and what ever seemed good to them.

So i agree that people were bigots, or I would say they just didnt understand the bible, or misinterpreted it, because it was never meant to be about skin color.

Apparently it was never "meant to be about" the relative genders of the parties, either, since ALL of the attorneys and judges in ALL of the challenges to the anti-gay marriage laws (i.e., Prop H8 and DOMA) have applied Loving v. Virginia as precedent in their supporting arguments as well as the rulings AGAINST such laws. Furthermore, Loving has been applied in at least 14 other rulings since the original case -- and they were not all racially-based. So your attempt to deflect the application of the Loving case to the fight for gay marriage is, like it has been by so many other bigots, an EPIC FAIL.

You don think our forefathers were influenced by their belief in God ?

Our Founding Fathers were men of enlightenment, and they felt that whatever their personal beliefs may have been, they explicitly set this country's government up as one with freedom OF and FROM religion, as they did not want future generations to suffer the same religious persecution that they and/or their families and friends had undergone.

You all on here talk and ridicule Christian believers and our beliefs , what we believe in and how we view life and our decisions are based off of a biblical point of view.

What we ridicule is how you attempt to use your so-called "Christianity" to justify discrimination, hatred, and bigotry. YOUR beliefs do not, and cannot, dictate how EVERYONE lives; they only dictate how YOU live. If YOU don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. But other people believe differently, as is their right, and just because YOU believe gay marriage is "wrong" does not make it true. So why should what YOU believe have to affect the lives of all of society?

Our Founding Fathers were men of enlightenment, and they felt that whatever their personal beliefs may have been, they explicitly set this country's government up as one with freedom OF and FROM religion, as they did not want future generations to suffer the same religious persecution that they and/or their families and friends had undergone.

Come on erin, You think they wanted to come here to become atheists ? Its quite a story of how How henry VIII turned from catholicsm to anglicanism / protestant , Henry VIII was very religious; he went to Mass every day and spent his fathers money on wars for the Catholic Church. Henry had a conflict with the Pope because he wanted an annulment of marriage from Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII wanted a male heir and he was in love with Anne Boleyn, a "lady in waiting."

His first duty was to produce heirs to the throne. Catherine hadn't produced a son that survived, so Henry decided that it was a sinful marriage, believing that all of this was a punishment from god (his wife and his brother). The Pope could not take any action and Catherine refused. She got her nephew, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, to help her.

King Henry VIII breaks from the Pope and establishes The Church of England, or The Anglican Church. He granted a new archbishop of Canterbury, the highest church office in England, who granted Henry an annulment in 1533. Henry married Anne Boleyn. They had a girl; then a miscarriage. When she was found guilty of adultery, Anne Boleyn asked to be beheaded with a sword.

Then Henry married Jane Seymour. They have a son, but she dies in child birth. Then Henry married a German Princess, by proxy, Anne of Cleves.

Then Henry VIII married Catherine Howard - she had an affair and was beheaded. ... Then Catherine Parr.

Henry, through Parliament, passed the "Act of Supremacy." The King was the head of the English Church (huge break from the past). Beliefs and practices stayed the same except for divorce.

Henry got a lot of support because the people resented the high taxes of the Catholic Church (and they wanted to have fun). Those who disagreed were often executed. Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and student of the humanities, was killed for not accepting The Act of Supremacy.

By the way, Henry did have a son, Edward VI, a Protestant. He was sickly and weak, and only ruled for six years (from ages 15-21). His sister, Mary I, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, was a Catholic who persecuted those who weren't Catholic. "Bloody Mary" married Philip II of Spain, a Catholic. After her death, Elizabeth I, daughter of Anne Boleyn, took over and returned England to Protestantism.

The Puritans
The Puritans find the Church of England just slightly less questionable than the Pope and the Catholic Church. They wanted to "purify" the Church by getting rid of stained-glass, saints, bishops, etc.

There were some, however, who were not satisfied with just a change in doctrine. They were called "Puritans" for their desire to purify the Anglican Church.

After the Puritans came the Separatists, who grew hopeless that the state church would ever reform. They resolved to form their own free churches, apart from government interference, though many were strongly persecuted.

From 1553 to 1558, Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine, ruled as a Catholic. Mary's execution of unrepentant Puritans gave her the title of "Bloody Mary" and led to many Puritans and Separatists fleeing England.

After her death her half sister Elizabeth reigned, and the Church of England has remained Protestant since.

So basically in a nutshell, England went back and forth with a state Church, of Catholicism, and protestant depending who was in power, in the end, when it was finally settled as protestant, there were puritans that were being persecuted and killed also, so they left and came here to america. Problem with coming here is that the way they lived over there in England ( with state religion ) that was starting to happen here as the colonies starting forming. Some would be Catholic, some would be protestant , there was diversity, and struggle trying to do the same thing England did and that was to have a state church. This is where our founding fathers made sure this didnt happen, by Our very first Right. Think about it, Its number 1, and very important.

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.

There is nothing here stating freedom from religion. That is something you all seen to overlook and toss in the word. Its meant freedom of any ONE religion, like a state run religion of catholicism , or protestant. There is a BIG difference in meaning between FROM and OF .

That's what the Bill of Rights says. Nothing about "separation", just that CONGRESS can't establish an official religion or prohibit anyone from worshiping as they see fit. It DOESN'T say no Christmas displays in the town square, no Ten Commandments in a courthouse, no prayer in school, or any of the other things that the revisionists and activist judges have ruled in the last 20-30 years. In fact, it doesn't even say that a STATE LEGISLATURE can't say only Lutherans (or Catholics, or Wicans, or Druids) are eligible to hold state offices. Only CONGRESS is restricted by this clause.

Even people who try to twist Thomas jefferson, mess it up with his view too. No where Did TJ every indicate a two way of church and state. Just the Government could not set up a state religion, nothing more nothing less. Lets look at everyones HERO and what they think he means. I dont make up stuff and re interpret our forefathers beliefs, I stand by what they did in fact believe. For someone who you think believed in church and state separation , this doesnt look like it to me.

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of Public and Solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God.
As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered A National Prayer for Peace, which petitioned:
Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Jeffersons belief in a separation between church and state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. f

What we ridicule is how you attempt to use your so-called "Christianity" to justify discrimination, hatred, and bigotry. YOUR beliefs do not, and cannot, dictate how EVERYONE lives; they only dictate how YOU live. If YOU don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. But other people believe differently, as is their right, and just because YOU believe gay marriage is "wrong" does not make it true. So why should what YOU believe have to affect the lives of all of society?

Because of what I do belief of one man one woman, and the belief that God made us for each other, everything about our bodies compliment each other, the roles each of us have in life between a man and woman. It works best that way, I live by that standard of man and woman, so when someone tries to change my belief in marriage then they do affect me. It was a right given to man and woman to become one flesh before God, the perfect unity. This can not be attained between same sex, they are alike, and con not become united like Man and woman in the eyes of God. So i do have the right to stand by what I feel is right, what God says is right. As i said, im not oppsoed to Gays and their love for each other. I am glad they find their happiness , but dont come and try to change marriage or promote homosexuality.

You all on here talk and ridicule Christian believers and our beliefs

marmaduke, I have nothing against you believing as you will, what I am against is you forcing your religious view onto others.

I have no problem at all with gays engaging in the "legal fiction" of marriage. this does not mean that I think that your church should perform "gay marriages", or anything like that.

some churches allow gays, and some don't. believe as you will, I don't think that YOU should change beyond letting those that don't believe as you do live their own lives according to their own beliefs

marmaduke, I have nothing against you believing as you will, what I am against is you forcing your religious view onto others.

PLease show me where I am Forcing anything on anyone. Where I have said anything that is making you to believe in Christian Views ?

If there is any forcing being done, its from the other side forcing the Traditional way of marriage and life of one man and one woman, then over time people are caving into the PRESSURE of the other side. I guess people get tired of hearing the whining and cave in, but I will not be pressure and bullied or forced to believe in something that opposes the marriage and unity of man and woman.

So its them forcing us, not us forcing them. We are defending what is true and right.

some churches allow gays, and some don't. believe as you will, I don't think that YOU should change beyond letting those that don't believe as you do live their own lives according to their own beliefs

Wimpy Chrisitans , Good audio podcasts I was just listening to from a Pastor talking about Churches caving into the pressures of people and agendas. Those churches that dont have the same beliefs as me. They may believe in God but that doesnt make them christians. The Devil believes in God too, but hes not in heaven.

People can have different views, and think its great that churches allow gays in church. We are supposed to be accepting to all people , but as we may accept them in church, we can reject the lifestyle. Difference between the two.

So its them forcing us, not us forcing them. We are defending what is true and right.

what a load of self-righteous bullspit! what you are "defending" is your "right" to force your religion on others, nothing else

How can you be so blind ? What I Believe in was already in place before you or I ever existed, before this country was even founded. Even if you take away anything before founding of our nation, we still have and always lived by a belief of oen man and one woman. However , slowly over time, people have corrupted our way of life.

You are like the parable of from Jesus when he talked about Leavened Bread and other places in the bible where A little bit of yeast and how it affects all of the dough.

Defense .. I am defending our way of life from the attacks of liberal media, and politically correct brain washing, Agenda based organizations , and relativism.

There is no offense on anyone, just defense of Christian, Moral Values that is a huge part of this nation that is slowly being taken away.

You think they wanted to come here to become atheists ?

Who said that anyone wanted to come here to "become atheists"? Show us where anyone stated any such thing. The fact remains that, whatever their personal beliefs, the Founding Fathers explicitly founded this country's laws and governments on the basis of -- among other things -- freedom OF and FROM religion, because they did not want future generations to be subjected to the same persecution suffered by them and/or their families and friends. You don't need to give me your version of English history, either, because I minored in history when I got my first bachelor's degree. There are so many inaccuracies and pieces of misinformation in your "summation" that I can't even begin to tear it apart.

There is nothing here stating freedom from religion...There is a BIG difference in meaning between FROM and OF .

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

In fact, it doesn't even say that a STATE LEGISLATURE can't say only Lutherans (or Catholics, or Wicans, or Druids) are eligible to hold state offices.

This is where you have proven that you have not studied history or civics. Look up incorporation doctrine. You can also look up Torcaso v. Watkins:

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/torcaso-v-watkins#ixzz1zmJfxirf

Even people who try to twist Thomas jefferson, mess it up with his view too. No where Did TJ every indicate a two way of church and state. Just the Government could not set up a state religion, nothing more nothing less. Lets look at everyones HERO and what they think he means. I dont make up stuff and re interpret our forefathers beliefs, I stand by what they did in fact believe. For someone who you think believed in church and state separation , this doesnt look like it to me.

OK, then, let's see what Jefferson -- as well as some of the other Founding Fathers -- had to say about religion:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"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!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
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. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"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 the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson

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 blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

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

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac

It works best that way, I live by that standard of man and woman, so when someone tries to change my belief in marriage then they do affect me.

In the first place, it is not for YOU to decide for everyone that "it works best that way". Second, we are not required to live by YOUR so-called "standards". Third, who is trying to "change your belief"? This is about equal treatment under the law, not about changing your beliefs or those of anyone else. So NOTHING about this affects you. You will still be free to be as bigoted as you have proven yourself to be, but the law will be required to treat gays equally -- since they are equal.

It was a right given to man and woman to become one flesh before God, the perfect unity.

WRONG. It was recognized as a "basic civil right" for TWO PEOPLE to enter into a contract -- no "God" or any other deity had or has anything to do with it, nor were the relative genders ever specified (until DOMA illegally tried to do so). The United States is, and has always been, a secular nation, and legal marriage in this secular nation has always been strictly a civil contract, not some kind of holy sacrament.

So i do have the right to stand by what I feel is right, what God says is right.

YOU have the right to stand by what you feel is right -- for you. And you have the right to believe that "God" says that is right -- but that does not make it true, nor does it mean that the rest of us have to live by what YOU believe.

PLease show me where I am Forcing anything on anyone. Where I have said anything that is making you to believe in Christian Views ?

Where is the law forcing you to renounce your so-called "Christian" views? YOU are trying to force your beliefs on everyone else by thinking that the law should reflect those beliefs. You fail to understand -- either through your own willful ignorance or just plain ignorance -- that the law cannot do that, because all of us do not worship, or do not believe as you do. And that is our right, too. YOUR right to YOUR beliefs ends where MY rights begin.

If there is any forcing being done, its from the other side forcing the Traditional way of marriage and life of one man and one woman, then over time people are caving into the PRESSURE of the other side.

Traditions change constantly; in fact, "traditional" marriage, according to the bible, means that a man has more than one wife. Would you like to go back to those "traditions"?

I will not be pressure and bullied or forced to believe in something that opposes the marriage and unity of man and woman.

You still have not shown us where anything is written that will "force" you to change your beliefs. This is about the laws of this country, not about YOU and what you believe.

We are defending what is true and right.

Sure, if you think that hypocrisy, bigotry, and hatred are "true" and "right". THAT is what you are "defending".

They may believe in God but that doesnt make them christians.

That's funny -- YOU may believe in God, but YOU are certainly not a "Christian," judging by the hatred and bigotry you've been spouting and promoting.

Who are YOU to say what makes a Christian?

However , slowly over time, people have corrupted our way of life.

WRONG AGAIN. People have simply refused to live according to your corrupted way of life -- and they have ensured that the laws prevent you from inflicting that corruption on the rest of us.

You think they wanted to come here to become atheists ?

Who said that anyone wanted to come here to "become atheists"? Show us where anyone stated any such thing. The fact remains that, whatever their personal beliefs, the Founding Fathers explicitly founded this country's laws and governments on the basis of -- among other things -- freedom OF and FROM religion, because they did not want future generations to be subjected to the same persecution suffered by them and/or their families and friends. You don't need to give me your version of English history, either, because I minored in history when I got my first bachelor's degree. There are so many inaccuracies and pieces of misinformation in your "summation" that I can't even begin to tear it apart.

There is nothing here stating freedom from religion...There is a BIG difference in meaning between FROM and OF .

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

In fact, it doesn't even say that a STATE LEGISLATURE can't say only Lutherans (or Catholics, or Wicans, or Druids) are eligible to hold state offices.

This is where you have proven that you have not studied history or civics. Look up incorporation doctrine. You can also look up Torcaso v. Watkins:

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/torcaso-v-watkins#ixzz1zmJfxirf

Even people who try to twist Thomas jefferson, mess it up with his view too. No where Did TJ every indicate a two way of church and state. Just the Government could not set up a state religion, nothing more nothing less. Lets look at everyones HERO and what they think he means. I dont make up stuff and re interpret our forefathers beliefs, I stand by what they did in fact believe. For someone who you think believed in church and state separation , this doesnt look like it to me.

OK, then, let's see what Jefferson -- as well as some of the other Founding Fathers -- had to say about religion:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"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!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
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. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"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 the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson

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 blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

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

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac

It works best that way, I live by that standard of man and woman, so when someone tries to change my belief in marriage then they do affect me.

In the first place, it is not for YOU to decide for everyone that "it works best that way". Second, we are not required to live by YOUR so-called "standards". Third, who is trying to "change your belief"? This is about equal treatment under the law, not about changing your beliefs or those of anyone else. So NOTHING about this affects you. You will still be free to be as bigoted as you have proven yourself to be, but the law will be required to treat gays equally -- since they are equal.

It was a right given to man and woman to become one flesh before God, the perfect unity.

WRONG. It was recognized as a "basic civil right" for TWO PEOPLE to enter into a contract -- no "God" or any other deity had or has anything to do with it, nor were the relative genders ever specified (until DOMA illegally tried to do so). The United States is, and has always been, a secular nation, and legal marriage in this secular nation has always been strictly a civil contract, not some kind of holy sacrament.

So i do have the right to stand by what I feel is right, what God says is right.

YOU have the right to stand by what you feel is right -- for you. And you have the right to believe that "God" says that is right -- but that does not make it true, nor does it mean that the rest of us have to live by what YOU believe.

PLease show me where I am Forcing anything on anyone. Where I have said anything that is making you to believe in Christian Views ?

Where is the law forcing you to renounce your so-called "Christian" views? YOU are trying to force your beliefs on everyone else by thinking that the law should reflect those beliefs. You fail to understand -- either through your own willful ignorance or just plain ignorance -- that the law cannot do that, because all of us do not worship, or do not believe as you do. And that is our right, too. YOUR right to YOUR beliefs ends where MY rights begin.

If there is any forcing being done, its from the other side forcing the Traditional way of marriage and life of one man and one woman, then over time people are caving into the PRESSURE of the other side.

Traditions change constantly; in fact, "traditional" marriage, according to the bible, means that a man has more than one wife. Would you like to go back to those "traditions"?

I will not be pressure and bullied or forced to believe in something that opposes the marriage and unity of man and woman.

You still have not shown us where anything is written that will "force" you to change your beliefs. This is about the laws of this country, not about YOU and what you believe.

We are defending what is true and right.

Sure, if you think that hypocrisy, bigotry, and hatred are "true" and "right". THAT is what you are "defending".

They may believe in God but that doesnt make them christians.

That's funny -- YOU may believe in God, but YOU are certainly not a "Christian," judging by the hatred and bigotry you've been spouting and promoting.

Who are YOU to say what makes a Christian?

However , slowly over time, people have corrupted our way of life.

WRONG AGAIN. People have simply refused to live according to your corrupted way of life -- and they have ensured that the laws prevent you from inflicting that corruption on the rest of us.

You think they wanted to come here to become atheists ?

Who said that anyone wanted to come here to "become atheists"? Show us where anyone stated any such thing. The fact remains that, whatever their personal beliefs, the Founding Fathers explicitly founded this country's laws and governments on the basis of -- among other things -- freedom OF and FROM religion, because they did not want future generations to be subjected to the same persecution suffered by them and/or their families and friends. You don't need to give me your version of English history, either, because I minored in history when I got my first bachelor's degree. There are so many inaccuracies and pieces of misinformation in your "summation" that I can't even begin to tear it apart.

There is nothing here stating freedom from religion...There is a BIG difference in meaning between FROM and OF .

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

In fact, it doesn't even say that a STATE LEGISLATURE can't say only Lutherans (or Catholics, or Wicans, or Druids) are eligible to hold state offices.

This is where you have proven that you have not studied history or civics. Look up incorporation doctrine. You can also look up Torcaso v. Watkins:

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/torcaso-v-watkins#ixzz1zmJfxirf

Even people who try to twist Thomas jefferson, mess it up with his view too. No where Did TJ every indicate a two way of church and state. Just the Government could not set up a state religion, nothing more nothing less. Lets look at everyones HERO and what they think he means. I dont make up stuff and re interpret our forefathers beliefs, I stand by what they did in fact believe. For someone who you think believed in church and state separation , this doesnt look like it to me.

OK, then, let's see what Jefferson -- as well as some of the other Founding Fathers -- had to say about religion:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"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!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
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. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"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 the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson

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 blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

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

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac

It works best that way, I live by that standard of man and woman, so when someone tries to change my belief in marriage then they do affect me.

In the first place, it is not for YOU to decide for everyone that "it works best that way". Second, we are not required to live by YOUR so-called "standards". Third, who is trying to "change your belief"? This is about equal treatment under the law, not about changing your beliefs or those of anyone else. So NOTHING about this affects you. You will still be free to be as bigoted as you have proven yourself to be, but the law will be required to treat gays equally -- since they are equal.

It was a right given to man and woman to become one flesh before God, the perfect unity.

WRONG. It was recognized as a "basic civil right" for TWO PEOPLE to enter into a contract -- no "God" or any other deity had or has anything to do with it, nor were the relative genders ever specified (until DOMA illegally tried to do so). The United States is, and has always been, a secular nation, and legal marriage in this secular nation has always been strictly a civil contract, not some kind of holy sacrament.

So i do have the right to stand by what I feel is right, what God says is right.

YOU have the right to stand by what you feel is right -- for you. And you have the right to believe that "God" says that is right -- but that does not make it true, nor does it mean that the rest of us have to live by what YOU believe.

PLease show me where I am Forcing anything on anyone. Where I have said anything that is making you to believe in Christian Views ?

Where is the law forcing you to renounce your so-called "Christian" views? YOU are trying to force your beliefs on everyone else by thinking that the law should reflect those beliefs. You fail to understand -- either through your own willful ignorance or just plain ignorance -- that the law cannot do that, because all of us do not worship, or do not believe as you do. And that is our right, too. YOUR right to YOUR beliefs ends where MY rights begin.

If there is any forcing being done, its from the other side forcing the Traditional way of marriage and life of one man and one woman, then over time people are caving into the PRESSURE of the other side.

Traditions change constantly; in fact, "traditional" marriage, according to the bible, means that a man has more than one wife. Would you like to go back to those "traditions"?

I will not be pressure and bullied or forced to believe in something that opposes the marriage and unity of man and woman.

You still have not shown us where anything is written that will "force" you to change your beliefs. This is about the laws of this country, not about YOU and what you believe.

We are defending what is true and right.

Sure, if you think that hypocrisy, bigotry, and hatred are "true" and "right". THAT is what you are "defending".

They may believe in God but that doesnt make them christians.

That's funny -- YOU may believe in God, but YOU are certainly not a "Christian," judging by the hatred and bigotry you've been spouting and promoting.

Who are YOU to say what makes a Christian?

However , slowly over time, people have corrupted our way of life.

WRONG AGAIN. People have simply refused to live according to your corrupted way of life -- and they have ensured that the laws prevent you from inflicting that corruption on the rest of us.

There is no offense on anyone, just defense of Christian, Moral Values that is a huge part of this nation that is slowly being taken away.

Everything you have posted has been an offense. Furthermore, morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated -- in fact, I for one would refuse to live according to your immoral views. And you are hardly a "Christian".

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

You have no clue ... If they wanted to say FROM religion it would had stated such. They were talking about of Religion as in setting a specific type of Christian Denomination. You have to go farther into history of THAT time and know why they made the ammendments and rights. Your so inside the box of thinking trying to put their thought with brain washed thinking. Your trying so hard to make these guys look like their against God or the belief in God, or not have influence from God, its sad really. I went into great detail in fallacy of your belief to another guy , you should be careful and read some truth before ripping sentences out of context and TIME and trying to apply it to todays world.

Erin just as your arguments seem to show there is some separation, its a false separation your trying to set up, Let me repost what I posted to someone else on another page on here. in response to what he said to me.

Well lets see. Im in the middle of listening to podcasts of some history lessons of our forefathers, and how everything about our nation is based on belief in Christian Values, christian nation, and how they believed back then. Some of it I am looking up as im listening to it,, Ill give some examples ..

Also if you got time to listen to Two 30 minute clips, you will hear plenty of evidence for our original nation being on Christian views and values.

This also discusses the fallacy of church and state

www.ptv.org/past-broadcasts/radio-broadcasts

AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION- PART 2

AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION- PART 1

Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion.

Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows: "The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts... . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic." In 1811 ( People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held: "'...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... .' We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity... . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land... ." In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held ( Updegraph v The Commonwealth): Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct"

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This was said despite the explicit provision in the federal Constitution forbidding any religious test for federal public office.

Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Madison, said in an 1829 speech at Harvard: "There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation." Story wrote several respected treatises or Commentaries on Constitutional Law, in which are found the following: "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the [First] Amendment...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Demonstratably false! First and foremost, our nation and its founding is based on the US Constitution, itself a secular document which makes no reference to any religious ideology.

The Founding Fathers themselves were quite clear on that matter, especially where the Constitution is concerned. Now, from an original, primary source, John Adams, in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," (emphasis mine, with credit to fellow NV'r Proud Pagan for the reference)

Our founding fathers where believers in God. How many of you on here today shout bloody murder for Christians and their beliefs and how their beliefs are bad or our thinking may cloud our judgement or thoughts, yet here are our founding fathers, whom most of them were part of some evangelical back ground. The first ammendment was talking about freedom from any type of view of christianty being implied, as in a Catholic nation, a Protestant nation. Oour founding fathers would have no reason to say the government needs to be free from religion. Its never stated, its listed no where. Our founding fathers were not having a debate about whether Islam, or hindu, or bhudda we were to be free from, it was to make sure that no specific christian denomination would be made some official state religion.

There is one thing you have to consider when looking at our past founding fathers and the time they lived in, what they said, why they said it, what was going on at that time, and what influenced them. You just cant take a passage and try to apply it to todays society and thinking.

Separation of Church and state has been so misinterpreted.

First its not in our constitution. Im sure we all agree on that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury baptists because they heard a rumor that TJ was going to implement a state religion. They wrote a letter to TJ of their concern.

He was referring to an establishment of a DENOMINATION, not religion as a whole. This is very important to recognize. Were not going to make a certain denomination a state denomination.

Even our Court Justices in our first 140 years of existed recognized our country as a Chrisitan nation

Dont you think they would know our history, our founding fathers intentions better then people of today ? They were there, this was their time, here we are hundreds of years later trying to reverse or change what they believed and upheld. They said it was a christian nation because all of our values , morality, laws, everything about it is based off of Christian Values.

Those Justices were in a much better understanding of our countries founding intent. They believed in it being a Christian nation.. This was our supreme court that recognized it as such. !!

I cited them above in previous post, and I can get you more from early Justices and our first 140 years

You know Thomas Jefferson got his wall of church and state from Roger Williams a prominent baptist preacher and foudner of rhode Island.

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 therefore 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..

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.

It is important to note that the letter was written fourteen years after the passage of the First Amendment; that Jefferson was in France at the time the Constitutional amendments (the Bill of Rights) were passed by Congress; and that he had no part in drafting or approving the First Amendment. In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists set forth their position that:

Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: . . .and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. . . .

In other words, the Baptists were concerned that the First Amendment's "free exercise" right was granted by the national government, rather than an unalienable right endowed by the Creator as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. And if religion was a right granted by the government, the Baptists reasoned, government could regulate or prohibit religious activity in the marketplace. Jefferson shared their concern and replied by letter on January 1, 1802:

Gentlemen:

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. . . . I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Note that Jefferson refers to the free exercise of religion as a "natural right." Recall that in 1776 Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which relied on the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," "unalienable rights endowed by the Creator" and "the Supreme Judge of the World." Also note that Jefferson prayed at both of his inaugurations and he approved several measures appropriating federal funds to pay for missionaries to the Indians.

Whatever Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation" phrase, he clearly did not intend the modern notion of an impenetrable wall preventing individuals from religious expression.

Want to know another interesting fact about Jefferson, exactly one year after the Danbury letter, TJ encouraged congress to pass a treaty with the Kaskaskian indians that would allow tax paying dollars to support christian missionaries , he signed the treaty again and again. Used Tax paying Dollars ..

One of the first acts of Congress was to approve the use of the Capitol as a church building. You can find that in the records of Congress, Dec 4 1800. Now, who did that? You had the head of the Senate and the head of the House, the speaker of the House was John Trumpbell, the president of the Senate who approved that was Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson approves church in the Capitol? Yep, he went there as Vice President, he went to the church at the Capitol for 8 years as President, and as President of the US, he’s going to church, and this is recorded in all sorts of members of Congress, their records, their diaries, because they went to church at the Capitol too. And so, Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, thinks, you know I think I can help the worship services at this new church at the Capitol, they met in the Hall of the House of Representatives, so Jefferson ordered the Marine Corp band to come play for the worship services, in the church services at the US Capitol. The worship band is the Marine Corp Band? Pretty good worship band. Thomas Jefferson did that. I thought he wanted separation of church and state.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So while the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is well known, the were also passionate secularists who felt an individual's religious beliefs was their own business and no one else's, much less being applicable to government/legal policy or to the nation as a whole.

Time for rebuttal of this..

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point" (Emphasis added)

In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery.

Are you starting to get the notion and the reality of Church and state being blown into something that it is not. Government cant establish a state religion, but it doesnt prohibit people from using their religion. The government cant have influence on religion, but religion can have its influence on Government power , beliefs, values.

I just wish there was more on here to help defend our nation, beliefs, foundings, from snakes in the grass who come to try and take away what we hold on to so dearly.

Follow up to read.

williamdbailey.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/religion-and-government-are-we-a-christian-nation/

The government cant have influence on religion, but religion can have its influence on Government power , beliefs, values.

the exact justification that the islamists and the taliban use...

Whatever Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation" phrase, he clearly did not intend the modern notion of an impenetrable wall preventing individuals from religious expression.

You are free to proclaim that you think homosexuality is a sin, nobody is preventing you from thinking that or saying that, you are NOT free to force others to conform to what you think "god said".

this is why I like the amish and quakers, I may not agree with them, but their faith (and I'm certain they think gay is a sin) is very strong, yet they don't involve themselves in politics and would never dream of forcing their views on others. I would defend them if I saw one under attack, my only concern is if they would actually want me to, they are true, dedicated pacifists unlike they bloodthirsty "christians" that dominate the American political scene

I have a great deal of respect for the true christians like Amish and Quakers, the majority of the rest are bloodthirsty control freaks

Well then thats what are forefathers were then since most of them were christians , and they talked about God in everything, unlike the wannabes in office today. As for the amish , I dont blame them for not wanting to mess with the government , its messed up as it is. I would want to be as far from it myself, but somebody has to help keep the thing in check. Government is already way out of control.

and they talked about God in everything,

Except in the Constitution. Go figure!

If they wanted to say FROM religion it would had stated such.

They did: From James Madison

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

Note that Mr. Madison specified the separation of religion FROM the government.

but I will not be pressure and bullied or forced to believe in something that opposes the marriage and unity of man and woman.

You can believe whatever you wish. But you cannot push your beliefs onto others and no one is pushing their beliefs onto you. Besides, marriage is a civil institutionunder the law and as such, there is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry!

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

This was from Madison on his view of the first ammendment, and clearly it does show they he stands behind the the idea that the Government will not enforce any religion. No where does any of these writings, saying that the people can not show their christian values in the government. As i said before most of these guys were Christians, its silly to believe that someone is a Christian, and they dont allow that to influence their thinking in any way from a biblical perspective. We can see the influence of their thinking from when they write talking about their creator, or believing in an Authority.

So you cant say this is a 2 way wall, Government cant make people worship a certain religion, but people are free to do such if they wish in the Government.

Also on a side note, our founding fathers were all not in agreement, and many times over their time period they wrote many things that woudl show support or be against views. Im at work but I will get more into this later.

There is so much more to our history then just tossing out a one liner from what someone said. So many of our founding fathers had so much to say over periods of time. This is a debate that just cant be resolved from little squabbles like this. It looks like it would take some really deep reading and or people specialized in Historical american history. I think this debate could go on forever

James Madison and Religion in Public

David Barton - 09/2002

In recent days, Michael Newdow - infamous for his successful initiation of the ruling striking down "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - has broadened his efforts and has filed suit against the use of chaplains in the U. S. House and Senate. In his public appearances defending this newest pursuit, Newdow cites James Madison's quotes from his "Detached Memoranda" as his authority in opposing chaplains. Did Madison actually oppose chaplains in Congress? Yes, and no.

Madison's religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison's religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions.

First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:

[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.[1]

Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. [2]

Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. [3] (emphasis added)

Third, Madison's proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. [4] (emphasis added)

(Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates. [5])

Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains. [6]

Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. [7]

Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. [8]

These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his "Detached Memoranda" his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison's "Detached Memoranda" in arguing against public religious expressions. [9]

Significantly, the "Detached Memoranda" was "discovered" in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison's death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the "Detached Memoranda," and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders' intent toward religion.

There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, and an additional ninety in the first federal Congress that framed the First Amendment and Bill of Rights. Allowing for the overlap of nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, [10] there were one hundred and twenty-six individual participants in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The records of the Constitutional Convention demonstrate that James Madison was often out of step with these Founders. The other delegates rejected Madison's Virginia plan in preference for Roger Sherman's Connecticut plan and voted down 40 of Madison's 71 proposals (60 percent). [11] Nevertheless, today Madison is cited as if he is the only authority among the Founding Fathers and the only expert on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, [12] but the other Virginians at the Convention - including James Madison - opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. [13] Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. [14]

Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added. As a result of their voices (and numerous others who agreed with them), the ratification of the Constitution almost failed in Virginia, [15] Massachusetts, [16] New Hampshire, [17] and New York. [18] Rhode Island flatly refused to ratify it, [19] and North Carolina refused to do so until limitations were placed upon the federal government. [20] Although the Constitution was eventually ratified, a clear message had been delivered: there was strong sentiment demanding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison's opposition. [21] Henry's passionate speeches of June 5 and June 7 resulted in Virginia's motion that a Bill of Rights be added to the federal Constitution; and on June 25, the Virginia Convention selected George Mason to chair a committee to prepare a proposed Bill of Rights, [22] with Patrick Henry and John Randolph as members. [23] Mason incorporated Henry's arguments as the basis of Virginia's proposal on religious liberty. [24]

Although Madison had opposed a Bill of Rights, he understood the grim political reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would receive widespread public acceptance. [25] Consequently, he withdrew his opposition, and in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his State.

Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment. [26]

The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.

However, if critics of public religious expression believe that only a Virginian may speak for the nation on the issue of religion (they usually cite either Madison or Jefferson), then why not George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights"? Or Richard Henry Lee who not only framed Virginia's proposals but who also was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights? Or why not George Washington? Perhaps the reason that these other Virginians are ignored (as are most of the other Framers) is because both their words and actions unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite only his "Detached Memoranda."

George Washington provides a succinct illustration. 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. [27] His "Inaugural Address" was filled with numerous religious references, [28] and following that address, he and the Congress "proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where Divine service was performed." [29]

Only weeks later, Washington signed his first major federal bill [30] - the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. [31] That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the "schools and the means of education" in that territory must encourage the "religion, morality, and knowledge" that was "necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind." [32] Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, [33] and it still appears in State constitutions today. [34] Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America's four "organic" or foundational laws. [35]

Finally, in his "Farewell Address," Washington reminded the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. [36]

Washington - indisputably a constitutional expert - declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality.

Or why not cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers? For example, in 1800, when Washington, D. C., became the national capital and the President moved into the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services. [37] In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were also started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [38]

John Quincy Adams, a U. S. Senator, made frequent references to these services. Typical of his almost weekly entries are these:

[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803. [39]

Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803. [40]

The Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, a U. S. Congressman (as well as a chaplain in the Revolution and a physician and scientist) similarly recorded in 1804:

December 23, Sunday. Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. [James] Laurie [pastor of the Presbyterian Church] alone [preached]. Sacrament [communion]. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours. Cold day. [41]

By1867, the church in the Capitol had become the largest church in Washington, and the largest Protestant church in America. [42]

There are numerous other public religious activities by the Founding Fathers that might be cited, and Madison participated and facilitated many of them. Yet Madison later privately renounced his own practices, thus distancing himself from his own beliefs and practices as well as those of the other Founders. Therefore, to use Madison's "Detached Memoranda" as authoritative is a flagrant abuse of historical records, choosing a long unknown ex post facto document in preference to those concurrent with the framing and implementation of the First Amendment.

Newdow's use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If Newdow wants to take the position that the "Founding Fathers" (plural) opposed the use of chaplains, then he must provide evidence from more than one Founder; he must show that the majority of the Founders opposed chaplains - something that he cannot do.

WallBuilders has a resource that provides comprehensive information on the Founders views on the Constitution (see Original Intent).

ENDNOTES

[1] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884).

[2] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

[3] The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the "Declaration of Rights" passed June 12, 1776).

[4] 1 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789).

[5] 1 Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789).

[6] 1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).

[7] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) ("An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.")

[8] 1 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).

[9] See, for example, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 617 (1992); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 791 (1983); ACLU v. Capitol Square Review, 243 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2001); Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992); American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir. 1787), and others.

[10] Ten members of the Constitutional Convention also served in the first federal Senate (William Few, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, William Paterson, Robert Morris, Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Caleb Strong, and John Langdon) and nine members of the Convention served in the first federal House (Abraham Baldwin, James Madison, Hugh Williamson, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, and Nicholas Gilman).

[11] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution 208-209 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1985), compiled from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, 216, 373, and Vol. II, 45, 306, 324-325, 345, 440, 500, and 617.

[12] 3 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 1566 (Henry D. Gilpin, ed., Washington: Langress and O'Sullivan, 1840) (Wednesday, September 12, 1787); see also 2 George Bancroft, Bancroft's History of the Formation of the Constitution 209-210 (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882), and 2 Farrand's Records of The Federal Convention 588 (September 12, 1787) and 637 (September 15, 1787).

[13] 1 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 306 (Jonathan Elliot, ed., Washington, 1836) (September 12, 1787).

[14] Dictionary of American Biography, s.v., "George Mason," "Edmund Randolph," "Elbridge Gerry."

[15] Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, 652-655, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788.

[16] Elliot's Debates, Vol. II, 176-181, Massachusetts Ratification Debates, February 6, 1788.

[17] Joseph B. Walker, A History of the New Hampshire Convention (Boston: Cupples & Hurd, 1888), 41-43, June 21, 1788.

[18] Elliot's Debates, Vol. II, 413, New York Ratification Debates, July 26, 1788.

[19] Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society (Providence: Knowles and Vose, 1843), Vol. V, 320-321, March 24, 1788.

[20] Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, 242-251, North Carolina Ratification Debates, August 1-2, 1788.

[21] Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, 616-622, James Madison, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 24, 1788.

[22] Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, 244.

[23] Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, 655-656, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788.

[24] Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), Vol. I, 430-431; see also Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, 244; see also Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, 659, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 27, 1788.

[25] 1 Debates and Proceedings 448-450 (1st Cong., 1st Sess) (June 8, 1789); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 93-99 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

[26] See 1 Debates and Proceedings 440-948 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (June 8- September 24, 1789, for the records chronicling the debates surrounding the framing of the First Amendment).

[27] 4 Washington Irving, Life of George Washington 475 (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1857); Mrs. C. M Kirkland, Memoirs of Washington 438 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1870); Charles Carleton Coffin, Building the Nation 26 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882); etc.

[28] 1 Richardson, Messages and Papers 51-54 (April 30, 1789).

[29] 1 Annals of Congress 29 (April 30, 1789).

[30] Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America Begun and Held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, in the Year 1789, 104 (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1791) (August 7, 1789).

[31] 1 Debates and Proceedings 685 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (July 21, 1789, passage by the House), and 1 Debates and Proceedings 57 (August 4, 1789, passage by the Senate).

[32] Constitutions (1813) 364 ("An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," Article III).

[33] For example, State constitutions across the decades reflecting this requirement include the 1803 Ohio Constitution (Constitutions (1813), 334, Ohio, 1802, Article 8, Section 3); the 1817 Mississippi Constitution (The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments (Lexington, KY: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817), 389, Mississippi, 1817, Article 9, Section 16); the 1858 Kansas Constitution (House of Representatives, Mis. Doc. No. 44, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 2, 1859, 3-4, Article 1, Section 7, of the Kansas Constitution); the 1875 Nebraska Constitution (M. B. C. True, A Manual of the History and Civil Government of the State of Nebraska (Omaha: Gibson, Miller, & Richardson, 1885), 34, Nebraska, 1875, Article 1, Section 4); etc.

[34] See The Constitution of North Carolina 42 (Raleigh: Rufus L. Edmisten, Secretary of State, 1989) (Article 9, Section 1); Constitution of the State of Nebraska 1-2 (Lincoln: Allen J. Beermann, Secretary of State, 1992) (Article 1, Section 4); Page's Ohio Revised Code Annotated 24 (Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1994) (Article 1, Section 7).

[35] United States Code Annotated 1 (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1987) ("The Organic Laws of the United States of America").

[36] George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination 22-23 (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796).

[37] 1 Debates and Proceedings 797 (6th Cong., 2nd Sess.) (December 4, 1800).

[38] Hutson 89; see also 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 265 (Charles Francis Adams ed., Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874) (October 23, 1803).

[39] 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 265 (October 23, 1803).

[40] 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 268 (October 30, 1803).

[41] 2 William Parker Cutler & Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL.D. 174 (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1888).

[42] James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 91 (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress 1998).

David Barton - 09/2002

If you're using David Barton as a reference or source, That pretty much invalidates any argument you have, not to mention shreds your credibility. David Barton is a well known christian history revisionist and a flat out liar, with no historical or legal expertise or academic standing. His historical "facts" have been repeatedly refuted and exposed as lies by accredited historians and scholars.

gordy, its also par for the course for these new "christian revisionists". their sole and complete intent is to establish their church as the basis of government. and no, they won't be tolerant towards dissenters or other branches of christianity either, as evidenced by mamrdukes comment about "wimpy" and "weak" churches.

it sounds like another effort by the "new apostolic reformation", an extremely scary cult which has sway over several government leaders already

No , we want to be able to freely express our religious beliefs in God, just as our founding fathers did. The majority were Chrisitans, they didnt have a problem expressing it in their writings. No where have I said that Government is going to establish a church. I dont know why you think that. The government meddling in Church affairs is a Big No No, I stand by that, but I also stand by the right to religion, and I will say christianity because this is what they all were, to accept a greater Authority and Morality. No where did I say we are forcing others to believe in God or make some state church, I am saying the right to express your belief, and that Government can not stop you from such .

Also there are many things to take into consideration one of them being comparing their time era to ours now. England History and the Church, King Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, Puritans , leaving england and coming to america, each state trying to set up a state religion ( these would be christian religions, they werent influenced by other religions ) their would be Catholic, protestant, calvinist lutherns ect ect . Founding fathers wanted to make sure that the Government would not proclaim a State Religion.

Also take into consideration the beliefs our fathers had from their first writings until their last writings, points of time in their life, and when they wrote things what it was about, where they were at , at the time of them writing.. They are politicians, and their views change , just like ours do today.

The entire topic of our founding fathers is probably one of the biggest debatable view points out there. If it was so cut and dry of what they meant, then there wouldnt be so much oppositional view points. Just like Science, there are things we will never know, and our history looks that way too.

we want to be able to freely express our religious beliefs in God, just as our founding fathers did.

You are perfectly free to do so!

The government meddling in Church affairs is a Big No No, I stand by that

At the same time, you don't think there's a separation of church and state either. interesting.

I am saying the right to express your belief, and that Government can not stop you from such .

As long as you don't think the government should be validating your beliefs either, then there's no problem.

If it was so cut and dry of what they meant, then there wouldnt be so much oppositional view points.

It is pretty cut and dry. I cited primary sources to that effect. The biggest opposition comes from history revisionists or dominionists who want to distort or outright lie on behalf of the Founding Fathers for their own agenda. David Barton and the Wallbuilders is a prime example of this.

At the same time, you don't think there's a separation of church and state either. interesting.

Its a one way wall. Government cant make a state religion. No where did I say that people of faith cant express themselves in Office or their views.

It is pretty cut and dry. I cited primary sources to that effect. The biggest opposition comes from history revisionists or dominionists who want to distort or outright lie on behalf of the Founding Fathers for their own agenda. David Barton and the Wallbuilders is a prime example of this.

I wish this was 100 % true. Im not saying I agree or disagree. I think i listed above statements founding fathers have said perhaps in the beginning of their career, and changed views over the years. One writing of their opinion is one way, but say years later, they change their view. Unfortunately we dont have a time machine to go back in time to ask them specifically what they meant.

These debates are similar to ones with the Christian Religion, its history, church history, ect ect , there is so much debate on this I see going on, Biggest thing I always hear is , text 2000 years old is out of date , not reliable ect ect .. Just think in 1800 more years from now , our nation ( if it survives that long ) will be looking back to our founding fathers and people will be saying the same thing about them, just as people say about early church. Were only 200 ish years into american history , cant imagine how it will be viewed down the road.

Nevertheless I still stand by what our first Chief of Justice and a founding father said ,

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. 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.

I understand that we can rip one liners from our founding fathers of the past to prove your point and mine, but I still trust , they knew best when they said stuff like this. They were living in that time, and was there for the beginning of it all.

Its a one way wall.

No, it's not! Separation must work both ways. Otherwise, it's ineffective and leads to mixing of religion and government!

No where did I say that people of faith cant express themselves in Office or their views.

Neither did I. The difference is, someone cannot make their religious beliefs into law or public policy, or otherwise violate the Lemon Test.

I think i listed above statements founding fathers have said perhaps in the beginning of their career, and changed views over the years.

And I've stated ones as they apply to the Constitution or the actual founding of this nation!

Nevertheless I still stand by what our first Chief of Justice and a founding father said

Which is still just a personal expression of faith and has nothing to do with the actual founding of this nation or drafting of the Constitution.

Expression of what they think this nation is.. There were people of faith. People of faith are influenced by God , his morals, and authority.

Expression of what they think this nation is.. There were people of faith. People of faith are influenced by God , his morals, and authority.

I've already proven that to be false!

How can you prove false of what a person said .. I dont try to twist their words to fit into an agenda with out God. I see it plain as day, and look at it in their time, not our time of today with so many people who have agendas and hatred toward God. These guys didnt have that problem. So their belief did influence them.

How can you prove false of what a person said .. I dont try to twist their words to fit into an agenda with out God.

I'm not proving the veracity of what someone said. I've proven what the Founding Fathers thought in regards to the drafting of the Constitution and the non-role god or religion played into it. Not to mention the Constitution itself has no reference to god or religion, except for the freedom of religion.

I see it plain as day, and look at it in their time, not our time of today with so many people who have agendas and hatred toward God.

And I see it as it is, as it's interpreted, and as it applies to the nation's founding and jurisprudence. An "agenda" regarding god is irrelevant and just a smokescreen to distract form actual historical and legal facts!

These guys didnt have that problem. So their belief did influence them.

You merely speculate. They DID have a problem with mixing religion and government though.

You merely speculate. They DID have a problem with mixing religion and government though.

And yet they still talked about their faith and how they felt that their belief in Christianity is something that would make this nation successful, and it has been, yet we are starting to see a rapid decay in society, now we are so hard trying to remove any notion of God. Im not blind to how the society is going downhill, thats what happens when you take away the values our founding fathers had and their views on Christianity. I cant say this enough, that said freedom of religion, not from it. Government will not make a state mandated church, thats all this implies. No where does it say people, politicians, can not use their biblical beliefs to influence decisions. Since every one is hellbent on getting rid of God, were getting all kinds of laws and nonsense going on. Look at our great world we live in now.. Beautiful isnt it..

here read .

www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

And yet they still talked about their faith and how they felt that their belief in Christianity is something that would make this nation successful

And yet, none of that found its way into the Constitution. Go figure!

yet we are starting to see a rapid decay in society, now we are so hard trying to remove any notion of God.

How is god being removed? Anyone is still free to believe in a god/s or not. That's freedom of religion, which the Founding Fathers were keen on.

Im not blind to how the society is going downhill, thats what happens when you take away the values our founding fathers had and their views on Christianity.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution or the founding of this nation. You keep going back and forth.

. I cant say this enough, that said freedom of religion, not from it.

James Madison said it:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

Note that Mr. Madison specified the separation of religion FROM the government.

Government will not make a state mandated church, thats all this implies.

The SCOTUS disagrees. It implies much more than that. The Government cannot make laws based on any religious ideology, nor can it involve itself in religious affairs, or vice versa. See The Lemon Test passed by the SCOTUS.

No where does it say people, politicians, can not use their biblical beliefs to influence decisions.

The difference is, politicians can make their own beliefs or religion into public policy. Big difference!

Since every one is hellbent on getting rid of God, were getting all kinds of laws and nonsense going on.

Who's getting rid of god? And what laws are passed to that effect? Or are you just being melodramatic?

here read .

Here, read: The US Constitution, the SCOTUS precedents: Reynolds v US (1878) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Beautiful isnt it..

Yes, it is. Your point?

I think the website I linked shows enough to support the view of founding fathers and Christianity. If you take the time and read the entire thing from the first word to the last word, it makes sense.

I think the website I linked shows enough to support the view of founding fathers and Christianity.

Your link doesn't work. But the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is irrelevant. They were also passionate secularists who felt that an individual's religious beliefs was their own buisiness and no one else's. Their beliefs, while they may have expressed them at times, did not influence or drive the drafting of the Constitution, or the founding of this country. Nor have you demonstrated otherwise, much less refute my assertions on the matter.

Works just fine

www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

YOu cant see that ?

YOu cant see that ?

No. But still irrelevant. You haven't addressed the points I already made.

earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

Its www dot earlyamerica DOT com/review/fall98/original.html

Its very relevant If nothing is still showing up, early america dot com .. look for original intent. I still feel yoru wrong based off of how and what our framers of our nation said. Funny thing about history, it becomes so debatable as time goes by. Its a good thing there are still people out there who show our history as it was meant to be and not slowly being changed over time into what people think it is now. Read up on the website

I still feel yoru wrong based off of how and what our framers of our nation said.

I've already provided original, primary sources from those same framers to support my position.

Funny thing about history, it becomes so debatable as time goes by.

Only by those who don't really understand it or have an agenda. The facts speak for themselves however.

Its a good thing there are still people out there who show our history as it was meant to be and not slowly being changed over time into what people think it is now.

Fortunately, I'm quite familiar with history, especially in regards to the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

and if you read the website you would see my point in where my point is made with our founding fathers. I dont have an agenda, dont need one. Im well aware of history, and what they said. Their stance on God and government are quite clear to me from what they said. You seem to make them out to say something else. The entire view of government with church and state have completely changed from back them until now. Even the the judicial system seems to have flip flopped. So what what the Scotus sayd here recently, namely your lemon v kuurtzman.. Our judicial system and government have slowly been changing their views from our founding fathers until now. All of our founding fathers would be turning over in their grave if they seen how we have stripped people from allowing them to show their religous expression in the government.

You will never understand that it is only the government who is not to impose a state religion denomination. Nothing more nothing less. You dont have any evidence to show that our founding fathers, their beliefs never influenced their thinking of our early government. Little by little people like you over the years have slowly changed so many things to make our government into something it was never meant to be. Its sickening how people are changing history and trying to make other people believe in it. Shame on you

Im well aware of history, and what they said.

Yet you're not aware of the separation of church and state. Interesting.

Their stance on God and government are quite clear to me from what they said.

Yes, they advocated keeping them separate, while allowing the individual the right to believe aas they wished, without govvernment interference or undue religious involvement with the government.

You seem to make them out to say something else.

It's not what I say, it's what they, and the SCOTUS, says, based on their referenced works.

The entire view of government with church and state have completely changed from back them until now. Even the the judicial system seems to have flip flopped.

Now who's making something out to be something else?

So what what the Scotus sayd here recently, namely your lemon v kuurtzman.

Go back farther, to Reynolds v. US (1878). Lemon only reinforces that previous case decision!

Our judicial system and government have slowly been changing their views from our founding fathers until now.

What makes you more of an expert on the law, constitution, and judicial system than the SCOTUS?

All of our founding fathers would be turning over in their grave if they seen how we have stripped people from allowing them to show their religous expression in the government

Religious expression is permissible. That's not the issue or even in dispute. But religion cannot be used to make public policy. Big difference between the two, which you don't seem to understand!

You will never understand that it is only the government who is not to impose a state religion denomination. Nothing more nothing less.

I've already demonstrated that to be false!

You dont have any evidence to show that our founding fathers, their beliefs never influenced their thinking of our early government.

Then you haven't been reading my posts or chose to ignore them.

Little by little people like you over the years have slowly changed so many things to make our government into something it was never meant to be.

People like me are the ones whjo understand history and strive to maintain constitutional integrity and point out lies or misinformation, especially those perpetrated by history revisionists or apologetics!

Its sickening how people are changing history and trying to make other people believe in it. Shame on you

Save your rhetoric and ad hom attack! That's a clear indication of how weak your argument really is. It's also clear you have nothing left to prove your point, much less refute mine and now resort to such tactics.

History speaks for itself

On June 17, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment to H.R. 1501, the "Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999." Amendment No. 200, sponsored by Representative Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), declares that "the power to display the Ten Commandments on property owned or administered by the States is among the powers reserved to the States" by the Constitution. By proposing this amendment, it was Rep. Aderholt's intent to allow public schools to display the Ten Commandments in an attempt to prevent or reduce acts of violence. (Also see: Complete text of Aderholt Amendment.)

While Rep. Aderholt's "Ten Commandment" amendment passed the House by a vote of 248-180, it would almost certainly be struck down if challenged in the Supreme Court as violating the First Amendment of the Constitution. Why?

"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." -- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Complete Constitution)

The First Amendment contains two clauses referring to religion:

The Establishment Clause -- Bans Congress from passing any law dealing with the establishment of religion. (The basis of the concept of "separation of church and state.")

The Free Exercise Clause -- Bans Congress from passing any law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

A law allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools would clearly not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So, as is often the case, the Establishment Clause becomes the problem.

Out of concern for consistency in its interpretation of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has developed a test the Justices apply to any religious practice that might conflict with the Establishment Clause -- the "Lemon" tests.

he Establishment Clause and the "Lemon" Tests
Based on its 1971 decision in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court came up with the three "tests" of any religion-related law. The "Lemon" test is still used by the Court today to determine whether or not the law meets constitutional muster. In order for any law to satisfy the First Amendment, it:

1. Must have some secular, or non-religious legal purpose;
2. must neither promote or inhibit the practice of religion; and
3. must not must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

In its Lemon decision, the Supreme Court concludes, "[i]f a statute violates any of these three principles, it must be struck down under the Establishment Clause." (For more details, see: Church and State: How the Court Decides, by your About.com Guide)

Lemon Test v. The Ten Commandments
When viewed against the "Lemon" tests, the first four of the Ten Commandments would fail because they have no secular, or non-religious legal purpose. Instead, they concern only specific religious duties expected of believers.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

However, commandments 5-10, taken by themselves, make no mention of religion at all. Instead, they are all rules of proper conduct by people in society and are thus completely secular in nature.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

But, the Aderholt Amendment did not exclude the first four commandments from consideration. Why did 284 U.S. Representatives vote for it. How would those 284 U.S. Representatives defend the constitutionality of the amendment? They would draw from the words of the people who wrote the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers on Church and State

Flames of many a constitutional argument are fanned by the fact that the "Framers," the men who wrote the document in 1774, left little written record indicating their exact intent in some of the Constitution's key clauses. But, when explanatory personal notes or statements of the Framers can be found, they are almost always quoted by one or both sides in constitutional debates.

In committee meetings and floor debate on Rep. Aderholt's successful "Ten Commandments" amendment, to H.R. 1501, the "Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999," supporting speakers cited several direct statements of the Framers on the question religion and the First Amendment. Here are just a few of those:

Oliver Ellsworth, third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- "The primary objects of government are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support, and among these, religious institutions are eminently useful and important."

Henry Laurens -- "I had the honor of being one who framed the Constitution. In order effectually to accomplish these great constitutional ends, it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage respect for God and virtue."

President John Adams, a signer of the Bill of Rights -- "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is no force of law in public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'thou shall not covet' and 'thou shall not steal' are not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Thomas Jefferson -- "No power to proscribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the Federal Government. It must, then, rest with the States."

President John Quincy Adams directly addresses the Ten Commandments --"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal code as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every Nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of secular history to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as the Ten Commandments lay down."

According to Representatives speaking in support of Rep. Aderholt's amendment, these statements indicated the Framers' belief that encouraging religion was, in fact, a duty of government and clearly not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

In voting for the Aderholt Amendment, the Members of Congress responded to what is probably prevailing public opinion on the issue of religion in public schools. Acknowledging and responding to public opinion is part of Congress' job.

The Supreme Court, however, represents the Constitution. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and protect the Constitution without regard to public opinion or politics. This job often brings the Supreme Court into conflict with public opinion, as well as the opinions of Congress, the President and, yes, even the Founding Fathers.

The Supreme Court, however, represents the Constitution. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and protect the Constitution without regard to public opinion or politics.

Funny how you defer to the SCOTUS, while in your post 25.27 below, you clearly show disregard for SCOTUS opinion. A little hypocritical, aren't we?

Funny how you defer to the SCOTUS, while in your post 25.27 below, you clearly show disregard for SCOTUS opinion. A little hypocritical, aren't we?

its called "pick and choose", standard fare for creationists and revisionists.

these are the people that decry the age of enlightenment as a horrible thing because it took too much power from the church. now they want to establish their theocratic control over everyone and claim it is "freedom", when the only "freedom" they are really interested in is the "freedom" to establish their theocracy over all

gordy327

The Supreme Court, however, represents the Constitution. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and protect the Constitution without regard to public opinion or politics.

Funny how you defer to the SCOTUS, while in your post 25.27 below, you clearly show disregard for SCOTUS opinion. A little hypocritical, aren't we?

danwill

Funny how you defer to the SCOTUS, while in your post 25.27 below, you clearly show disregard for SCOTUS opinion. A little hypocritical, aren't we?

its called "pick and choose", standard fare for creationists and revisionists.

these are the people that decry the age of enlightenment as a horrible thing because it took too much power from the church. now they want to establish their theocratic control over everyone and claim it is "freedom", when the only "freedom" they are really interested in is the "freedom" to establish their theocracy over all

Actually I call it how Scotus has changed over the many years , being pressured, or their influences from the new america of a political correctness, liberal view, regardless of the 1700 1800 mindset, to todays mindset of judicial thinking. Its two different worlds

Actually I call it how Scotus has changed over the many years , being pressured, or their influences from the new america of a political correctness, liberal view, regardless of the 1700 1800 mindset, to todays mindset of judicial thinking.

Merely your conjecture and you continue to ignore the fact that SCOTUS precedent is law and they are one's qualified to interpret the Constitution and the intentions of the Fouding Fathers! Not to mention you still have not demonstrated where any religious belief or ideology is mentioned in the Constitution itself, regardless of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers!

Merely your conjecture and you continue to ignore the fact that SCOTUS precedent is law and they are one's qualified to interpret the Constitution and the intentions of the Fouding Fathers! Not to mention you still have not demonstrated where any religious belief or ideology is mentioned in the Constitution itself, regardless of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers!

And yet the Scotus of our past who was closer to the times of original founding fathers were in complete favor of God and america .. Over time people like you slowly creep into politics and start undermining and pushing little agendas, changing americas view on history a little bit at a time, until you all get american people thinking your view is right and the intentions of our founding fathers. Thank God we have record of our history and historians who keep the truth.

And yet the Scotus of our past who was closer to the times of original founding fathers were in complete favor of God and america

Really? Cite some rulings from those Courts that prove this.

Cite some rulings from those Courts that prove this.

I'd like to see that too. I can think of one case off the top of my head. But it's in dicta, which carries no legal weight.

And yet the Scotus of our past who was closer to the times of original founding fathers were in complete favor of God and america

I'll ask again then: What makes you more qualified to intrpret the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers than the SCOTUS?

Over time people like you slowly creep into politics and start undermining and pushing little agendas, changing americas view on history a little bit at a time

Baseless accusation, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand and only shows the weakness of your argument.

until you all get american people thinking your view is right and the intentions of our founding fathers.

The only ones trying to change the views and intentions of the Founding Fathers are christian history revisionists, dominists, and apologetics.

Thank God we have record of our history and historians who keep the truth.

And so far, I've cited that history and truth, based on actual fact and primary sources.

Cite some rulings from those Courts that prove this.

I'd like to see that too. I can think of one case off the top of my head. But it's in dicta, which carries no legal weight.

I believe I made my point and argument quite clear in all the posts above this one, from what Scotus members have said, court cases from the past to more current ones.

I'll ask again then: What makes you more qualified to intrpret the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers than the SCOTUS?

As I said so many times already, from our founding fathers and from our supreme court justices who were around at that time in the beginning and for a time afterwards who would know indeed of our ideals of that time and have not been corrupted and brainwashed by the political main stream liberal left.

Baseless accusation, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand and only shows the weakness of your argument.

Once again , not baseless, its based on early scotus and founding fathers.

And so far, I've cited that history and truth, based on actual fact and primary sources.

No, you cite after the fact of scotus rulings and belief system that has already been tainted and influenced from people like you all creeping into office and judicial positions to make such changes over time.

Erin and Gordy, I beleive I have made my point in what i posted in the posts above 1.181

the website i posted in 1.177 . 1.158, 1.145 and there maybe more, but I dont have time to keep finding proof of stuff you all refuse to believe. You can believe what ever you want, but I will stick with what our fathers , and supreme court justices who were qualified and didnt have any issues with their belief in God.

I believe I made my point and argument quite clear in all the posts above this one, from what Scotus members have said, court cases from the past to more current ones.

And you have been refuted, both on your points above and below this post!

As I said so many times already, from our founding fathers and from our supreme court justices who were around at that time in the beginning and for a time afterwards who would know indeed of our ideals of that time and have not been corrupted and brainwashed by the political main stream liberal left.

You are presuming authority and expertise where you have none and also presume to speak on behalf on the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS with your own opinion. Not buying it!

Once again , not baseless, its based on early scotus and founding fathers.

Cite original, valid, primary sources to support your assertions and not your own opinions or interpretations. You have also not addressed certain challenges!

No, you cite after the fact of scotus rulings and belief system that has already been tainted and influenced from people like you all creeping into office and judicial positions to make such changes over time.

Again, more baseless accusation and rhetoric!

Erin and Gordy, I beleive I have made my point in what i posted in the posts above 1.181

And your point has been defeated and refuted!

but I dont have time to keep finding proof of stuff you all refuse to believe.

Belief is irrelevant. I'm interested in and cited facts. You seem to be the one refusing to accept them in favor of your own opinions. Your view on the separation of church and state comes to mind.

You can believe what ever you want, but I will stick with what our fathers , and supreme court justices who were qualified and didnt have any issues with their belief in God.

Again irrelevant! You equate the beliefs of the Founding Fathers as some policy of fealty in the government and law. You have not yet shown that to be the case, nor cited ANY source to substantiate that claim, especially with regards to the Constitution. You also fail to show ANY religious connection, ideology, or connotation in the Constitution or its drafting, except for the freedom of religion. The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is well known. But they were also passionate secularists who felt an individual's religious beliefs was their own business and no one else's.

So, I'll cite the challenges again: Show me a primary, original source which states the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers was directly involved with the drafting of the Constitution and where in the Constitution is ANY religious ideology referenced!

You are presuming authority and expertise where you have none and also presume to speak on behalf on the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS with your own opinion. Not buying it!

Your blindness to what they said, in the texts of what they said is the proof of your ignorance, not mine.

Cite original, valid, primary sources to support your assertions and not your own opinions or interpretations. You have also not addressed certain challenges!

Again I cited, supreme justices of their time. I posted an article link to how the courts over time have changed their views and intentions from founding fathers and early scotus to current views.. I dont know how much more clear i can be.

You have refuted nothing, except your own ignorance of not listening or re-reading what I posted above by founding fathers and early scotus. I cant hold your hand and show you everything. It doesnt matter anyway what I show you, you already have your view made up in your mind, your own agenda, and your own twisted views on history.

Consider this debate over until you can show me rebuttal of the founding fathers of what I posted and early scotus and what they said..

Worst case scenario, If your too lazy for me to repost it all, I will give you the benefit and repost it for your viewing pleasure but i see no point, since your blind to what not I am saying but to what history is saying.

Your blindness to what they said, in the texts of what they said is the proof of your ignorance, not mine.

On the contrary, I've provided actual original sources from the Founding Fathers themselves!

Again I cited, supreme justices of their time.

Remember what I said about in dicta? What you did not cite was SCOTUS cases which actually directly connect the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, or religion in general, to the establishment of this nation or the drafting of the Constitution!

You have refuted nothing

Then you haven't been paying attention. I've already proven you wrong regarding your opinion of the separation of church and state. The rest wasn't much more difficult.

except your own ignorance of not listening or re-reading what I posted above by founding fathers and early scotus.

I've cited their original works, especially as it pertains to the founding of this country or the drafting of the Constitution.

you already have your view made up in your mind, your own agenda, and your own twisted views on history.

The same can be said of you!

Consider this debate over until you can show me rebuttal of the founding fathers of what I posted and early scotus and what they said..

Reread my posts then!

Worst case scenario, If your too lazy for me to repost it all, I will give you the benefit and repost it for your viewing pleasure but i see no point, since your blind to what not I am saying but to what history is saying.

Save your rhetrical tripe! While you're at it, why don't you address my previous challenges? Funny how you conveniently ignore that while throwing a tantrum!

On the contrary, I've provided actual original sources from the Founding Fathers themselves!

What you cited is what a couple said, at one point of their career in a certain time, and not not taking anything else into consideration of what they have said.

Save your rhetrical tripe! While you're at it, why don't you address my previous challenges? Funny how you conveniently ignore that while throwing a tantrum!

LOl you must think im on the floor stomping my feet .. Not hardly, but instead just shaking my head in disbelief that people can be so obstuse on history.

I can go on forever on how our founding fathers stand on a Godly nation..

Adams..

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It seems that Mr Adams believed that our form of government was only meant for a self governed people; a people who know how to live morally right. This also fits with the feelings of Richard Henry Lee who said, “the experience of all times shows religion to be the guardian of morals.”

What you cited is what a couple said, at one point of their career in a certain time, and not not taking anything else into consideration of what they have said.

I've cited what they said as it directly pertains to the founding of this nation or the drafting of the Constitution!

I can go on forever on how our founding fathers stand on a Godly nation..

And you would be proven wrong every single time! You have provided not one word which states the government is, in any way, founded upon Christian principles or any religious ideology. And you did not provide one iotia of factual, historical documentation to prove they founded this nation on god or any religion, much less meant for religion/god to be a part of or included in the government or law!

Adams..

Yes, from Mr. Adams, In 1787, in his book, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," in which he said:

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses

Also from Mr. Adams, in his book, drafting the constitution was no different than "...work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture." In fact, he goes on to say:

As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance. Called without expectation, and compelled without previous inclination, though undoubtedly at the best period of time both for England and America, to erect suddenly new systems of laws for their future government, they adopted the method of a wise architect, in erecting a new palace for the residence of his sovereign. They determined to consult Vitruvius, Palladio, and all other writers of reputation in the art; to examine the most celebrated buildings, whether they remain entire or in ruins; compare these with the principles of writers; and enquire how far both the theories and models were founded in nature, or created by fancy: and, when this should be done, as far as their circumstances would allow, to adopt the advantages, and reject the inconveniences, of all. Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Mr. Adams went to great pains to emphasize the point that the U.S. Constitution was a work of "ordinary arts and sciences," no more religious than constructing a house.

So, you have provided personal quotes and ceremonial speeches, I have a quote from a book written by a Founding Father which specifically addresses the origin, writing, and establishment, of the U.S. Constitution. And I just bet you still think you've said something persuasive.

And you have still not addressed my challenges! Why is that? Perhaps because you cannot and the weaknes of your arguments and claims is showing.

Over time people like you slowly creep into politics and start undermining and pushing little agendas, changing americas view on history a little bit at a time, until you all get american people thinking your view is right and the intentions of our founding fathers

wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Gordy I already posted above to what posts I said support our founding fathers views. I guess your too lazy to go up and look, so I will have to repost them for your reading and learning.

I still dont knwo what challenge you tossed out to me that I am supposed to be avoiding

Gordy I already posted above to what posts I said support our founding fathers views

And I've refuted them! As I said, all you have provided is personal quotes and ceremonial speeches, nothing more!

I guess your too lazy to go up and look, so I will have to repost them for your reading and learning.

Go right ahead. I'll just refute them all over again!

I still dont knwo what challenge you tossed out to me that I am supposed to be avoiding

Show me a primary, original source which states the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers was directly involved with the drafting of the Constitution and where in the Constitution is ANY religious ideology referenced!

yep, "things are so much worse now"....

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9901E5D61F3BE633A2575BC0A9649C946596D6CF

Our founding fathers ideals reek of Godly influence. That all men are created equal, The most important of those [religious principles] is the idea that you need to check and balance power within government because giving too much power to any one person or one branch of government is dangerous because of human nature. There was a widespread assumption among the Founding Fathers that people were naturally sinful, and if they had a chance that any one person would become a tyrant.

The early presidents set a pattern of routinely having proclamations of days of prayer and fasting. Early Congresses hired chaplains and put them on the payroll to lead sessions in prayer and so forth. Even Jefferson, who is known as this kind of far-reaching, strict separationist—we view him that way today—would attend church services in government buildings.

One is the principle of religious liberty for all people and the free exercise of religion that's guaranteed in the First Amendment. And then also the notion that all men are created equal. It's such a simple proposition, and yet it's deep and powerful that whatever men may say, that we're all equal before God, and that God is our source of rights.

We're certainly a much more diverse society in terms of religion than the time of the founding, but I think that constitutional jurisprudence now has moved in the direction of having a one-size-fits-all model of church-state relations that leans toward the more secular interpretation. That is certainly not what the founders would have envisioned. It also can easily send a signal that the government is not just neutral on issues of religion, but that in some cases it's hostile to interests of religion in general, and I think that is an impression the government should seek not to make.

As i said before , you have to take into consideration what history was going on at that time. Our heritage ( puritans )was getting away from england because of all the hostility and killing of them. With henry the 8th changing from catholic to protestant, and then it went back to catholic after he was gone, and this change went back and forth , until it ended up protestant , but they still persecuted the puritans.

Puritans leave and come to america to have freedom of their religion with out the persecution from Government. While they were here , and start to migrate to new states, there is already starting to be some small conflicts of states trying to declare a catholic, or a protestant state. Our Founding fathers draft the constitution , and make sure they get this in check that no Government religion is going to be enforced. NO where does it ever say that religion needs to be wiped out from political views.

Since you want to play the stupidity of history game , I will play this with a court system of evidence. My first witness of many will be John Jay a Founding Father of the United States, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95).

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. 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."

So here is our first Chief Justice, who believes that our country is a Christian Nation.

I dont know why you seem to think that them being christians are any different from ones today. They belief system affects their thoughts just as it does to us today. Their belief in God and an absolute authority and Moral and Just God influences who they are and what they represent , this is no different from Today.

"Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others,

and yet, you are absolutely intent on passing laws violating the rights of others, especially if they don't follow YOUR brand of "christianity".

with the current batch of screaming, taliban-minded "christian conservatives", we would be FAR better off with a buddhist than any right-wing, "christian" conservative

I have never proposed anything preventing you from your own life according to your beliefs, yet you are absolutely insistent on passing laws to prevent others from living their own personal lives according to their beliefs. (your ridiculous and hypocritical "one way wall").

by John Jay's definition, and by Thomas Jefferson's definition, I am a better "christian" and a far stronger believer in freedom than you are.

Our founding fathers ideals reek of Godly influence.

And yet, you've failed to demonstrate any of that influence in the Constitution!

That all men are created equal

How is that a "godly influence?" Besides, that's from the Declaration of Independence, which does not make our system of laws or government, nor does it specify any particular god.

The most important of those [religious principles] is the idea that you need to check and balance power within government because giving too much power to any one person or one branch of government is dangerous because of human nature.

You still haven't provided any original documentation from the Founding Fathers themselves that state they based our founding principles or the Constituton itself on any religious principles. My post 1.194 above quite clearly demonstrates the exact opposite. All you're doing is repeating yourself now and providing nothing to support your assertion, as if that somehow makes you more credible or persuasive.

The early presidents set a pattern of routinely having proclamations of days of prayer and fasting.

Which is still nothing more than a personal expression of piety. Nothing here implies a Christian/religiously based Nation.

and yet it's deep and powerful that whatever men may say, that we're all equal before God, and that God is our source of rights.

You should have quit while you were ahead. Because now you're just making assumptions based on your own opinions or beliefs and providing nothing valid or primary to support those assumptions!

That is certainly not what the founders would have envisioned.

More unsubstantiated assumptions!

, but that in some cases it's hostile to interests of religion in general,

Cite one case where the government is hostile to religion!

As i said before , you have to take into consideration what history was going on at that time.

I already have, through the referenced works of the Founding Fathers. You seem rather stuck in the past or on your own opinions!

NO where does it ever say that religion needs to be wiped out from political views.

Again you misunderstand what is being said or implied. No one said religion should be removed from individual views. But religion CANNOT be used as a basis to make public policy or laws!

So here is our first Chief Justice, who believes that our country is a Christian Nation.

His personal thoughts are his personal thoughts. However, there is NOT ONE WORD in ANY founding Document, (especially the Constitution) which states this country is a christian nation!

They belief system affects their thoughts just as it does to us today. Their belief in God and an absolute authority and Moral and Just God influences who they are and what they represent , this is no different from Today.

You seem to think their beliefs translate directly to the nation as a whole or its system of government and law. It does not, I have proved it does not, and you have still failed to prove otherwise, especailly where the Constitution is concerned!

Cite one case where the government is hostile to religion!

When a child in school is to write a paper on their hero, as long as it isnt Jesus. Which I have listened many times on radio show Jay Sekulow Live ( he is founder of ACLJ and a prominent lawyer) of where people call in where they are being persecuted for their beliefs.

As for our founding fathers, its to much of a debate it seems for either side to get their point through, your views seem wrong and dont represent what they wanted, as mine dont seem to be to yours. There are people who are specialized in such fields, and yet they are still arguing and debating these points.

People just have different views on everything and thats just how it is. I still say your wrong, I dont see history making your point valid. It will always be that way.

When a child in school is to write a paper on their hero, as long as it isnt Jesus.

Of course they can. The school simply is not allowed to endorse it. And you haven't cited any legal case to that effect.

your views seem wrong and dont represent what they wanted

The same can be said for you. The difference is, I've provided primary original sources from the Founders themselves directly relating to the foundation of this country and Constitution. You've cited personal opinions only, and nothing which refutes my sources, points, or challenges (which you still have not addressed).

There are people who are specialized in such fields, and yet they are still arguing and debating these points.

Any credible legal historian, scholar, or first year law student will tell you that the Constitution is THE founding document of this country and that it contains a separation of church and state and no religious ideology! You still haven't proven otherwise!

I still say your wrong, I dont see history making your point valid. It will always be that way.

You can think whatever you like. Doesn't change the facts I've presented however.

When a child in school is to write a paper on their hero, as long as it isnt Jesus. Which I have listened many times on radio show Jay Sekulow Live ( he is founder of ACLJ and a prominent lawyer) of where people call in where they are being persecuted for their beliefs.

marmaduke, would Jay happened to have brought up the "persecuted christians that were 'peacefully demonstrating' at an arab pride festival in Dearborne Michigan" and how the awful police wouldn't "protect their free speech"? did he ever mention the signs those allegedly "peaceful christians" were carrying that had sayings like "mohammed was a child molesting , lying murderer and a false prophet"?

not a particularly big fan of islam either, I don't want muslim sharia law in my country any more than I want christian sharia law in it. but they every right to believe as they will as long as they don't push it on me.

Dan, I am not talking about other incidents at this moment, My point is the freedoms the people have from the Government was being violated. Even if you believe in the church state myth, this was still a big no no that schools do because of ignorant people in positions who are so scared of religion and afraid to allow kids to freely express themselves because they might offend somebody.

Gordy , there are plenty of cases out there , whether it was in school or a person at their work place being reprimanded, suspended ect ect for their religious beliefs. I dont have time to find all the cases for you, but here are two off the top of my head. If you take the time and search there are plenty more out there. Remember these are being done because people actually think there is a wall of separation and that showing your beliefs should be taboo.. Its quite frightening.

A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross. “As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.He requested that his name and his son’s name be withheld from publication to protect the boy.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

A former student at a high school in Southern California recently filed a lawsuit against the school district after he had been suspended for sharing his faith.

About a year ago, Kenneth Dominguez, 16, was disciplined by Gateway East High School in San Diego County and was prevented from bringing his Bible to campus.

The lawsuit was filed after the Grossmont Union High School District refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, according to Brad Dacus, president and founder of Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing Dominguez.

Dominguez is a new believer. He surrendered his life to the Lord during Christmas break in the 2009-2010 school year.

When he returned to school in January, he began to tell his peers about his Christian faith.

He was "on fire" and "excited about his faith," sharing "what happened to him and what God had done," Dacus explained to The Christian Post.

Follow us

But his grace sharing period came to a halt when an administrator reprimanded him. The school official told Dominguez that he was not allowed to share his faith because of the "separation of church and state."

According to Dacus, Dominguez had not created any disruption when he was testifying about his faith to fellow students. He didn't shout or preach out loud and he limited his talk to lunch breaks and the hallways, and not the classroom.

Additionally, there has been no record of any student or anyone else complaining, Dacus noted.

After being warned by the administrator, Dominguez continued to discuss his faith and bring his Bible to school. He was then told that he could not bring his Bible to campus either. A two-day suspension soon followed.

Defending the student, attorney Michael J. Peffer, who heads PJI's Southern California office, contended, “No student should be forced to leave his faith and Bible at the gate when he enters school grounds. We are looking forward to this opportunity to vindicate Mr. Dominguez and protect students throughout California.”

The incident doesn't come as a surprise to PJI attorneys. Among the 4,000 requests for legal assistance received last year alone, Dacus said many of them dealt with public school religious freedom issues.

"Particularly in a state like California where the teachers union has such great control over what goes on in public schools, we see a lot of hostility and bigotry against Christian students, sometimes under the cloak of 'tolerance,'" he lamented.

Catherine Martin, spokeswoman for the Grossmont Union High School District, was unable to comment because of pending litigation.

[UPDATE] 3-31 7:12 p.m.

The Grossmont Union High School District released a statement today in response to the lawsuit:

The Grossmont Union High School District Governing Board and Administration fully supports and defends the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment provisions protecting the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. It is also the firm commitment of the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) to provide a safe and orderly learning environment for all students and staff that is free of disruption to the educational process on each of its campuses.

Any credible legal historian, scholar, or first year law student will tell you that the Constitution is THE founding document of this country and that it contains a separation of church and state and no religious ideology! You still haven't proven otherwise!

Gordy here is a Guy who is qualified to say such. Again my point here what follows is not that I am right and you are wrong about the myth of separation, The real point is that people of greater knowledge in history still have these types of debates, and both sides try to make their points clear, and both sides have their evidence to show their point. He is quite qualified.

James Hitchcock, PhD, Professor of History at St. Louis Universtiy, wrote in his Jan. 5, 2005 article "The Myth of the 'Wall of Separation'" posted on his James Hitchcock Column of the Women for Faith & Family website:

"Modern separationists invoke the names of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to 'prove' what the Founding Fathers intended. But Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Madison did, but the Religion Clauses were the work of someone else. The hallowed phrase 'wall of separation' does not appear in the Constitution, as some people seem to think, but in a private letter that Jefferson wrote some years later. For almost a century afterwards the 'wall' metaphor was largely ignored.

Those who believe the myth of strict separationism find it impossible to explain why we have military chaplains, prayers in courts and legislatures, the claim 'In God We Trust' on coins, an official Thanksgiving day, oaths that end 'so help me, God,' and many other things that bring religion into the public sphere...

Thus, not surprisingly, until 1948 the Supreme Court never found a violation of separation of church and state, and on numerous occasions it upheld arrangements whereby religion received official public support... The Court in 1947-8 made a revolution simply by bold assertion, without regard for historical or judicial evidence... Some of the leading constitutional scholars pointed this out at the time, but the new understanding of the First Amendment quickly became enshrined as definitive, and ever since separationists have reacted with shock and horror when anyone recalls how arbitrary these decisions really were.

How and why this happened in 1947-8 is a complicated story, but a key part of it is the fact that most of the Supreme Court justices who brought about this revolution, and many of the people who then enshrined it in our national, lore, frankly regarded traditional religion as outmoded and in some ways dangerous. They did not really care what the Founding Fathers intended, or what the real tradition of the country was. They simply believed that the time had come to marginalize religion. Those who today seek to undo some of the damage stemming from that fallacy are not undermining the Constitution but seeking to recover it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another qualified .

Involvement and Affiliations:

Education:

Contact Info:
Phone: 202-479-3211
Fax: None found
E-Mail: None found
Website: U.S. Supreme Court website

Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky :

"I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false...

George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.' The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'

...The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.

These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."

===============================================================

Involvement and Affiliations:

Education:

William Hubbs Rehnquist, JD, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time of the quotation who later became Chief Justice, wrote in his June 4, 1985 dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment...

The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

I could spend all day showing evidence that your wrong and I am right, but I want my main point to be that this is something that is not cut and dry. Because no one actually wrote saying that religion and state complete seperation of the two , BOTH ways is not found any where in our documents , then a lot of assumed, and bias opinions kick of what our founding fathers meant.

I personally dont see any issues, I see our founding fathers who practiced their faith openly in their meetings, before during and after , so to me there doesnt sound like any conflict what so ever with Church and state.

My final note. here is a guy who tosses a challenge out ..

Joseph Farah, Founder, Editor, and Chief Executive Officer of WorldNetDaily.com, wrote in his Mar. 28, 2007 article "Stark, Raving Atheist," published on WorldNetDaily.com:

"Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported – strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis...

If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'

Yet, throughout Jefferson's long life in politics and government, we see a man who, by today's standards, would be viewed by people like Stark [US Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)] as a card-carrying member of the religious right.

Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."

Involvement and Affiliations:

Education:

Contact Info:
Phone: 541-474-1776
Fax: 541-474-1770
E-Mail: jfarah@worldnetdaily.com
Website: WorldNetDaily.com

WOW! This little conversation has gotten quite out of hand! I hope you'll forgive me if I start with some of the more recent posts and work backwards. I'm quite tired, and really don't know how much steam I have left.

William Hubbs Rehnquist...

As a Chief Justice, his legacy should be that he was an embarrassment to the SCotUS. Anyone who does not realize that Rehnquist tainted his objectivity with his religious beliefs was surely not paying attention. List all the "qualifications" you wish, this man's opinions regarding the religious foundation of this nation are worthless. If nothing else is convincing, the fact that he was on the dissenting side of almost every religious issue supported by the SCotUS as a whole should be more than sufficiently revealing.

Antonin Scalia...

Voted with Rehnquist in just about all cases involving religion. If he doesn't lack religious objectivity, he at least lacks originality.

Again, list all the "qualifications" you choose, they both were on the losing side of most religious issues.

James Hitchcock, PhD...

Education and prolific writing does not preclude a person from having a personal bias; such are mutually exclusive. You have shown Mr. Hitchcock has an opinion, but you have not even hinted at the reason that his opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, should be more persuasive than every standing Supreme Court for the past 130 years, NONE of whom have challenged or reversed the separation of church and state precedent.

About a year ago, Kenneth Dominguez, 16, was disciplined by Gateway East High School in San Diego County and was prevented from bringing his Bible to campus.

The school has gone on record as saying that Mr. Dominguez did, in fact, cause a disruption, and more than once. Next time, quote from an objective news source, not a Christian Revisionist site.

A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.

A bad example, and an even worse choice. I once lived in the Taunton area, still have friends out there, and am quite familiar with the case. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

In those few cases, however, that DO involve a legitimate breach of a students rights to religion and/or free speech (and yes, I'm freely admitting it has happened) it has been due to various schools having become so paranoid over potential lawsuits over proselytizing that it caused knee-jerk reactions and bad decisions. Nonetheless, in every such case, the school admitted to the wrong-doing, and adjusted their school policies accordingly.

Which I have listened many times on radio show Jay Sekulow Live ( he is founder of ACLJ and a prominent lawyer)

Yes, he is also violently anti-muslim, to the point of trying to deny any/all Muslim Federal employees from having the same rights to a prayer space that Christians Federal employees have. Being led by Pat Robertson, I find the ACLJ to be anything but objective.

As for our founding fathers, its to much of a debate it seems for either side to get their point through, your views seem wrong and dont represent what they wanted, as mine dont seem to be to yours. There are people who are specialized in such fields, and yet they are still arguing and debating these points.

Not to mention, the people on your side of the fence seem to be in an extreme minority.

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives...

By "Real Christians..." he meant, any Christian who wasn't Catholic. It's well-known that John Jay was enthusiastically anti-Catholic:

"Thus, John Jay, of New York, who afterwards became Chief Justice of the United States, succeeded in fastening upon the Constitution of his own state a provision which denied the privilege of citizenship to every foreign-born Catholic unless he would first abjure and renounce all allegiance to the pope in matters ecclesiastical."

Is this really the person you're holding up as one who represents the religious intent of the U.S.?

Puritans leave and come to america to have freedom of their religion with out the persecution from Government.

Let's put emphasis on "their religion." Sure, they escaped from persecution themselves, but then proceeded to form local governments which persecuted non-Puritans. You've got to love the irony.

NO where does it ever say that religion needs to be wiped out from political views.

No, not from views, but certainly from government process and endorsement.

And then also the notion that all men are created equal. It's such a simple proposition, and yet it's deep and powerful that whatever men may say, that we're all equal before God, and that God is our source of rights.

There is no founding document in existance which supports the fallacious notion that rights come from the Christian God.

The early presidents set a pattern of routinely having proclamations of days of prayer and fasting.

A pattern?? Routinely?? Not even close. 1789, 1795 (6 yrs later), 1798 (3 years), 1799 (1 year), 1814 (15 years), 1815 (1 year), and then not another one until 1862 (47 years later). Thomas Jefferson never gave such a proclamation. James Madison, some years later, would write in his Detached Memoranda that he regretted having fallen into the tradition, and said that he felt such proclamations to be NOT proper for the government to issue. Eleven presidents after Madison did not issue any such proclamations.

You call this a routine pattern??

Early Congresses hired chaplains and put them on the payroll to lead sessions in prayer and so forth.

Which Madison also condemned in his Detached Memoranda. But then, everything is legal until someone complains, right?

Even Jefferson, who is known as this kind of far-reaching, strict separationist—we view him that way today—would attend church services in government buildings.

The quickest, easiest way to establish yourself as either ignorant or dishonest about history is to claim Thomas Jefferson was a common or traditional Christian in any way. He openly described the writings of Paul as a corruption of the teachings of Jesus, described the book of revelations the ravings of a madman, and clearly denied the divinity of Jesus. To Jefferson, he was nothing more than a philosopher.

There is FAR too much original material in the Library of Congress, written by Jefferson himself, to even begin to claim he was a religious person.

The most important of those [religious principles] is the idea that you need to check and balance power within government...

You need to read John Adam's "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America." There was nothing religious involved, in source or intent, with the writing of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, John Locke was such a significant influence, the Founders were occasionally accused of lifting much of the Constitution from "The Two Treatises of Government."

Perhaps I'll write more tomorrow, but my free time is horribly scarce.

Regards

I respectfully disagree. As i have said , there are plenty of people out there who are historians who have these debates and still agree that our founding fathers and religion went hand in hand.

Oh well guess well never know unless we can go back in time and ask them

btw

Yes, he is also violently anti-muslim, to the point of trying to deny any/all Muslim Federal employees from having the same rights to a prayer space that Christians Federal employees have. Being led by Pat Robertson, I find the ACLJ to be anything but objective.

lol what in the world is violently anti muslim ? Actually his fight for religous freedoms for christians also opened the door for other religions. It may not been his intent, but the outcome allows all religions the same freedoms. On that note also do you have any information to show that he is trying to deny muslim federal employees same rights ?

As for scotus over the years, their views on church and state have clearly changed. I still think our founding fathers would be rolling over if they seen this mess going on today

I respectfully disagree.

Of course, you are entitled.

As i have said , there are plenty of people out there who are historians who have these debates and still agree that our founding fathers and religion went hand in hand.

That many of them were religious men, well of course. I daresay John Adams was likely one of the most religious men among them. But he certainly wasn't religiously motivated. A careful study of the many letters he wrote makes that reasonably plain.

Oh well guess well never know unless we can go back in time and ask them

Yeah, I'm working on that one. I'll let you know if any progress is made. ;-)

lol what in the world is violently anti muslim ?

Think of it as liberal use of rhetoric. I find Mr. Sekulow to be quite irritating in his prejudice.

Actually his fight for religous freedoms for christians also opened the door for other religions.

I don't buy that. I'm familiar with his amicus briefs. He may be a strong advocate of free speech, regardless of source, but he would never view a non-Christian religion as anything but second-rate cultism. As far as I'm concerned, he is among many who would burn the U.S. Constitution and replace it with the Christian Bible.

On that note also do you have any information to show that he is trying to deny muslim federal employees same rights ?

Yes, you can read about it here: Conservative Group Calls...

I find the article and the concept abhorrent. It would be no better than a call to shut down the church where Timothy McVey happened to attend services.

As for scotus over the years, their views on church and state have clearly changed.

Really? Which decisions do you see as being in such conflict?

I still think our founding fathers would be rolling over if they seen this mess going on today

Perhaps. Nonetheless, you paint a picture of the founding fathers being like a house builder who insists, "I must build it with a crucifix over each of the doors, to reflect my Christian values." Or the automobile builder who says, "I must put a quote from Psalms on the dashboard to show my faith in religion," etc., etc.

Surely, this cannot be the mindset of our nation's founders that you are trying to present?

Regards

Yes, you can read about it here: Conservative Group Calls...

I dont' know why NBC is occassionally breaking my links. The article is here: Conservative Group Calls on Justice Dept. to Investigate Muslim Prayers on Capitol Hill

Regards

Even if you believe in the church state myth

As far as separation goes, it's no myth! It's fact and legal precedent, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. And it's one supported and reinforced by the SCOTUS over the years.

Gordy , there are plenty of cases out there , whether it was in school or a person at their work place being reprimanded, suspended ect ect for their religious beliefs.

If anyone is truely being reprimanded in some way due to religious belief, then they do have legitimite legal recourse and grounds for complaint.

Gordy here is a Guy who is qualified to say such.

And yet, neither he, nor you, cite ANY valid, original, or primary sources which suggests or proves that the US or Constitution is based on any religious ideology.

It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'

Not entirely true. Madison said something to the same effect, if not in the exact same words, as I've previously cited.

I could spend all day showing evidence that your wrong and I am right

Go ahead and try! I've already proven the exact opposite, both here and throughout post comments #25 below.

Apparently we are not the only ones who believe in the "church state myth," marmaduke, since the Supreme Court has issued numerous opinions using that exact language over the years -- many different Courts, with many different Justices. And of course, one cannot ignore the Lemon test in discussing the separation of church and state in this country.

However, marmaduke, the bottom line is now the fact that YOU have lost what little credibility you may have had at the beginning, since you have not only tried to use David Barton and his Wallbuilders as a source, but have compounded your ignorance by citing World Nut Daily.

I don't buy that. I'm familiar with his amicus briefs. He may be a strong advocate of free speech, regardless of source, but he would never view a non-Christian religion as anything but second-rate cultism. As far as I'm concerned, he is among many who would burn the U.S. Constitution and replace it with the Christian Bible.

You might be surprised about this one. I am trying to remember what radio show i was listening on the radio. It was in the past couple days, it was a preacher who is good friends with Jay. He ( the pastor ) was talking about that him and Jay are friends but disagree on a person who should be president. The pastor felt that a man who is convicted by morals and beliefs of a personal God of the Bible is who should be in office, and jay felt that a person who can uphold the constitution and the beliefs of our founding fathers is what he prefered over a Christian President. I would like for a president to be both myself. :D

Perhaps. Nonetheless, you paint a picture of the founding fathers being like a house builder who insists, "I must build it with a crucifix over each of the doors, to reflect my Christian values." Or the automobile builder who says, "I must put a quote from Psalms on the dashboard to show my faith in religion," etc., etc.

Surely, this cannot be the mindset of our nation's founders that you are trying to present?

Regards

Sometimes trying to figure out history can be more difficult than people think. Example is a bit off topic here, but it needs to be showed as an example. Slavery of the past was very much acceptable and an honor to be in. Slaves were highly regarded and taken care of. Being a Slave was not a bad thing in biblical times, yet when I have seen people on here talking about slavery they seem to think slavery 2000 years ago is the same exact kind that we went through in civil era. SO to understand slavery history you had to get out of the box of time in this era, and go back to their time.

This can be applied to our founding fathers in time era. When you look at the history of England and the turmoil of the State Religion going from Catholic , to Protestant , and back and forth, then the killings of puritans, who finally left and came to america..

Once our first settlers got here a whole new system is starting to develop, and even though their intentions was to get away from the persecution and a state government religion doesnt mean that they turned away from their christian faith all together. Our founding fathers held prayers before they had their meetings to ask for wisdom from God , their choices they make would be no different than a Christian of Today who seeks wisdom from our God above. Why would any Christian try to solve an issue with out going to God first to seek the answers or ask for help. Majority of them were Christians, and I cant see them separating God and government in anything they wrote.

Majority of them were Christians, and I cant see them separating God and government in anything they wrote.

Explain the Constitution then!

Once our first settlers got here a whole new system is starting to develop, and even though their intentions was to get away from the persecution and a state government religion doesnt mean that they turned away from their christian faith all together.

The first settlers did not establish a nation, much less our system of laws and government.

Our founding fathers held prayers before they had their meetings to ask for wisdom from God

Which has what exactly to do with the founding of this nation or the Constitution? You still seem to confuse the difference between personal expressions of faith vs that of public policy.

Being a Slave was not a bad thing in biblical times, yet when I have seen people on here talking about slavery they seem to think slavery 2000 years ago is the same exact kind that we went through in civil era

Immaterial and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Once our first settlers got here a whole new system is starting to develop, and even though their intentions was to get away from the persecution and a state government religion doesnt mean that they turned away from their christian faith all together.

I have not made such a claim. My only contention with this time period is that religious discrimination ran rampant through the new colonies. Such is well-documented.

Our founding fathers held prayers before they had their meetings to ask for wisdom from God...

Define which "Founding Fathers" you're talking about, because if you're talking about the Philadelphia Convention, you would be quite wrong. There is no record of prayers being said at any time during those meetings.

...their choices they make would be no different than a Christian of Today who seeks wisdom from our God above.

You're speaking of personal expressions of piety. This has nothing to do with the nature of government. Tim McVey may have prayed before bombing the ATF building, it's not proof that it was a holy or ordained task.

Why would any Christian try to solve an issue with out going to God first to seek the answers or ask for help.

You are continually diverting away from the topic at hand. A Christian prays to the Christian God, I get that. Very likely, everyone reading these posts gets that. But it is NOT proof that every action taken must be an outward act of piety. Go back to my previous example which you have not addressed:

• ...you paint a picture of the founding fathers being like a house builder who insists, "I must build it with a crucifix over each of the doors, to reflect my Christian values." Or the automobile builder who says, "I must put a quote from Psalms on the dashboard to show my faith in religion," etc., etc.

Majority of them were Christians, and I cant see them separating God and government in anything they wrote

Then look carefully at these from James Madison:

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

And

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

And

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

And

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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 the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall.

Etc.

The Founding Fathers of this nation clearly recognized that intermingling religion with government was unhealthy for both. These men sought to protect Christianity by keeping it out of government.

In short, if you have any real faith, you should not need the power of government to support your religion. So why ask for it?

Regards

Majority of them were Christians, and I cant see them separating God and government in anything they wrote.

actually, there was debate over such in the early days of our country. it was decided that the generic term "god" would be used so as to be inclusive to all, instead of exclusive to some. marmaduke would have others be excluded so his fantasy of a theocracy could be imposed upon all.

Being a Slave was not a bad thing in biblical times, yet when I have seen people on here talking about slavery they seem to think slavery 2000 years ago is the same exact kind that we went through in civil era

does anyone else see a theme here?

"slavery is good" , "theocracy is good"

rewriting our history clearly with an eye towards reestablishing slavery as "moral" (what a pathetic joke) that alone is sufficient reason to reject your sick and twisted view of "morality" , since it is exactly the same thing you accuse the muslims of, which is twisting religion to crush and destroy non-believers

Your all wrong, and I have spent more then enough time showing you all have been wrong from history and our founding fathers , their beliefs and how their beliefs have impacted history, and how times have changed with Liberal atheistic hatred toward God and trying to redefine our history. I will stand strong against your attacks and anyone else who tries to change history or make people believe your fallacies and logic. I highly doubt anyone is still here any longer reading these except you all who want to still look for confrontation. My arguments way up top that I quoted from our founding fathers, history, court justices , all speak for themselves. If you want to automatically reject certain individuals because of their religious beliiefs and how they influence their thoughts, thats fine, you have that right as much as I do discrediting any of you who try to take away something that is sacred of our Christian Nation that has been Blessed by God. As more of you try to squeeze God out of the picture of existence, Its no surprise to me to see our nation on a decine. I only wish that one day that I would be alive to see when this nation will actually split into another civil war once Atheistic world view people get their way and think society can run smoothly with out God.

I leave you all in your own little world of false history, you all can make fun and poke all you want, but I take pleasure in knowing I am standing right there with my fore fathers and the beliefs they had when they came here.

I leave you with more history lesson to knowledge yourself with. Im not sure if my links will work, I left WWW off of the beginning of them to hope that they do go through.

As i Said I am done here, the debate is beyond this forum any more, regardless of what you or I say, this is something that is debated highly between people specialized in Such fields to do so, Since debate exists about the subject then there is enough grey area's to be debatable. Im done wasting time here, onto other threads where I can spend time giving people hope and truth.

gordy327

Majority of them were Christians, and I cant see them separating God and government in anything they wrote.

Explain the Constitution then!

Well here you go Gordy , this is what it was meant supposed to be. Not to mention our Government was never supposed to get to what it is today. The federal government exists to serve the states, not the other way around. The states have the right and the duty to restrain the federal government. Unfortunately, most state governments don't seem to understand this!

The purpose of our Constitution

constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

isamericaachristiannation.org/

earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

The purpose of our Constitution ( if you do read this, make sure to click on the Continue on the bottom of each page, it goes into much detail.

constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

II. Text from Historical Documents Showing State Support of Religion

undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

Your all wrong, and I have spent more then enough time showing you all have been wrong from history and our founding fathers...

No. You have shown Christian men who have expressed a level of personal piety. You are still insisting that the connection between their faith and their work must be taken on ... well ... faith.

But feel free to support your claim with something substantial at any time.

...and how times have changed with Liberal atheistic hatred toward God and trying to redefine our history.

If you're going to descend to polemics and apologetic rhetoric, you've already lost this little debate.

Not one of my statements has been liberal, atheistic, or hateful.

I will stand strong against your attacks and anyone else who tries to change history or make people believe your fallacies and logic.

You scream "fallacy" and yet, still have nothing falsifiable to offer.

I highly doubt anyone is still here any longer reading these except you all who want to still look for confrontation.

Another straw man argument.

My arguments way up top that I quoted from our founding fathers, history, court justices , all speak for themselves.

"Self-explanatory" is one of the greatest fallacies. As I said before, each one is an expression of personal piety. There is nothing which proves you contentions.

If you want to automatically reject certain individuals because of their religious beliiefs and how they influence their thoughts, thats fine...

The rejection of Revisionists and Dominionists is not "automatic" nor is it entirely about religion. They sacrificed their own credibility by presenting information which was categorically proved false. It's that simple.

...you have that right as much as I do discrediting any of you who try to take away something that is sacred of our Christian Nation that has been Blessed by God.

By all means, drop the polemics, and start discrediting my sources. Start with James Madison.

As more of you try to squeeze God out of the picture of existence...

Now you're just being irrational. If YOU insist that keeping religion out of government is synonymous with squeezing, "God out of the picture of existence," then it is YOU having the crisis of faith.

Its no surprise to me to see our nation on a decine.

Fallacious argument; Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I only wish that one day that I would be alive to see when this nation will actually split into another civil war once Atheistic world view people get their way and think society can run smoothly with out God.

Now you're just sounding irrational. Rants of "The world is coming to an end" are just sooo 18th century.

I leave you all in your own little world of false history, you all can make fun and poke all you want, but I take pleasure in knowing I am standing right there with my fore fathers and the beliefs they had when they came here.

Your entire post, the emotion, the rhetoric, the polemics, are a testament to me that you've been proved wrong, and you know it. The idea scares you half to death. David Barton once thought as you, that if he overwhelmed the public with chapter after chapter of false information, that the sheer volume of it would be nearly impossible to disprove. He was wrong. His reputation as a liar, a revisionist, and a Dominionist spread faster than his lies.

I leave you with more history lesson to knowledge yourself with. Im not sure if my links will work, I left WWW off of the beginning of them to hope that they do go through.

I get most of my history from the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia. Whatever links you have to offer would have to have as much credibility to be worthy of any consideration.

Im done wasting time here, onto other threads where I can spend time giving people hope and truth.

Get used to disappointment. Each year, your religious rhetoric gets just a little more tired and a little less credible.

Regards

Your all wrong, and I have spent more then enough time showing you all have been wrong from history and our founding fathers

Hardly. All you've shown is personal opinion of yourself and personal beliefs of the Founding fathers. You've shown nothing to suggest they meant to mix religion in with the government or in the establishment of public policy.

and how times have changed with Liberal atheistic hatred toward God and trying to redefine our history.

Baseless and useless rhetoric. This isn't about feelings towards god or religion. It's about historical facts. But you've obviously shown yourself to be a religious apologetic and with a clear bias and agenda!

I will stand strong against your attacks and anyone else who tries to change history or make people believe your fallacies and logic.

Specify precisely where you have been attacked! And feel free to falsify ANY of my posts and sources! Or are you just "crying wolf" now?

I highly doubt anyone is still here any longer reading these except you all who want to still look for confrontation.

Anyone reading these posts will see for themselves the weakness of your arguments and your lack of merit!

. My arguments way up top that I quoted from our founding fathers, history, court justices , all speak for themselves.

And your arguments have all been soundly refuted!

If you want to automatically reject certain individuals because of their religious beliiefs and how they influence their thoughts, thats fine, you have that right as much as I do discrediting any of you who try to take away something that is sacred of our Christian Nation that has been Blessed by God.

And that statement alone discredits you and your entire argument, as this is most certainly NOT a "christian nation" and there is not one shred of valid documentation to suggest, much less prove otherwise, especially from the Founding Fathers. But there is original documentation which proves the exact opposite. Of course, you reject that in favor of your own opinions and agenda!

I only wish that one day that I would be alive to see when this nation will actually split into another civil war once Atheistic world view people get their way and think society can run smoothly with out God.

More rhetorical tripe and mindless rants!

I leave you all in your own little world of false history,

By all means, prove ANY of our history, with our cited sources and references, to be false! You're also the one who uses David Barton as a reference, which alone discredits you and makes you dishonest!

He was wrong. His reputation as a liar, a revisionist, and a Dominionist spread faster than his lies.

Good thing too!

I leave you with more history lesson to knowledge yourself with.

If you base your historical knowledge on David Barton and your own opinions, then you're woefully misinformed and lacking!

As i Said I am done here, the debate is beyond this forum any more

In other words, your argument has been refuted, you've been shown to be biased and dishonest, you've attempted to claim a faux victory, and you know it! So now you run. Duly noted!

Im done wasting time here, onto other threads where I can spend time giving people hope and truth.

Except this issue isn't about hope or "truth." This is about actual historical facts, which you seem to want to skew in favor of your own beliefs.

The purpose of our Constitution ( if you do read this, make sure to click on the Continue on the bottom of each page, it goes into much detail.

You mean your obviously religiously biased sources? harldy credible! Why don't you try the more credible sources that Proud pagan uses!

My frustration is not from being proven wrong or felt beaten in any way. That is nothing more then people like you all say just too feel some superior feeling of winning a debate. Just because I choose to leave, does not mean in anyway that I feel you all got the upper hand, or have proven anything to me. As I stated before, I have proven my point, the websites I listed help back that up. A nice history lesson about our government can be learned from the links I listed. I choose to leave, because I no longer have the time nor want to keep talking to walls.. Even the bible says you eventually need to give up trying to convince non believers, of course this pertains to you all refusing to accept our Christian History of a nation.

BTW I dont feel any thing, if thats what fancies your alls boat.. I really am passive in mood, and dont feel beaten one bit.. Actually I do feel one thing, and that is sadness that people are growing up today being taught what you all think. I will keep on teaching truth to those who wish to hear it. Seriously I really have to go, Im going to have to stop tracking this thread, too many to keep up with.

Ps , you all really do need to read the websites I posted just to enlighten yourselves.

That is nothing more then people like you all say just too feel some superior feeling of winning a debate.

The debate is won based on the facts and merits of references provided to support one's assertion. We've supported ours with factual, objective sources. You, not so much!

Just because I choose to leave

And yet, here you are.

does not mean in anyway that I feel you all got the upper hand, or have proven anything to me.

Of course not. The facts and sources we presented speak for themselves!

As I stated before, I have proven my point, the websites I listed help back that up.

And as I've states, your points have been refuted and all you've presented is personal opinions or expressions of piety. You've provided nothing to suggest or prove that the beliefs of the Founding Fathers is connected to or integral to the Founding of this country or the drafting of the Constitution!

A nice history lesson about our government can be learned from the links I listed.

It seems you're the one who's been taken to school!

I choose to leave, because I no longer have the time nor want to keep talking to walls..

And you no longer have any valid point or refutation to make either!

Even the bible says you eventually need to give up trying to convince non believers, of course this pertains to you all refusing to accept our Christian History of a nation.

The bible does not make our secular laws or overrides the Constitution!

BTW I dont feel any thing, if thats what fancies your alls boat.. I really am passive in mood, and dont feel beaten one bit..

That wasn't the intention.

Actually I do feel one thing, and that is sadness that people are growing up today being taught what you all think.

You mean actual facts as opposed to your apologetic/revisionist tripe? I certainly hope so!

I will keep on teaching truth to those who wish to hear it.

And I will continue to present actual facts and correct misinformation wherever I come across it!

My frustration is not from being proven wrong or felt beaten in any way.

I don't care.

I feel I was more than civilized toward you until you responded with a polemic filled diatribe. You wanted gloves-off, you got gloves-off.

Just because I choose to leave, does not mean in anyway that I feel you all got the upper hand,

I never brought up your having left the conversation. The quality of your response was made manifest by the lack of civility and maturity.

A nice history lesson about our government can be learned from the links I listed.

Ps , you all really do need to read the websites I posted just to enlighten yourselves.

I've got news for you. I've spent a good part of the past eight years studying the original material which proves your sources as either false or non-sequitor. Specifically, I've been debunking the lies and myths of David Barton and his Wallbuilders, Inc. I assure you, I've played no small part in ensuring that the academic community sees him for the fraud he is.

And you, sir, are an Apologist. You will maintain your argument without fail as a testament to your religious faith, even if it means lying to do so. You promote your religion at any and all cost. Given your determination, you are certainly a credit to your religion.

Regards

You wanted gloves-off, you got gloves-off.

The winner by knockout: Proud Pagan! :)

Given your determination, you are certainly a credit to your religion.

And a liar all the same!

The winner by knockout: Proud Pagan! :)

Ding! Ding! Ding!

the websites I listed help back that up.

your websites are full of lies and distortions.

just "finding a website" doesn't mean diddly squat if the only thing it does is to reinforce what you WANT to believe without any factual backing.

I can find websites "proving" that 9/11 was caused by aliens

As I stated before, I have proven my point, the websites I listed help back that up.

The websites you listed only back up and prove that you are woefully misinformed, and will believe anyone who publishes misinformation that maintains your status quo.

you all really do need to read the websites I posted just to enlighten yourselves.

"Enlighten ourselves" -- regarding what? How to be pathetic, or how to present "history" in a biased, inaccurate manner?

I'm sorry-- did the article say it was a hate crime? Personally, isn't every crime a hate crime? If you steal my car, you're not loving me...you're hating me. If I shoot my husband for cheating on me, it's a hate crime...no? I hate him for cheating on me. Lorena Bobbitt slicing off her husband's organ is a hate crime.... It's such a stupid distinction trying to garner more sympathy for a certain group.

Well said Marla.

The phrase "hate crime" does not refer to anger. It means that the criminal was motivated by racism, sexism, or some other brand of bigotry. It is a (newish) legal principle, the name of which was not constructed as a precise definition of the principle itself, much like "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which refers to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained indirectly from an improper search instead of unsafe gardening practices.

There are plenty of flaws in hate crime laws, but semantics are not one of them.

Look up the definition of hate crime to see the difference:

crime motivated by hate for group: a crime that is motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance of
somebody's religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation

Sorry, but stealing a car or cutting off a spouse's penis doesn't qualify.

Depends on why you stole/dismembered it.

No one can say this is a hate crime until the shooter is caught.

Let's hope the young woman who survived can help the police in this endeavor.

We don't know all of the facts yet, but we can speculate.

Right now, a lot of people are feeling threatened by the gay movement, and one of them might have been crazy enough to do this--i.e. commit a hate crime. My guess is that whoever did this knew about the couple beforehand and planned this out or followed them waiting for an opportunity. Yeah, that's what crazy people do. Most murders have a motive, and these two girls weren't doing anything wrong but some people see homosexuality as wrong so that likely got under their skin enough to do this. If you can't see that possibility then you're kidding yourselves.

Even crazy people like to justify their actions with some fake reasoning. But the fact is that anyone who goes this far is just plain stupid crazy. We really need to reconsider allowing sickos to plead insanity as a defense.

if your car is stolen, it isn't stolen primarily because they hate you. The act itself might be hateful...but they can't hate you if they don't know you. A hate crime is named hate crime because you are injured/killed primarily because you are gay/black/ That being said, we don't know if this is a hate crime. No matter what it is, it is sad beyond words.

No but the spectre of a hate crime is enough to turn this into a media circus. And let's be brutally honest here: had this occurred some place else, it wouldn't have made it past the local news. The fact that it is in Texas is what turns this into a sensationalist piece worthy of one of the top stories on a national broadcast.

Such a sad tragedy. My heart goes out to the family and friends, and I'm praying for the survivor.

Can't help but wonder why the people in the picture look so happy?

Any crime is a hate crime. You don't commit any crime out of love. Just because they were gay doesn't mean that its a bigger crime than if they were straight. It has the same result. Murder is murder no matter who you are or who is murdered.

Marla obviously doesn't understand the meaning of a "hate crime". Ditto for QUIDAM12

they dont know if it was a hate crime yet just because the couple happened to be gay doesnt mean it was a hate crime

Your right Prag - This made national news because it happened in Texas . But hey -they really haven't made any effort to try and change the countries perception that they re just a bunch dumb republican rednecks . Seriously is Obama even going to waste money by campaigning down there ? I hope not .
And if they do find the guy that did this I wager he is some Pat Robertson loving redneck .

First, the word "lesbian" is totally relevant here and will continue to be relevant until gays and lesbians (and bi and ts) have the same rights afforded to "straight" couples. Society keeps us segregated and that is just the it is. And as long as we are segregated will will continue to be targets of such cowards. FYI, Rick Perry and the rest of the religious freaks don't help our cause any.

motegaze

We don't know all of the facts yet, but we can speculate.

Right now, a lot of people are feeling threatened by the gay movement...

I am purely mystified as to why, as you state, anyone would feel threatened by the "Gay Rights" movement. All LGBT people is asking for is EQUAL RIGHTS, not special rights. Straight people are not being asked to give up any of their current rights. Straight people are not being asked to pay damages to or indemnify LGBT folks for past injustices; they are simply being asked to offer equal standing to people who are attracted to members of the same sex. How is this threatening? It is only if people in general are allowed to think equal rights for ALL is somehow threatening that it becomes so.

And why.... why are all of the people in the photo on the beach of an impromtu memorial to the attacked teenage girls, smiling, beaming, appearing to be celebrating???

Hey Marla - Not all crimes are hate crimes - and the fact that people can kill others over the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, or their religious preferences, etc. make them hate crimes. It's about pre - judgement of another - not just "regular" senseless law breaking. - Thank you RTypo!

Pragmatic, have you had a brain transplant lately that did not take? What the hell are you talking about. If this happened anywhere in the US, it would be a major issue that the press has an obligation to report. Get a life.

PS, Brutality has nothing to do with honesty. Which of those two words were you really wanting to use? My guess is the former.

I can't believe that two young girls; lesbian or not, have just been murdered and half of you people are arguing about insignificant facts and useless information. I think it's time to take a look at ourselves as Americans and wonder why things like this happen when no one even acknowledges that this was a crime that should never have happened reguardless. Instead all of you de-sensitized people care about all of this useless information rather than caring about the people that have just lost their life for whatever reason, which there probably is a good chance that it was because they were gay. It is truely a shame when people are not allowed to live happily ever after, but it is even more of a shame when people lose sight of what is going on just so they can argue with someone else about why someone died. You all should be ashamed of yourself. My prayers go out to the families. Justice will be served.

A "hate crime". The Thought Police are here: it's not bad enough you broke a law, assaulted someone, killed someone - it's worse because of what you were THINKING when you did it. Welcome to Liberal Utopia, or what reasonable people recognize to be foolishness. If you punish someone more for the assault or murder of a homosexual than that of a normal person based on "hate crime" laws, you are telling the person who is not homosexual that they and what they suffered are less important.

It's a terrible thing that these two young women were killed, but "lesbian" doesn't figure into it until such time as someone figures out what the reason is for which they were killed. It could just as easily be for the money in their pockets. If it does turn out to be that they chose to be lesbian (Yes, In-sun-we-trust, I said 'chose' because there is nothing even close to proving that "dna" has anything to do with it), then it remains terrible but is no more or less so than if someone had chosen to kill them for the money they were carrying or any other purpose. We need to punish for the crime - not the thought.

When did you choose to be straight? Gays and lesbians do not chose who they are attracted to...that lame thinking has been thoroughly debunked.

On the other hand, liberals never let a controversy go to waste.

people in other parts of the country think texas is intolerant because you outwardly appear to be. look at the governor you elected, there are some hate issue for sure there. if you want the rest of the country to think you're tolerant, then stop electing prominent officials that harbor those feelings.

Flip flopping Repub: You sound foolish, you also sound pretty hateful yourself.

it's not bad enough you broke a law, assaulted someone, killed someone - it's worse because of what you were THINKING when you did it. Welcome to Liberal Utopia, or what reasonable people recognize to be foolishness.

Strange, intent (what you are thinking) has always been a component of the crime. If I murder with poison in your drink it is first degree murder. If I shoot you in an argument it's second degree murder. If I strangle you after walking in to you in bed with my wife it's manslaughter. If I cut you in half with a chainsaw in self defense I'm off the hook. In all cases the person is dead.

The ONLY difference is my motivation. And we as a society have determined that targeting someone purely because of who they are is especially deplorable.

If you punish someone more for the assault or murder of a homosexual than that of a normal person based on "hate crime" laws, you are telling the person who is not homosexual that they and what they suffered are less important.

If a gang of homosexuals target me because I'm straight and beat me up it would also be a hate crime. If these girls were killed because the stumbled into a crime and were silenced it wouldn't be a hate crime even though they are gay. Try to understand the law before criticizing it.

Your right Prag - This made national news because it happened in Texas .

A gay man was murdered in New York by sexist cretons who seduced him online and lured him into an isolated area for a face to face meeting...this made national headlines a few years ago.

Yes, obviously this made national news because it was Texas, not because a lesbian couple was shot execution style, leaving one dead and the other critically injured.

This harkens back to Florida where a man brutally attacking another man and eating his face was obviously pushed to national headlines to force the false "liberal" belief that Florida is a horrible, drug-addled place...because of course, people are overdosing on bath salts and eating the faces of others all over the nation.

please list all rights outlined in the US constitution that homosexuals are denied? http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

heterosexuality comes naturally to our species, its is the ONLY natural way to reproduce, homosexuality is a defect but that does not mean they should be treated any different but they should also not be singled out. we need to study homosexuality more.

'hate crime' is a made up term used to give people more prison time and thus more profits for the bosses, it has nothing to do with justice, justice is blind but when you put special penalties it now becomes jaded. the only differences in crime in whether you intended to commit the crime or not.

can we get passed all these labels and just seek justice and the truth?

Has anyone noticed that everyone was smiling in the memorial photo? That was odd.

Swag, homosexuals can't marry.

QUIDAM12: "Just because they were gay doesn't mean that its a bigger crime than if they were straight. It has the same result.

Who do you think is going to feel less safe going out after dark in Texas this week--straight couples or gay couples?

The result is NOT the same.

Viper -

A "hate crime". The Thought Police are here: it's not bad enough you broke a law, assaulted someone, killed someone - it's worse because of what you were THINKING when you did it. Welcome to Liberal Utopia, or what reasonable people recognize to be foolishness.

Intent, thought, and motivation have always been a part of the criminal code. Murder, for example, requires that the accused willfully and intentionally killed another person. Capital murder usually requires premeditation. The difference between manslaughter and murder is all about thought. In fact, it is impossible to commit a crime without forming what is called criminal intent, and criminal intent must be proven during trial.

If you punish someone more for the assault or murder of a homosexual than that of a normal person based on "hate crime" laws, you are telling the person who is not homosexual that they and what they suffered are less important.

This would be true if the hate crime laws required only that the victim be homosexual. Hate crime laws do not deal with the victim directly, but rather the motivation of the perpetrator. For example, if I were to murder a gay man because he cut me off on the way to work, that would not be a hate crime. If, however, I murdered him because I believe he is an abomination in the eyes of God and deserves death, that is a hate crime.

Also, and this is a common misconception, criminal law is NOT ABOUT THE VICTIM. That is what civil trials are for. Criminal law is about punishing the criminal, while ensuring that the state does not overstep its authority. That is why a defendant has the RIGHT to face their accuser, no matter how painful or traumatic the experience may be for the victim.

If it does turn out to be that they chose to be lesbian (Yes, In-sun-we-trust, I said 'chose' because there is nothing even close to proving that "dna" has anything to do with it)

There are a couple problems here. First, why is DNA in quotes? Second, not everything that is innate is coded in the DNA. Hand dominance, for example, is coded as either right-handed or not defined. If an individual has DNA for undefined, they have an equal chance of being left or right handed. Third, behavioral traits, such as sexual preference, are the result of interactions of many genes with each other and the environment. As such, even if there is a genetic basis, it is very difficult to detect with modern methods. Fourth, many studies have suggested that there is AT LEAST a strong genetic component to sexual preference. Lastly, contrary to popular opinion, homosexuality is not an unnatural or uniquely human trait. Many species of penguins display homosexual behavior (as well as stuff that can only be described as really kinky) in the wild. In bonobo's, a subspecies of chimp, female homosexuality is frequently used to build social alliances. Hell, there is an entire species of lizard that is just female. They have mating rituals in which the two lizards alternate between the male- and female-like positions, but reproduce asexually.

People, people, people-- Marla fully understands the term "hate crime." Marla thinks it's a stupid distinction, as I mentioned above, instituted to try and make one crime against a protected class of people worse than another crime. If I kill a white man, no problem. I'm just a murderer. If I kill a black man, I'm a "racist" murderer, which, naturally, is far worse....it's absurd.

Murder is murder is murder. What does anyone care what my motive is? I'm motivated, obviously, by fury and hatred towards ANYONE I kill....duhhh.....this is liberal garbage, trying to make certain classes of people suddenly more protected. If this crime was committed by someone who hates gays, is it any more wrong than if it was someone who maybe happened to hate them for any other reason? Maybe a jilted lover? Maybe an angry family member-- who knows? But why is one worse than another?

Get real, my friends-- sin is sin is sin....murder is murder is murder....wake up.

You tell 'em Marla! @!$%#s shouldn't be identified as being a separate class neither!

Marla--I don't think she does understand it, and I'm not sure you do either, since you seem to think it's solely a device for screwing over the white man.

Hate crimes aren't about hate towards the individual. They're about hate towards a whole group, a whole class of people. Ignoring all the ways this can impact the victim--because I guarantee it feels different to die at the hands of a jilted lover than to die at the hands of a stranger for something that's part of your identity--hate crimes have a calculated social effect. They're tools of repression. They make it just a bit harder for gays to go walking after dark, and they make it just a bit easier for the next guy who decides he hates queers to go through with killing one. That's why it's more wrong--it's not just a murder, it's a message.

It's the same as the difference between murder and terrorism. I'm sure that's a difference you appreciate, right?

If I kill a white man, no problem. I'm just a murderer. If I kill a black man, I'm a "racist" murderer, which, naturally, is far worse....it's absurd.

Again, that is only true if you did not kill the white man because he is white, and you did kill the black man because he is black. The law protects against attacks based on specific traits, such race or sex, but it does not protect one variation of those traits over another (say, white vs. black). That has been found to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

Murder is murder is murder

No, it is not. There are many kinds of murder, each with varying degrees of severity, and they are distinguished from each other almost entirely by the motivation or thought of the criminal.

If this crime was committed by someone who hates gays, is it any more wrong than if it was someone who maybe happened to hate them for any other reason?

Yes. Yes, it is. And here is why: most crimes are committed for personal gain, be it financial, social, or political. In these cases, the criminal often feels wronged or mistreated (they almost never are), or there is some precipitating event that drives the person to commit the crime. This means that the crime occurs under specific circumstances which, if not present, dramatically reduce the probability of the crime occurring again. This means that such crimes are unlikely to happen repeatedly, and the psychological damage is limited to those immediately effected by the crime.

Hate crimes differ from this in two important ways. First, the circumstances motivating the crime are omnipresent, effectively increasing the likely-hood of repeating the crime. Second, because the crime is targeted at a whole group of people, most of whom are total strangers, rather than one person who committed some real or (more likely) imagined offense, the psychological impact is is spread to the entire group targeted. For example, lynching of blacks in the Pre-civil Rights deep south was explicitly used as a means of terrorizing the entire black populace, as opposed to punishing one black person.

Beautifully said hamjam!

Marla-3071717

You represent everything that is wrong with the conservative movement. Lack of education, understanding of bigger issues, oversimplification of complex problems, a complete inability to empathize with others and arrogance in the face of your own ignorance.

And does Marla ALWAYS refer to herself in the third person, or do you suffer from MPD and is one of your other personalities posting for Marla?

fear of our future

I can't believe that two young girls; lesbian or not, have just been murdered and half of you people are arguing about insignificant facts and useless information.

THIS IS WORTH A REPEAT!!! Best comment!

Prayers sent to victims, family, and friends!

Marla if you attack someone because they are black and black alone that is a hate crime. Simply being gay or having someone think you are is no reason to attack someone. If they were shot in the commission of a robbery, money would be the motive. Attacking someone for breathing while gay, in other words simply being alive and not of your sexuality or color or religion, that is a hate crime and that is what makes it different. No if you shoot your husband for cheating on you it isn't a hate crime, you don't hate him or you wouldn't care if he was cheating. I'm sick of people who simply don't or won't understand the difference.

Unless it's discovered the shooting was part of a robbery it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the shooting was done because someone saw two young women kissing, holding hands or some other indicator they were in a relationship. And if they were shot due to being lesbians, yes then that is a hate crime.

The law is not perfect and of course it is sometimes not simple enough. But due to historical prejudices against races, religions and current homophobia, it is necessary sometimes to protect the minority against crimes motivated by bigotry commonly practiced by a majority who suffers no such crimes and no such bigotry. Having a hate crimes law is a deterrent against prejudiced atrocities like lynching blacks or killing gays. It sends a message that prejudice, a common fact of life in America for all of its history, is not okay. We can't really move forward from issues like homophobia and racism without out at least acknowledging its existence. Hate crimes laws at part of that acknowledgement.

I was born and raised in Fort Worth, TX and still live there. And there are certain necessary criticisms of Texas and certain ideologies that shouldn't be part of "state pride."

People don't understand what a hate crime is because they are paranoid about how the U.S. is supposedly being taken over by minorities. They refuse to acknowledge that such crimes exist because they are afraid that if they support one thing, the whole nation will go to hell, which is totally absurd.

Richard, I understand things just fine-- I am not ill educated, thank you, nor do I suffer from lack of understanding and/or inability to empathize. I am not advocating violence, nor do I condone it. I am embarrassed, quite frankly, by those who pound their bibles and proudly proclaim "God hates fags," speaking for "Christians," and would justify any violence towards gays, or any human being.

My point is simple-- you'll say "overly" simple. The taking of a human life for any reason, other than self-defense or in the act of war, is heinous. I see all life as sacred. All crimes against mankind should be taken seriously, and punished the same. We should deal with the crime, and not the motive. I'm not a fan of penalizing people for their thoughts, and elevating their crime above another one.

You want to make the situation more complex than it needs to be-- maybe to make yourself feel better that "you understand" it and "I don't?" Who knows? A life was ended. Somebody ended it. I don't care why. That person needs to be caught and punished. How is that complicated?

From the sound of this article, it's possible it could very well have been suicide. Some gay supporters are quick to hop on the bandwagon. If only their wasn't blah....blah...blah, homosexuality wouldn't be what it is. While it's regrettable that two human beings lost their lives, I feel no sympathy for them because they were gay. Science has never established a biological cause for homosexuality, and the causes of homosexuality are generally unknown, so trying to martyr these two is begging the question by assuming that science has settled the question, or that it's natural to be homosexual, even when homosexuality is invalidated by gametes. just because they chose to be in a relationship with a member of the same sex doesn't put them on any kind of special pedestal. Human beings express emotions, that doesn't validate homosexuality, or make you more loving cause you're with a member of the same sex. There are a lot of single people, who can make others smile, who get passed over for other people, so I fail to see how their sexual orientation played a role in it at all. All these people touting gays really need to wake it, they're not statistically, exclusively, monogamous in relationships, and being homosexual has a lot of inherent problems.

Rose B said:

Can't help but wonder why the people in the picture look so happy?

IGHwoman said:

And why.... why are all of the people in the photo on the beach of an impromtu memorial to the attacked teenage girls, smiling, beaming, appearing to be celebrating???

Marcia said:

Has anyone noticed that everyone was smiling in the memorial photo? That was odd.

To the people in that photo who may be reading this now:

Celebrate the life your friend lived, for she lived it fully, loved openly and cared nothing for others' opinions of hate and narrowmindedness.

Remember her as she was, with a smile on her face and love in her soul. Remember the courage she had to follow her heart while flying in the face of societical norms and peer pressure; remember that she embodied the ultimate ideals of courage, unselfishness, happiness and being true to herself.

Mourn not the fact that she died; mourn the reasons (whatever they were) that got her killed, mourn the closed-mindedness of the person who did it even if it is eventually found that she was killed for her orientation. When justice comes, whether in this world or the next, forgive the one who did it.

To open your heart enough to forgive her killer is to gain the ultimate justice, for if this person killed her out of hate, then the best cure is to not spread that hate further. It may be hard to see now, but if you forgive, and love as she loved, then when you meet on the other side of that rainbow bridge there will be no sorrow or bitterness or ugliness to mar the joy of that reunion.

"Unable are the loved to die, for love is immortality."--Emily Browning

Was Sandusky's crime a hate crime? It's only a hate crime when a gay, lesbian, or a person other then a white man has a violent crime committed against them.

Amanda-- lovely post.

Itiswhatitis....I have no idea what you just said.

One last thought-- the article says "there is no clear evidence that the shooting has anything to do with the girls' lifestyle." So, why even have this debate?

I have a high school friend who today is celebrating 20 years with his husband-- they exchanged rings and are raising a daughter. I have always loved Bob. It would kill me to know that anyone would target him or Tony because of their lifestyle. I know it's happening. But, again, I'm not big on creating the thought police-- punish the crime, not the thoughts.

Amanda,

Human beings love, but what makes homosexual love superior to heterosexual love when homosexual love has no greater end than climax? I guess it's also not possible for heterosexuals to love regardless of the opinions of others? Also, from all indications this wasn't a hate crime, it was said to be a random happening, so what, beyond the homosexual propaganda you read in out monthly drove you to that conclusion in this case?

Horrible and, disgusting. Like all violent crime.

For everyone out there who are focusing on the 'lesbian' angle:

You are forgetting something very, very basic; whatever their sexual orientation, whatever they believed, whatever color their skin was, whatever color their hair was, their eyes, what music they listened to, whatever Higher Power they appealed to--they were, first and foremost, human beings. They bled, they cried, they laughed, they sang, they had the same feelings you have, that I have, that everyone else has. But they had something that some people never have; the courage to express themselves freely knowing that they could be ridiculed, marginalized, hated, for them simply expressing their feelings.

They were someone's daughter, friend, sister. They were CHILDREN. Children who still had an entire life to live, children who could have been anything, done anything, children who had the courage to put aside the small-minded prejudices related to race/gender/origin and saw in each other only another human being to be loved, cherished and cared for. If you are truly Christian and you deplored their preference of each other, remember they are children, and that Jesus himself said 'Suffer the children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." If you believe that Jesus, and therefore God, would cut this innocent child of His off from Heaven because of her preference, then I submit you may not be a true Christian and to examine your own heart. Mahatma Ghandi said, once, 'I would like Christians if they were more like their Christ.' I wholeheartedly agree with that.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in.

Hatred, intolerance, cold-heartedness and narrowmindedness in the name of God makes you no better than someone who truly mourns the lost potential in the death of this child and the scarring on the soul of another.

Wait...a bunch of ignorant liberals screaming hate crime when there's absolutely no evidence to back it up? Say it isn't so!

Texass.............when I was based there in the US Air Force, I had a classmate in Air Force Schools, we lived in bachelor officers quarters, and were stationed in San Antonio, then in Dallas, and finally in Wichita Falls...this friend,David had two degrees, in banking and in finance....back home,his Dad was a pharmacist.

Coming from the East Coast I'd never really witnessed anything like the profane,perverted and disgusting ways in which human beings can show disdain,hatred and vitriol towards another human being, as I did witness Texans show against my friend David who is a black man.

Time after time, we'd walk into restaurants, I'd see the look of hate or fear or distrust in the eyes of the Maitre'd, or the greeter at the front desk, and we'd be turned away with a barely concealed look of contempt at David...perhaps a shrug and a word that they were fully reserved, when you could observe a half filled facility....I'd return an hour or so later to see if my suspicions were correct, and find these places still had 50% empty tables...one time a college-age girl at the front desk looked down at the ground,embarrassed,and said she was sorry, but that the restaurant owner didn't want the word out to his white clientele, that his restaurant was "de-segregated"

David and I were Lieutenants in USAF uniforms

I have no use for Texass.

Amanda

Hitler, Stalin, and Jeffery Dahmer were also human beings. They bled, they cried, they laughed, they sang, they had the same feelings you have, that I have, that everyone else has, what's your point? Rapist and child molesters are human beings. Technically, any sexual behavior can be an "expression" of feelings, but that doesn't make it right.

First, they were 18 and 19 so, legally they were adults. Being a child was an expression of faith, not age, and Jesus also said, "If your right hand offends thee cut it off, along with Go and sin no more." What makes you think, just because Jesus was in the company of sinners He approved of their lifestyle? His message was "repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" Last thing I read, homosexuals don't inherent the kingdom.