Believe it or not, people have emigrated to the United States that did not make the voyage on the Mayflower. Nice try, teach.
You don't think people maybe came up with "hey, maybe we should make it illegal to kill people and steal things" on their own?
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."--Thomas Jefferson, Elementary school Act, 1817 "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3 "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe [credit] the absence of any regulation [law], respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" George Washington "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" John Adams
"You can’t run a country By a book of religion Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon Of foolish rules Of ancient date Designed to make You all feel great While you fold, spindle And mutilate Those unbelievers From a neighboring state" Frank Zappa
Places of birth: Washington - Virginia Jefferson - Virginia Adams - Mass Franklin - Mass Hancock - Mass Hamilton - West Indies...but went to NY to go to school, remained in the US after that. So how many of our framers immigrated (immigrate to, emigrate from) to the US for religious freedom? I sure am dumb, though, I still don't get the teacher "joke/insult."
Let's try the Golden Rule. So to all the proponents of public and proud displays of religious influence by our government, I ask you this: would you be equally gung-ho about blurring the line between government and religion if Muslim or Buddhism or Hinduism one day becomes the dominant religion in this country and their worshippers clamor for more public display by the government of their religion? There's a reason why the system has been built with many checks on tyranny of the majority. Problem is, the majority never seems to fathom that one day they may be in the minority needing the protection of such checks they once spurned and deemed inconvenient.
calurker, For some reason I can't make myself care that some day there might be a crescent moon or six pointed star in front of a courthouse. I don't see why people would care if the ten commandments are there. It wouldn't bother me if there was a display commemoration the revelation of the Koran to Muhammed on public land, or a burning bush, or Abraham offering up his child. Why is a Nativity so unbearable to other people? I am okay with having a short break for Muslims to pray at the requisite times at a public school, why do others have a problem with a short break for prayer in the morning? There is no tyranny in this. No one is saying the government should force conversions, give benefits to people of a certain religion, or anything of the kind. All I am saying is that any religious expression that people make, be it on public land or no, is not something that needs to be stamped out.
LOL, no they weren't. The constitution and the rest owe a lot more to Voltaire (he had some great views on the church) and the rest of the enlightenment thinkers, and our everyday law is based on English common law, which was most influenced by Roman law. This thread's working out real well for you.
which was influenced by Greeks, Egyptian and Aramaic cultures. Of course, people tend to forget that the Arabs can trace their roots back to the twelve tribes of Israel. (Both Jews and Arabs consider Abraham one of their forefathers.) Obviously, Jewish history had a huge impact on Christianity and, like it or not, Christianity had a huge impact on Roman law. Ergo, the Ten Commandments can easily be cited as a cornerstone of law. Now, whether you read the Bible, Torah and/or Koran as pure fact or fact mixed with allegory, the message is the same. Only mankind's interpretation and actions are screwed up. One by one we eventually shall all find out the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now, I have already expressed the purpose of this thread to one and all. However, let me clarify one aspect that some posters fail to understand merely because of their personal closed mindedness (isn't the basic tenet of liberalism "open mindedness?"). I do not want any religion being endorsed by any level of government. In the same vein, I do not want any level of government "rooting out" religious symbols and reference, whether Christian, non-Christian or atheist, just because they are in the public sphere. So, once again, my premise is that if we the people are so afraid of religious symbolism, then don't be half-hearted about it. Go all the way in eliminating religious references in our government and documentation. IMO, the red states will become redder and the blue states might even start to turn purple.
Ergo, no. Most of Roman law was written in the BC era or the very early AD era. So you're pretty much just flat wrong. Also, by the time Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th C, Rome's influence in England was going, going, and soon to be gone. You're 0-2 in history so far.
Disagree. First, much of Judaic law was written long before Rome was more than just seven hills. Second, the impact of the Christian religion was being felt as far back as the first Caesars. Third, just because the Romans had physically withdrawn from England does not mean their influence evaporated. I am not a proponent of revisionist history as you obviously are.
You "disagree" because you are "wrong". Just because it was written before it doesn't mean it influenced it. Jews were just one of many minorities in the Roman empire. They had about as much influence on Roman law as did Celtic law or Hun law - which is to say: pretty much none. In fact, most legal scholars concede that it was Roman law that influenced Talmudic law, and not vice versa. The entire Talmudic penal code was jacked from Roman law. In fact you'll find that early talmudic law used Greek and Roman terms regularly. You won't find one hebrew word in Roman law. Also, do you not know what "BC" means? I'm having a hard time reconciling Christian influence on the laws of this period. Please explain. Thanks! You're not a proponent of revisionist history - you're a proponent of fabricationist, talk out your ass history. Say hello to enbehay for me. I knew that name sounded familiar, and then I remembered a very enlightening discussion on social security. The memories....
I was honest, unlike you. This thread was accidentally re-opened and belongs in the "Glenn Beck Is A Lunatic" thread. Admins, please close.
