[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!! Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: College removes cross – from chapel!
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52646
Published: Oct 27, 2006
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2006-10-27 12:39:53 by bluegrass
Ping List: *New History*
Keywords: None
Views: 4399
Comments: 252

The cross from the altar area of the chapel at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., has been removed to ensure the space is seen as a nondenominational area, explains Melissa Engimann, assistant director for Historic Campus.

"In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area," Engimann announced in an e-mail to staff.

The cross will be returned to the altar for those who wish to use it for events, services or private prayer.

The cross was in place because of the college's former association with the Anglican Church. Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906, the room will still be considered a chapel, college officials said.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 237.

#1. To: bluegrass (#0)

This is kind of a private matter - it's not like this came from a court order, etc.

So it really is non of our business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   12:50:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732.

This is akin to what the Bolsheviks did to Russian religious history during their tyranny.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   13:05:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732.

It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:16:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.

I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school.

It's my biz.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   14:20:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school.

Then the cross should be removed since the state should not fund a religous specific chapel.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:22:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed.

The larger issue is that the State has no business supporting universities.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   14:25:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed.

A) I am against the existence of the Holocaust musuem in America - if it should exist anywhere it should be in Berlin/Europe.

With that said:

B) The Star of David was used as a identifying symbol by the Nazis so you could not have it removed from a museum that touches on the subject.

C) Was not the schismatic and heretical Anglican church founded by an overweight serial killer?

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:28:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.

I would keep the museum and make the Shoah exhibit a wing. It needs exhibits showing what happened to 'New World' peoples, and to peoples in all the other corners of the world when their particular 'holocausts' happened.

The lesson that the museum teaches is an important one, it just need to be reorganized and changed to show that this is a sort of thing that has happened in different degrees at different times in human history.

To make it just cover the Shoah, it sends the false message that what the Nazis did was highly unusual, when in fact, it isn't. The museum is needed because this sort of thing will happen again if we don't use all the tools at our disposal to remember history to keep from repeating it.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-27   14:39:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.

I don't know if any Nazi ever said that but they did openly modeled their laws on the Jews on the American South's Jim Crow laws.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:01:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   15:15:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.

The Jim Crow laws of the South - including laws against race mixing - were defended by referring to the Old Testament as recently as the 1960s.

The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:40:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.

As you yourself stated that the Jim Crow laws were also based on the OT, it's only logical that the Nazi laws were based on the same older source. It's a pretzel twisting of logic otherwise.

Streicher himself says that the Nazi race laws were based on the Mosaic laws.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   15:52:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Which is why our Founding Fathers made this a secular nation.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:54:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's beside the point.

The Nazi race laws were based on Mosaic laws. The followers of that Mosaic law are now ensconced in the power structure of this so-called "secular nation".

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   16:04:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's beside the point.

That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic - see conversation above before you introduced the 'Star of David' into the duscussion.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   16:10:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic

I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-27   16:36:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense.

It's not an example of political correctness - the chapel is being designated for non denominational use - like thousands of such chapels in school and hospitals all over America including the military.

Such chapels have no outward signs of religous denomination and symbols are brought ina nd out depending on the services given.

This school long ago gave up its denominational links. W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like.

This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   16:57:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like.

This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

"Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..."

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-27   17:15:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   15:30:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

destro: W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like. This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

scrapper: This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

"Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..."

destro: Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".

Oh stop it, your flip flops in the positions you have taken in the course of arguing the merits of W&M's decision fool no one and the ensuing spin only give me a headache like watching the theatrics of a Linda Blair understudy for the Exorcist role.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   16:18:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   17:08:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. I am a taxpayer and therefore and thusly I have every right to consider critically the decisions of the politically correct minions sitting behind desks who are minding my investments in education, as it were.

Speak for yourself if this is not your business - maybe you do not pay taxes - but I do - so shove your condescending remarks up your unemployed welfare consuming a** ( if that's your current situation).

I stand my the comments which I made in my initial #41 post to you( which I re- list below), and your subsequent contradictory arguments that have hopped all over the map have not pursuaded me otherwise.

destro: That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic

scrapper: I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   17:31:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding.

So?

Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   17:36:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. So?

Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution.

No we fought the revolution to have our own nation, not to be dominated by others, to be captains of our destiny.

In the course of building a nation we have accumulated traditions and a good deal of history.

Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view?

For how many decades have students of various denominations used this chapel to pray to their own faith's Lord and only now a Ms. Melissa Engifinkelstein oops Engimann, assistant director for the historic Campus, wants to remove the cross?

I'm sorry but our forefathers did not fight the revolution to take on the yoke of political correctness and self-serving views as promoted by the likes of Ms. Engimann. The fedgov't did not thrust a cross into the chapel of W&M out of the blue to promote a federally sanctioned religion. This cross has historical import to the school and no contemporary fast fade mortal has the right to dissolve history and tradition with a stroke of a pen to a memo. This self- important administrator should be over ruled forthwith by the university's board of governors. Let Ms. Engimann find a job elsewhere maybe flipping burgers at a non-denominational food outlet - she does not appreciate tradition or history and should be allowed near repositories of those values.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   18:17:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view?

This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   18:26:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson

Oh really? What a clever response.

Well you given me 2 out of context quotations and nothing from or about the man who laid down the principles of our Bill of Rights - George Mason - and whom George Washington (Mason's neighbor) and Thomas Jefferson greatly admired.

Fyi, George Mason was a heavy duty man of faith and along with his neighbor, George Washington, served on the [church] building committee of Truro Parish, which consisted of three churches.

There have been books published with George Washington's Prayers and his addresses to the churches. James Madison declared January 12, 1815 " A Day of Public Humiliation and Fasting"..."The two houses of the National Legislature having, by a joint resolution expressed their desire that, in the present time of public calamity and war, a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fasting, and of prayer to Almighty god for the safety and welfare of these States, his blessing on their arms and a speedy restoration of peace..."

So all in all I have every reason to believe that George Mason, George Washington, and James Madison would be appalled to see Ms. Engimann's somewhat small minded Christophic behavior. W&M became a public college in 1906, so for 60 long years students and administrators came and went without being offended by the cross in the college chapel and only now, 60 years later, an anti-Christian bureaucrat decides to tear assunder history and tradition "for the common good." Pardon me but I smell something rather odiferous and selfish in Ms. Engifinkelstein ooops Ms. Engimann's action.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   19:22:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well you given me 2 out of context quotations.......

Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.

It is no accident that blue blooded WASP Freemason/Skull&Bones man like Bush called Jesus his favorite philosopher.

To a student of the esoteric - such a statement was telling even if it went over people's heads.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   20:14:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.

The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:

"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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 preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

Also recall that almost from the inception there was an active movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring the US a Christian Nation. This effort repeatedly failed and the effort was eventually abandonned sometime around the Civil War.

...  posted on  2006-10-28   22:04:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Btw, nice informative post.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   23:02:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The type of Christians the Founding Fathers were in no way resembles how the fundamentalists in America make them out to be when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking. The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:

"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

Destro  posted on  2006-10-29   0:50:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:

The USA is and was a Christian nation. The founding fathers were practising Christians. The first amendment of the constitution guarantees a citizens right to practice his/her religion without interference from government. This article has nothing to do with government interfering or imposing a religion.

W&M was established as a private college and is the second oldest campus in the USA. W&M's chapel with its cross has been there since the college's founding. The cross remained in its chapel for 60 ( count them 6-0) long years after W&M was made a public college without causing problems for the students and professors. Suddenly in 2006 one non-Christian administrator has imposed her personal Christophobic beliefs on tradition and history. Her decision has ZERO to do with a federal or state order. No court order was issued to our best knowledge. She should be fired for imposing her will, her personal beliefs on a chapel that reflects Americana history and Christian tradition.

P.S. I'm not a Protestant but I am an American who respects tradition and history. I do not respect tyrants. I do not respect Ms. Engimann's decision.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-29   1:53:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The founding fathers were practising Christians.

Which ones?

"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...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

From: The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

Destro  posted on  2006-10-29   1:34:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Here are some good quotes from the founding fathers on this subject:

John Adams:

"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!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination." JOHN ADAMS

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison:

"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."

"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, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Ben Franklin:

His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

". . . 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 through Deist."

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:

"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. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

Thomas Paine:

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Thomas Jefferson:

ven most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"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."

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

George Washington:

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

...  posted on  2006-10-29   17:09:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Here are some good quotes from the founding fathers on this subject:

Can you direct me to the quotes where the founding fathers advocate the removal of crosses from Christian chapels on campuses? What if we were to go into synagogues and mosques on campuses and remove their symbols, turning their houses of worship into 'non-denominational' spaces? They wouldn't mind, would they?

I'm appalled that anyone would agree with this outrage to Christianity, and to religious belief in general, in America.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-30   13:18:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Can you direct me to the quotes where the founding fathers advocate the removal of crosses from Christian chapels on campuses?

If it's not my church why should I care? I consider female clergy an abomination before God - you don't see me torching heretical Protestant churches with female priests and bishops do you? (All Protestants are heretics).

Plenty of Protestant churches change with the wind. Their right. None of my business. Thank God.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   15:17:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If it's not my church why should I care?

Dunno. You're all over this thread so you must care on some level. You certainly don't seem to care about Christian chapels being de-Christianized.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-31   12:33:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If it's not my church why should I care?

Dunno. You're all over this thread so you must care on some level. You certainly don't seem to care about Christian chapels being de-Christianized.

He also advocates disunity among Christendom. What's that about if he is not a Christian? He posted he is not Greek Orthodox, so why bother?
And he hates America and he hates Muslims; he has posted so in very strong terms that would have him in trouble if it were another group he was posting about.

Yet this American government that he hates, he backs completely when it comes to the official story about 9/11.

Correct me if I have mischaracterized you Destro.

robin  posted on  2006-10-31   13:24:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yet this American government that he hates, he backs completely when it comes to the official story about 9/11.

Correct me if I have mischaracterized you Destro.

Wrong on all counts.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   13:58:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Wrong on all counts.

How so?

robin  posted on  2006-10-31   14:02:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't hate America - I hate her foreign policy (see Kosovo and Bosnia) and in some cases how she has strayed from her constitution where so called conservatives like you actually want the govt involved in some areas but not involved in others. Basically, you types what the govt on your side and when its not on your side advocating your position then you bitch about govt interference.

I don't accept the whole govt story on 9/11 - I just scoff at the notion of a Rube Goldberg like conspiracy where there is coordination between the flights and a whole ground team of demolition experts who prepped the sight with explosives days or hours in advance. That's an example of limited American intellect not able to grasp how the real world works.

I try not to hate Muslims but what's to like? Their whole belief system is alien to my classical Western sensibilities and they are hostile to the way the West thinks - while other alien cultures like Hinduisim for example and Japanese Shintoisim seem to co-exist fine with the West.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   14:15:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't accept the whole govt story on 9/11 - I just scoff at the notion of a Rube Goldberg like conspiracy where there is coordination between the flights and a whole ground team of demolition experts who prepped the sight with explosives days or hours in advance. That's an example of limited American intellect not able to grasp how the real world works.

We've been over this and you could not disprove any of the evidence presented on any of the 9/11 threads.

how she has strayed from her constitution where so called conservatives like you actually want the govt involved in some areas but not involved in others.

I want the government involved only as far as the Constitution allows, which is some but not much. Labels don't mean much anymore.

robin  posted on  2006-10-31   14:38:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

We've been over this and you could not disprove any of the evidence presented on any of the 9/11 threads.

1) You can't prove a negative.

2) You guys have not proved a thing - where are your court cases? If your evidence is good enough go to court and charge the govt with wrongful death and get a jury of your peers to agree or rise up and start killing the govt men.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   14:54:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

1) You can't prove a negative.

It's not about proving negatives. There's no evidence to back up the original claims of 19 Arabs hijacking planes.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-31   14:58:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There's no evidence to back up the original claims of 19 Arabs hijacking planes.

Why not? I saw America training and arming thousands of jihadi Muslims in the 90s so they can do their master's bidding.

See Bosnia and Kosovo (where the 9/11 Muslims organized from with help from MI6 and the CIA and Pentagon).

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   15:05:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Then post the hard evidence of 19 Arabs hijacking planes on 9/11. It should be easy to do.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-31   15:07:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Then post the hard evidence of 19 Arabs hijacking planes on 9/11. It should be easy to do.

Prove they were not.

Like I said I accept the hypothesis of collusion between the CIA and al-Qaeda. I accept that 9/11 was either a collusion (they worked with al-Qaeda) or omission (it was allowed to happen) or blow-back.

You on the other hand are a deluded dogmatist who thinks he has all the inside knowledge by virtue of some sort of psychic osmosis of fact you have no first hand knowledge about.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   15:19:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove they were not.

You just contradicted yourself. Gain a little consistency and you'll be worth debating.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-31   15:27:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You just contradicted yourself. Gain a little consistency and you'll be worth debating.

Pray tell show me where. I am used to the prattling of dim witted Americans - I relish this opportunity for one to show me up.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   15:29:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Pray tell show me where. I am used to the prattling of dim witted Americans - I relish this opportunity for one to show me up.

Several posters have many times on several threads.

Your cartoon identity was also revealed.

robin  posted on  2006-10-31   15:36:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In post #223, you stated: "You can't prove a negative" and then you asked that a negative be proven.

A little consistency would serve you well.

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Evidence does exist which I am sure you do not accept of Arabs in the airplanes.

The communication with air traffic controllers by the Arabs, the video from the security cameras showing them at the airport.

I am sure that you will find reasons enough to reject such facts but what that is not a sign of no evidence - just evidence you discount.

On the other hand you have nothing to indicate that what took the place on those airplanes to make them act as they did - unless you delve into robot planes and such.

Americans are not a bright people - hence their being butchered in Iraq.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   15:47:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Americans are not a bright people - hence their being butchered in Iraq.

The Bush Cabal is full of idiots, especially in Cheney's office; they're NeoConservatives who sprang from Straussian Trotskyites. Wolfowitz promised it would be a cake walk that would require just a few troops, since our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That's the NeoCons that are running this war, not the American people, the polls show the people want out of this war.

That the WTC was a demolition is the simplest explanation. Pancaking buildings do not fall at that rate. They fell into their own footprint, there are even variously sourced videos showing the typical squibs known to the industry. But then, this has been explained to you many times now.

It looks just like a demolition. That's the simplest answer.

And then there's Lucky Larry Silverstein.

Plenty of motive too. The NeoCons published how much they wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" event to justify all their wars.

robin  posted on  2006-10-31   15:59:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That the WTC was a demolition is the simplest explanation.

Only if you are ignorant.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-31   16:01:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#238. To: Destro (#237)

That's not even a logical answer, but it's all you have just personal attacks.

robin  posted on  2006-10-31 16:05:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]