Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/8/2004 7:21:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 7:37:24 AM EST by BenDover]
There is much speculation on the religious nature of the United States of America as it was founded. Many Christians assert that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and, therefore, it is not only our right but their duty to reclaim it for God. But is America a Christian nation in the true sense of the word?

To call anyone or anything "Christian," whether an individual or a nation, certain criteria must be met. If we are speaking of an individual, the Biblical requirements are that he must be born again by the Spirit of God, understanding all that this entails.

If we are speaking of a nation, its purpose must be that of ministry in the name of Jesus Christ alone, without regard to any other gods. Its primary charter must be the Bible, and all who hold positions of authority must be individuals who meet the criteria necessary to call themselves Christians. A true Christian nation would be a theocracy governed by God through His prophets. Yaweh's law would reign supreme in the hearts and minds of that nation's founders, and all who founded the nation would have to meet the criteria necessary to call themselves Christians. Just as important, the nation would have to have been created in response to a covenant initiated by God with those who founded it.

As a point of information, the Pilgrims did not found the United States; they founded a small colony that eventually got swallowed up by the states and the newly formed federal government.

The belief that the Mayflower Compact was the basis for a Christian nation has caused many to attempt to reestablish what never existed: a Christian nation based upon Biblical precepts and founded upon a covenant relationship with God. What is overlooked is that the Mayflower Compact reaffirmed loyalty to the King of England; its framers never intended to found an independent state.

Ignoring, and even twisting the facts of history, "Christian" dominionists quote some of the founding fathers whose words seem to indicate faith in Jesus Christ. But many quoted were Freemasons who highly regarded Jesus as a man who attained the highest degree of moral enlightenment.

The words of many Freemasons might lead the uninformed to believe that they are true brethren in Christ. An example is this statement from a Masonic publication:

God may have other words for other worlds, but His supreme Word for this world, yesterday, today, forever, is Christ! He is the central Figure of the Bible, its crown, its glory, its glow-point of vision and revelation. Take Him away and its light grows dim. He fulfilled the whole Book, its history, its poetry, its prophecy, its ritual, even as He fulfills our deepest yearning and our highest hope. Ages have come and gone, but He abides-abides because He is real, because he is unexhausted, because He is needed. Little is left today save Christ-Himself smitten and afflicted, bruised of God and wounded-but He is all we need. If we hear Him, follow Him, obey Him, we shall walk together in a new world wherein dwelleth righteousness and love-He is the Word of God (Joseph Fort Newton, "The Great Light in Masonry," Little Masonic Library, Vol. 3, p. 177).

Unless we recognize that the theosophical philosophy of Freemasonry attributes its own definitions to Biblical language, we won't understand the author's meaning. We might consider him a Christian.

Only the most naive would not know that many who claim to be Christians do not meet the required criteria. Such is the case with Freemasons. While Freemasonry has an outward show of religious faith, the tenets of Freemasonry preclude any truly born-again believer from belonging.

Space doesn't allow for a full treatise on Freemasonry's religious philosophy, but true Christians will recognize from another statement in the same publication that the Faith is not compatible with Freemasonry:

Into Freemasonry have been poured the irradiations of the mystical schools of antiquity. Particularly is this so in the higher degrees of the Order, such as the Scottish Rite, where undeniable traces of Cabalism, neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism, and other mystical cults are plainly discernible. I do personally contend that Freemasonry is the direct descendent of the Mysteries, but that our ritual makers of the higher degrees have copied the ancient ceremonies of initiation so far as the knowledge of those ceremonies exists (Henry R. Evans, A History of the York and Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, p. 8).

Because most Christians today are unaware of the manner in which Christianity was melded with the esoteric philosophies of theosophy and Jewish Cabalism to produce a hybrid mystery religion known as Freemasonry, they offer quotes from many of our founding fathers as evidence that they were Christians. Indeed, some were even clerics. But just as one of today's most famous clerics, Norman Vincent Peale, was a Freemason (prelate of the Grand Encampment of the Knights Templar of the United States), many of the nation's founding fathers were also Freemasons who used peculiar definitions of Biblical language in asserting their beliefs.

This is not to say that they were not noble men. Freemasons pride themselves in their noble attitudes and adherence to strict moral codes. These are not "evil" men in the classical sense. But they lived in opposition to Christian beliefs, and their religious philosophy embraces all religions as valid. To be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be a Christian.

Based upon the evidence of Masonic influences in the establishment of this nation, there is no doubt that the criteria necessary to classify the United States as a Christian nation were not met. An objective study of the Masonic affiliations of the founding fathers should cause Christians to reevaluate their own political philosophy.

20 GREATEST NAMES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

John Adams - Spoke favorably of Freemasonry -- never joined
Samuel Adams - (Close and principle associate of Hancock, Revere & other Masons
Ethan Allen - Mason
Edmund Burke - Mason
John Claypoole - Mason
William Daws - Mason
Benjamin Franklin - Mason
Nathan Hale - No evidence of Masonic connections
John Hancock - Mason
Benjamin Harrison - No evidence of Masonic connections
Patrick Henry - No evidence of Masonic connections
Thomas Jefferson - Deist with some evidence of Masonic connections
John Paul Jones - Mason
Francis Scott Key - No evidence of Masonic connections
Robert Livingston - Mason
James Madison - Some evidence of Masonic membership
Thomas Paine - Humanist
Paul Revere - Mason
Colonel Benjamin Tupper - Mason
George Washington - Mason
Daniel Webster - Some evidence of Masonic connections
Summary: 10 Masons, 3 probable Masons, 1 Humanist, 2 Advocates of Freemasonry, 4 no record of connections.

SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Known Masons (8): Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Robert Treat Payne, Richard Stockton, George Walton, William Whipple

Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (7): Elbridge Berry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, Roger Sherman

Summary: 15 of 56 Signers were Freemasons or probable Freemasons.

It's true that this represents only 27% of the total signers. But this 27% included the principle movers of the Revolution, most notably Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the primary authors of the Declaration. The former was a Freemason, the latter a deist and possible Freemason. If one were to analyze the Declaration, he would see the humanistic influences.

In any event, there is no evidence that even 27% of the signers were true Christians. In considering whether or not this is a Christian nation, it isn't the number of Masons that is as important as is the number of founders overall who were non-believers.

SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Known Masons (9): Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Blair, David Brearly, Jacob Broom, Daniel Carrol, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Rufus King, George Washington

Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (13): Abraham Baldwin, William Blount, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Lansing, Jr., James Madison, George Mason, George Read, Robert Morris, Roger Sherman, George Wythe

Those Who Later Became Masons (6): William Richardson Davie, Jr., Jonathan Dayton, Dr. James McHenry, John Francis Mercer, William Patterson, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Summary: 28 of 40 signers were Freemasons or possible Freemasons based on evidence other than Lodge records.

MASONIC INFLUENCES IN EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY

- Lafayette, French liaison to the Colonies, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason.

- The majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of "Army Lodges."

- Most of Washington's Generals were Freemasons.

- The Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the "Freemasons' Arms," and "the Headquarters of the Revolution."

- George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge.

- The Cornerstone of the Capital building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland.

Even if the initiators of the Revolution had been Christians, the fact remains that the Revolutionary War and the nation's government were structured by the tenets of Freemasonry, not God's Word. The Bible states that God has made one nation of all: the Church. It is the Church that is the "Christian nation," not the social and political institutions of the world.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:30:13 AM EST
Since when is Freemasonry a religion?

AFAIK, Freemasonry requires its membership to believe in a higher power, but that does not make Freemasonry a religion.

I'm sure there are Masons here with something to add.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:36:39 AM EST
It's subjective. Food for thought.

There's a lot of argument of whether or not the FFs were Christian based on quotes of their exact writings. Rather than pursue that argument track, I have chosen to consider ancillary beliefs of the FFs in consideration of the claim that this nation was founded on Christianity. By examining the nature of Freemason beliefs as it correlates with Biblical belief, we can better arrive at a conclusion about their philosophical mindset as it relates to Christianity.

Keep in mind that the Freemasons of today are (like most other things) diluted from the original practice.

ETH... I am waiting.....
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:49:41 AM EST
Its all fine and dandy to wonder what the founding fathers' religious beliefs were, but that has no bearing on the fact that we are today a multi-cultural , secular nation. No religion should hold sway or prominence in the nations day to day secular activities. What people do in the privacy of their houses of worship and homes to practice their faith,as long as it does not intrude on anyone else, is their business.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:55:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:01:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:04:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:06:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:07:08 AM EST
I would like to think that this country was founded as a FREE nation, first and foremost. People have the right to worship in that way that they choose and that even includes not worshiping at all. The fact that we've been called a "Christian" nation has more to do with the large number of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestans that settled here then it has to do with the nation, per say. There are a bunch of people in this country that call them selves Christian but don't follow the tenets of Christ. Just like many hold other believes without any real practices of those believes.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:10:33 AM EST
Hmmm.....

I occasionally follow the goings on over at the DU cesspool and someone not more than a couple of days ago posted a thread concerning information on how to refute claims made by those who say that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Ben, do you post over there too? Dancing with the devil in order to try to make a point here is only going to get you burned.

I would post a cold link, but since i'm not a donor I can't do a search.

Strange.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:11:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:32:50 AM EST
Damn Bendover, you sure are on a anti religious crusade aren't ya ?
Just put your strip club up somewhere and have at it.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:39:04 AM EST
Actually, it's not an anti-religious crusade. It's an anti-evangelical, moralist legislation campaign.

People can believe what they want to, and I can co-exist with them quite peacefully -- up to the point where they persist in converting me and passing legislation which may affect me based upon their religious beliefs.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:47:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:47:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The United State is NO MORE a Christian nation than Egypt is a Moslem nation!

Check it out!

Eric The(Eccentric)Hun



So as a Christian in Egypt I should feel free to tell the government to stop that infernal call to prayer as an infringement of my rights.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:51:09 AM EST
There is some dispute as to their Christianess, but I think we can safely assume they were not mooslims however…

Andy
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:17:45 PM EST
Your first post looks strikingly similar to what is written on this site:

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Letter/v4n1-1.htm

If you edit, alter, or include any BDM computer data files in whole or part in your material, you must place the following note on all copies: "Parts of this publication have been included verbatim or have been adapted from material copyrighted by BDM. Used by permission."
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:27:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
There is much speculation on the religious nature of the United States of America as it was founded.




The ONLY speculation is by those who don't want to accept what is plainly evident.

Namely, that most all the FF knew the USA would cease to exist as a free nation if its rulers didn't embrace IN THEIR OWN LIVES the principles of Biblical Christianity. How exatly that PERSONAL faith would evidence itself in public laws is more open to debate.

Are you gonna make me trot out again my FF quotes??



Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:35:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 6:38:00 PM EST by garandman]
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, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

>>>>>> George Washington, Farewell Address of 1796

…we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

>>>>>> John Adams, “To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts”

….can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God??

>>>>>> “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson

That there is one God Father of the Universe…
That He ought to be worshipped by Adoration Prayer and Thanksgiving both in public and in private…
That virtuous men ought to league together to strengthen the Interest of Virtue; and so strengthen themselves in virtue…

>>>>> Ben Franklin, “Doctrine to be Preached” 1731

…it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand…the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue…

>>>>>> John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776

The smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained.

>>>>>> George Washington, “First Inaugural Address” April 30, 1789

Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to the good governemtn and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

>>>>>> “Northwest Ordinance: Article 3” July 13, 1787, as drafted vy Thomas Jefferson

We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succedd in this political building no better than the builders of Babel…

I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to do business…

>>>>>> Ben Franklin, Invocation for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor…{I} recommend….a day of public thanksgiving….by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God…affording them…a form of government for their safety and happiness.

>>>>>> George Washington, “Thanksgiving Proclamation” October 3, 1789

I am glad to hear that you have frequent opportunities of preaching among the great. If you can gain tehm to a good and exemplary life, wonderful changes will follow in he manners of the lower ranks.

>>>>>> Benjamin Franklin to George Whitefield, July 6, 1749

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican form of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty, and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws;the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will eb violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure the public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. Intriguing men can never safely be trusted.

>>>>>> Noah Webster, “Advice to the Young” excerpted from “Value fo the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion” 1834

Here is my creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by His providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the sould of man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the sysytem of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.

>>>>>> Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, March 9, 1790

The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, and the most refined policy, that ever was conceived upon earth. It is the most republican book in the world…the curses against fornication and adultery, and the prohibition of every wanton glance or libidinous ogle at a woman, I believe to be the only system that ever did or ever will preserve a republic in the world.

>>>>>> John Adams to Benjamin Rush, February 2, 1807

I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

It is foreign to my purpose to hint at the arguments which establish the truth of the Christian revelation. My only business is to declare, that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil government.

>>>>>> Benjamin Rush, “Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic” 1798

Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run….Few words will be necessary….Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered, be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss.

>>>>>>n Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Jefferson Smith at the request of a friend, February 21, 1825.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:37:57 PM EST
Link provided: www.probe.org/docs/declaration.html

The Declaration and the Constitution:
Their Christian Roots
Kerby Anderson

The Declaration of Independence
Many are unaware of the writings and documents that preceded these great works and the influence of biblical ideas in their formation. In the first two sections of this article, I would like to examine the Declaration of Independence. Following this, we'll look at the Constitution.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress calling for a formal declaration of independence. However, even at that late date, there was significant opposition to the resolution. So, Congress recessed for three weeks to allow delegates to return home and discuss the proposition with their constituents while a committee was appointed to express the Congressional sentiments. The task of composing the Declaration fell to Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson's initial draft left God out of the manuscript entirely except for a vague reference to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Yet, even this phrase makes an implicit reference to the laws of God.

The phrase "laws of nature" had a fixed meaning in 18th century England and America. It was a direct reference to the laws of God in a created order as described in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government and William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

What Jefferson was content to leave implicit, however, was made more explicit by the other members of the committee. They changed the language to read that all men are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights. Later, the Continental Congress added phrases which further reflected a theistic perspective. For example, they added that they were "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions" and that they were placing "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

The Declaration was not drafted in an intellectual vacuum, nor did the ideas contained in it suddenly spring from the minds of a few men. Instead, the founders built their framework upon a Reformation foundation laid by such men as Samuel Rutherford and later incorporated by John Locke.

Rutherford wrote his book Lex Rex in 1644 to refute the idea of the divine right of kings. Lex Rex established two crucial principles. First, there should be a covenant or constitution between the ruler and the people. Second, since all men are sinners, no man is superior to another. These twin principles of liberty and equality are also found in John Locke's writings.
John Locke and the Origin of the Declaration
Although the phrasing of the Declaration certainly follows the pattern of John Locke, Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.

Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke's Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his book Defending the Declaration,

Locke explained that the "law of nature" is God's general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men. Locke drew the idea from the New Testament in Romans 1 and 2. In contrast, he spoke of the "law of God" or the "positive law of God" as God's eternal moral law specially revealed and published in Scripture.{1}

This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for "light and transient causes." They were mindful that they should be "in subjection to the governing authorities" which "are established by God" (Romans 13:1). Yet when they suffered from a "long train of abuses and usurpations," they argued that "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government."

The Declaration also borrowed from state constitutions that already existed at the time. In fact, the phraseology of the Declaration greatly resembles the preamble to the Virginia Constitution, adopted in June 1776. The body of the Declaration consists of twenty-eight charges against the king justifying the break with Britain. All but four are from state constitutions.{2}

Jefferson no doubt drew from George Mason's Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that "all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety." Mason also argued that when any government is found unworthy of the trust placed in it, a majority of the community "hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible Right to Reform, alter, or abolish it."
Constitution and Human Nature
The influence of the Bible on the Constitution was profound but often not appreciated by secular historians and political theorists. Two decades ago, Constitutional scholars and political historians (including one of my professors at Georgetown University) assembled 15,000 writings from the Founding Era (1760-1805). They counted 3154 citations in these writings, and found that the book most frequently cited in that literature was the Bible. The writers from the Foundering Era quoted from the Bible 34 percent of the time. Even more interesting was that about three-fourths of all references to the Bible came from reprinted sermons from that era.{3}

Professor M.E. Bradford shows in his book, A Worthy Company, that fifty of the fifty-five men who signed the Constitution were church members who endorsed the Christian faith.{4}

The Bible and biblical principles were important in the framing of the Constitution. In particular, the framers started with a biblical view of human nature. James Madison argued in Federalist #51 that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature.

But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.{5}

Framing a republic requires a balance of power that liberates human dignity and rationality and controls human sin and depravity.

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.{6}

A Christian view of government is based upon a balanced view of human nature. It recognizes both human dignity (we are created in God's image) and human depravity (we are sinful individuals). Because both grace and sin operate in government, we should neither be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. Instead, the framers constructed a government with a deep sense of biblical realism.
Constitution and Majority Tyranny
James Madison in defending the Constitution divided the problem of tyranny into two broad categories: majority tyranny (addressed in Federalist #10) and governmental tyranny (addressed in Federalist #47-51).

Madison concluded from his study of governments that they were destroyed by factions. He believed this factionalism was due to "the propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities" (Federalist #10) which he believed were "sown in the nature of man." Government, he concluded, must be based upon a more realistic view which also accounts for this sinful side of human nature.

A year before the Constitutional Convention, George Washington wrote to John Jay that, "We have, probably, had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our federation." From now on, he added, "We must take human nature as we find it."

Madison's solution to majority tyranny was the term extended republic. His term for the solution to governmental tyranny was compound republic. He believed that an extended republic with a greater number of citizens would prevent factions from easily taking control of government. He also believed that elections would serve to filter upward men of greater virtue.

Madison's solution to governmental tyranny can be found in Federalist #47-51. These include separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.

Madison realized the futility of trying to remove passions (human sinfulness) from the population. Therefore, he proposed that human nature be set against human nature. This was done by separating various institutional power structures. First, the church was separated from the state so that ecclesiastical functions and governmental functions would not interfere with religious and political liberty. Second, the federal government was divided into three equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Third, the federal government was delegated certain powers while the rest of the powers resided in the state governments.

Each branch was given separate but rival powers, thus preventing the possibility of concentrating power into the hands of a few. Each branch had certain checks over the other branches so that there was a distribution and balance of power. The effect of this system was to allow ambition and power to control itself. As each branch is given power, it provides a check on the other branch. This is what has often been referred to as the concept of "countervailing ambitions."
Constitution and Governmental Tyranny
James Madison's solution to governmental tyranny includes both federalism as well as the separation of powers. Federalism can be found at the very heart of the United States Constitution. In fact, without federalism, there was no practical reason for the framers to abandon the Articles of Confederation and draft the Constitution.

Federalism comes from foedus, Latin for covenant. "The tribes of Israel shared a covenant that made them a nation. American federalism originated at least in part in the dissenting Protestants' familiarity with the Bible."{7}

The separation of powers allows each branch of government to provide a check on the other. According to Madison, the Constitution provides a framework of supplying "opposite and rival interests" (Federalist #51) through a series of checks and balances. This theory of "countervailing ambition" both prevented tyranny and provided liberty. It was a system in which bad people could do least harm and good people had the freedom to do good works.

For example, the executive branch cannot take over the government and rule at its whim because the legislative branch has been given the power of the purse. Congress must approve or disapprove budgets for governmental programs. A President cannot wage war if the Congress does not appropriate money for its execution.

Likewise, the legislative branch is also controlled by this structure of government. It can pass legislation, but it always faces the threat of presidential veto and judicial oversight. Since the executive branch is responsible for the execution of legislation, the legislature cannot exercise complete control over the government. Undergirding all of this is the authority of the ballot box.

Each of these checks was motivated by a healthy fear of human nature. The founders believed in human responsibility and human dignity, but they did not trust human nature too much. Their solution was to separate powers and invest each branch with rival powers.

Biblical ideas were crucial in both the Declaration and the Constitution. Nearly 80 percent of the political pamphlets published during the 1770s were reprinted sermons. As one political science professor put it: "When reading comprehensively in the political literature of the war years, one cannot but be struck by the extent to which biblical sources used by ministers and traditional Whigs undergirded the justification for the break with Britain, the rationale for continuing the war, and the basic principles of Americans' writing their own constitutions."{8}

Notes:

{1}Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1989), 57.
{2}Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988, 114.
{3}Ibid., 140.
{4}M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982).
{5}James Madison, Federalist, #51 (New York: New American Library, 1961), 322.
{6}Ibid., Federalist #55, 346.
{7}Lutz, Origins, 43
{8}Ibid., 142.

© 2003 Probe Ministries
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:09:48 PM EST
They were Deists:

DEISM DEFINED

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

This common sense approach to God and a spiritual philosophy can not only bring a lasting profound sense of peace and happiness to the individual, but it also has the potential to go light years in eradicating religious fear, superstition and violence.

What is the basis of Deism? Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God.

Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

Do Deists pray? Only prayers of thanks and appreciation. We don't dictate to God.

How do Deists view God? We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Is Deism a cult? It's impossible for Deism to be a cult because Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to "question authority" no matter what the cost.

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

What's Deism's answer to all the evil in the world? Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.


www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:11:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:

ETH... I am waiting.....




No, you're trolling. What's gotten in to you lately?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:12:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By martinmayhem:
Your first post looks strikingly similar to what is written on this site:

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Letter/v4n1-1.htm

If you edit, alter, or include any BDM computer data files in whole or part in your material, you must place the following note on all copies: "Parts of this publication have been included verbatim or have been adapted from material copyrighted by BDM. Used by permission."




0WNED
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:27:01 PM EST
How crazy are you? Eric is a fundy and a LAWYER. Why would you even attempt to engage him in an honest and meaningful conversation? He is an idealogue with a fundamentalist agenda and the lawyer in him allows him to name call, set up repeated straw men, and pander to his audience rather than address the issues.

Save your breath.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:58:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:50:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 3:07:09 AM EST by garandman]

Originally Posted By jimb100:
How crazy are you? Eric is a fundy and a LAWYER. Why would you even attempt to engage him in an honest and meaningful conversation? He is an idealogue with a fundamentalist agenda and the lawyer in him allows him to name call, set up repeated straw men, and pander to his audience rather than address the issues.

Save your breath.



ANd while your slinging BS, pleasee just go ahead and tell us you are without agenda, and pure as the driven snow, without bias, without preconceptions , someone who always engages in "honest and meaningful conversation" who never panders .




Please. Prolly no one in this forum ahs disagreed more vociferously with ETH than I. But he is a man of charachter. NOT perfect, but your insult of him here, dare I say its, makes me observe his charchter to be greater than yours.

Even if you were right about ETH (which you aren't) your comment was designed NOT to debate or enlighten or to promote "honest and meaningful conversation" but rather to hurt, cut and damage.

And that is sad.

Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:11:07 PM EST
Well, here's a thought...

1) The professed religeon of the day was Christiantity. Almost universally.

Were they modern-day evangelicals? No. But were they Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim? No. Were they new-agers, secular humanists, or any of the like? No - that was basically unthinkable at the time.

2) The concept of 'freedom of religeon', and the attendant first Ammendment is not a right to 'Freedom FROM religeon' any more than the First Ammendment 'free speech' clause is a right to absolute immunity from public scorn & professional/financial/personal reprocussions if you make an ass of yourself with your mouth.

3) The concept of a 'Christian nation' created by force of law is a sham, since Christiantity requires that we choose God of our own free will (a/o under the heel of government).

The real issue is the perversion of the 1st Ammendment's 'Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religeon or restricting the free exercise thereof' to mean a mandate for a religeon-free public life, lest we 'affend' the Ebaneezer Scrooges of the world who can't bear to hear SOMEONE ELSE express their religeos convictions.

IMHO, students should be able to pray in school & lead others who wish to partake in the free exercise of religeon. Religeous groups should have equal access to public funds & facilities alongside secular groups, to truely give equal respect to 'establishments'. But of course, for those who oppose the very IDEA of religeon (any religeon, usually), this is an anathema. It is for those people that the 1st Ammendment was written, to PROTECT us against the restrictions on our freedom that they would impose.

P.S. Don't get into the 'so what if Satanists want access' deal. There is a line between legitimate religeons & cults, that society has held for years. The aforementioned group is considered a cult, a/o Christiantiy/Judaisim/Islam/Hinduismetc...

Well, you could call militant Islam a cult, I guess. It will probably be seen as such soon enough...
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:14:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Keep in mind that the Freemasons of today are (like most other things) diluted from the original practice.

ETH... I am waiting.....



IIRC, the Masons go all the way back to one of the old Crusader orders...

Hence the fixation on Solomon's Temple & such...
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 11:13:52 PM EST
Freemasons declare a belief in a higher power. 12 step programs require faith in a higher power as well. Does this mean that everyone in AA is an athiest?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:10:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrsGloftoe:
Freemasons declare a belief in a higher power. 12 step programs require faith in a higher power as well. Does this mean that everyone in AA is an athiest?



12 steps do not require any such thing, at least in my experience as a sponsor and counselor.

They may recommend spirituality, but it's not a demand or prerequisite. Had it been, I wouldn't have sought help many years ago. I didn't replace my bottle with a bible, nor would I have signed up for a program which expected me to.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 1:44:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 10:57:45 AM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
3) The concept of a 'Christian nation' created by force of law is a sham, since Christiantity requires that we choose God of our own free will (a/o under the heel of government).


Laws that reuire a person go to church forces that religion down the throats of non-believers; the existence of such laws in the colonies shows that choosing the religion was not strictly a voluntary choice.
In more modern times, the existence of Sunday blue laws forced the religious choices of one particular religion on everyone in society.



IMHO, students should be able to pray in school & lead others who wish to partake in the free exercise of religon.


They can already pray...in private. If they want to meet as a group after school hours, they can meet in area churches.



Link Posted: 5/10/2004 3:11:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

They can already pray...in private. If they want to meet as a group after school hours, they can meet in area churches.






So you are saying INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS should be PROHIBITED from meeting as a group to pray on school grounds?

Care to explain to me how that is NOT "prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" Cuz I got a WHOLE LIST of places I would like to prohibit you from speaking your mind. [}:D} NOT.

Open minded...tolerant. BULL.

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:13:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:22:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By jimb100:
How crazy are you? Eric is a fundy and a LAWYER. Why would you even attempt to engage him in an honest and meaningful conversation? He is an idealogue with a fundamentalist agenda and the lawyer in him allows him to name call, set up repeated straw men, and pander to his audience rather than address the issues.


Got your ass handed to you one too many times, eh, Jimmy?

Save your breath.

You should take your own advice on this point.

Eric The(HonestAsTheDayIsLong)Hun



On another board I made the challenge that "even a lawyer would agree with me". What a mistake it is to ask a lawyer to agree. They make their living "disagreeing". Anyway this lawyer(ess) disagreed, claiming that she is formidable because people equate her voice to a buzzsaw working on their ass, true enough.

On another note and from a Federalist e-mail


"Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes that the teachings of
the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and
social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure
ourselves what that life would be if these standards were removed.
We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both
public and private morals; all the standards which we, with more or
less resolution, strive to raise ourselves." --Theodore Roosevelt
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:59:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
12 steps do not require any such thing, at least in my experience as a sponsor and counselor.



Hm.. God or a higher power are mentioned in 6 out of the twelve steps.

I never said anything about replacing a bottle with a Bible. Your higher power could be the tree in your backyard, for all I know. But, as outlined in the steps -

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.


How can you complete steps 2 and 3 without a faith in a higher power (which is what my OP said, not that you had to be a Christian)?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:18:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

In more modern times, the existence of Sunday blue laws forced the religious choices of one particular religion on everyone in society.



Ooh, we've decided to make everyone take a break from the rat race for a day... A terrible imposition of religeon on society!!!





IMHO, students should be able to pray in school & lead others who wish to partake in the free exercise of religon.


They can already pray...in private. If they want to meet as a group after school hours, they can meet in area churches.



Why should I or anyone else be prohibited from freely exercising a chosen religeon? This is the same stack of bull that says it's MY job to avoid accidentally offending you, and if I do I'm wrong. If you are offended by someone's expression, religeous or otherwise, it's not their fault unless they did it to harass you, and YOU should deal with it (say, by avoiding that person).

Further, with the school/public facilities issue, why shouldn't it be wrong to discriminate against a group's use of a PUBLIC facility? Didn't they pay for it with their taxes, and shouldn't they be able to get the same level of use as any other group? Just because they adhere to a religeon shouldn't make them pariahs...

Separation of Church & State is supposed to be a one way wall. Unfortunately, the current policy has the wall pointed the wrong way (keeping religeon from interacting with the state, as opposed to keeping the state out of religeon)...
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:01:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

They can already pray...in private. If they want to meet as a group after school hours, they can meet in area churches.






So you are saying INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS should be PROHIBITED from meeting as a group to pray on school grounds?

Care to explain to me how that is NOT "prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" Cuz I got a WHOLE LIST of places I would like to prohibit you from speaking your mind. [}:D} NOT.

Open minded...tolerant. BULL.



After school hours, sure, they should be considered as with any other school group, whether it be a debate society, actors class, band practice,etc. The school had better be willing to let other controversial groups like satanists, gay/lesbioan student groups , etc meet then, if they are going to let religious groups meet in the school, and somehow I don't see that happening.They should not be allowed to proseletyze during the school day;just as students are not allowed to do many other things during the school day, that is just one more example of something that should be reserved for outside the school environment.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:04:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 11:04:41 AM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Ooh, we've decided to make everyone take a break from the rat race for a day... A terrible imposition of religeon on society!!!



It is still imposing your religious day on the rest of society; how would you like it if the jewish Sabbath was forced upon you and you were not a practicing Jew? You wouldn't like it, would you?



Why should I or anyone else be prohibited from freely exercising a chosen religion?


You are not being prohibited from practicing your religion on your own time; you simply cannot do it during school hours in school, which is a secular environment.


Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:37:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
After school hours, sure, they should be considered as with any other school group, whether it be a debate society, actors class, band practice,etc. The school had better be willing to let other controversial groups like satanists, gay/lesbioan student groups , etc meet then, if they are going to let religious groups meet in the school, and somehow I don't see that happening.They should not be allowed to proseletyze during the school day;just as students are not allowed to do many other things during the school day, that is just one more example of something that should be reserved for outside the school environment.




What have you been smoking? gay/ lesbian student groups are all over any public school, college, and university. Part of their whole plan of being accepted into society is to train up children to think their sexual behavior is normal and acceptable.

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:50:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
After school hours, sure, they should be considered ....




[pulling out my copy of the Constitution]Funny, I don't see anything in here qulaifying "free exercise thereof " to "after school hours."[/pulling out my copy of the Constitution]

Again, my question for you is HOW ELSE do you wish the gov't to restrict the "free exercise" clause?? Here in South Carolina a school teacher answered "Yes" to a question - "Do you beleive Jesus is in heaven?" asked her by a student. IS THAT unacceptable to you, where a school teacher can't even give a one word answer to a question a student asks her???

"Shall not be infringed" means just that.

"Free exercise" means just that.

And you need to deal with the fact that you only support CERTAIN parts of the Constitution. Hhmmmm....who ELSE does that? Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton...well you get the idea. Lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas my friend.

For my part, I COMPLETELY want satanists, buddhists, etc etc to have free access to the schools.

Let's have a ful hearing of God's Word against ANYTHING else. I welcome the discourse and the debate. Ya see, I already know who wins in the end....all I gotta do is tell the truth of God's Word. Nothing more.

And IF I could get the chance in the schools to engage the satanists etc etc in that debate, then I win. Every time.

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:00:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
you simply cannot do it during school hours in school, which is a secular environment.






[still looking feverishly] DANG!!!!! I can NOT see the "secular environment" exception to the free exercise clause in the Constitution [/still looking feverishly]

Is my copy of the Constitution out of date? I have one of those NON "living / breathing / changing " Constitutions.



Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:01:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By danonly:
What have you been smoking? gay/ lesbian student groups are all over any public school, college, and university. Part of their whole plan of being accepted into society is to train up children to think their sexual behavior is normal and acceptable.



That was merely an example of the diverse types of students groups that are out there. I am aware the groups exist. How you view them and their message is up to you.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:03:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
you simply cannot do it during school hours in school, which is a secular environment.






[still looking feverishly] DANG!!!!! I can NOT see the "secular environment" exception to the free exercise clause in the Constitution [/still looking feverishly]

Is my copy of the Constitution out of date? I have one of those NON "living / breathing / changing " Constitutions.


Your loss.


Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:05:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
Let's have a ful hearing of God's Word against ANYTHING else. I welcome the discourse and the debate. Ya see, I already know who wins in the end....all I gotta do is tell the truth of God's Word. Nothing more.

And IF I could get the chance in the schools to engage the satanists etc etc in that debate, then I win. Every time.



You wont "win", you wont "lose"; all you'll wind up doing is arguing two differing religious beliefs, neither of which can be proven and come down to personal belief.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:13:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By danonly:
What have you been smoking? gay/ lesbian student groups are all over any public school, college, and university. Part of their whole plan of being accepted into society is to train up children to think their sexual behavior is normal and acceptable.



That was merely an example of the diverse types of students groups that are out there. I am aware the groups exist. How you view them and their message is up to you.



No, the point is that they have full access to schools, during regular school hours. My personal views on their behavior doesn't matter- what matters is they have full access and blessing of school admins, while christians have to go to the supreme court to get "permission" to pray in school. you just don't get it.


Link Posted: 5/10/2004 1:08:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By danonly:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By danonly:
What have you been smoking? gay/ lesbian student groups are all over any public school, college, and university. Part of their whole plan of being accepted into society is to train up children to think their sexual behavior is normal and acceptable.



That was merely an example of the diverse types of students groups that are out there. I am aware the groups exist. How you view them and their message is up to you.



No, the point is that they have full access to schools, during regular school hours. My personal views on their behavior doesn't matter- what matters is they have full access and blessing of school admins, while christians have to go to the supreme court to get "permission" to pray in school. you just don't get it.




And just when are these groups you object to having their exposure to the student body? The only controversies I see relating to these groups are the after-school student groups.I find it highly improbable that these groups are simply roaming the hallways at your local school discussing their agendas. They might at most get called in to be a stakeholder group presenting an opinion at student assemblies after hate incidents, but thats entirely appropriate times to call in these types of groups, in my opinion.

Bottom line, religion does not belong in the schools except in the context of a historical discussion, rather than a religion-based discussion. The female teacher mentioned previously who was being reviewed for simply stating her opinion on a faith based issue will most likely be exhonerated based on the context of her comment; sometimes school districts go overboard when they try to correct such instances when they are initially reported We also don't know the background on that woman; perhaps she has had previosu similar instances and was warned to avoid the subject in the past. Similar knee jerk reactions occured when student groups trying to meet after school were initailly told no, until it was cleared up that such meetings would not violate the law.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 1:43:46 PM EST

Got your ass handed to you one too many times, eh, Jimmy?

Eric The(HonestAsTheDayIsLong)Hun



Certainly not by you fundy boy. By the way, is a fundamentalist lawyer an oxymoron or just the regular kind?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 2:03:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By danonly:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By danonly:
What have you been smoking? gay/ lesbian student groups are all over any public school, college, and university. Part of their whole plan of being accepted into society is to train up children to think their sexual behavior is normal and acceptable.



That was merely an example of the diverse types of students groups that are out there. I am aware the groups exist. How you view them and their message is up to you.



No, the point is that they have full access to schools, during regular school hours. My personal views on their behavior doesn't matter- what matters is they have full access and blessing of school admins, while christians have to go to the supreme court to get "permission" to pray in school. you just don't get it.




And just when are these groups you object to having their exposure to the student body? The only controversies I see relating to these groups are the after-school student groups.I find it highly improbable that these groups are simply roaming the hallways at your local school discussing their agendas. They might at most get called in to be a stakeholder group presenting an opinion at student assemblies after hate incidents, but thats entirely appropriate times to call in these types of groups, in my opinion.



you still don't get it. It is not "these groups" infiltrating the schools, it is the students being allowed to form these groups during school hours with the blessing of admins & teachers. Then students that desire to pray in school need to go to the SC to get permission for their groups. Inequality and discrimination at the simplest level



Link Posted: 5/10/2004 2:22:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By danonly:
you still don't get it. It is not "these groups" infiltrating the schools, it is the students being allowed to form these groups during school hours with the blessing of admins & teachers. Then students that desire to pray in school need to go to the SC to get permission for their groups. Inequality and discrimination at the simplest level



And once again, these are generally student groups that meet AFTER school. When do these groups have time to meet DURING school?
You sound like you have an issue with these groups even existing, not how they have been formed.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 3:27:31 PM EST
http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/amchristii.html
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 3:56:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By danonly:
you still don't get it. It is not "these groups" infiltrating the schools, it is the students being allowed to form these groups during school hours with the blessing of admins & teachers. Then students that desire to pray in school need to go to the SC to get permission for their groups. Inequality and discrimination at the simplest level



And once again, these are generally student groups that meet AFTER school. When do these groups have time to meet DURING school?
You sound like you have an issue with these groups even existing, not how they have been formed.



lunchtime, anytime there are study periods. when was the last time you heard of a school that had full days for the students? most high schools around here are more like colleges wrt the scheduling of classes.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top