The last minority

Post Reply New Topic

What history am I misrepresenting? The fact that the first amendment was to protect citizens from the actions of England being repeated? Or the mathematically simple deduction that, if only the seven states you listed discriminated against Atheists or protected Jews and Christians, then, out of 50 states, there would be 43 that don't discriminate? EIGHTY-SIX PERCENT??? How am I misrepresenting history? Also, in the last twenty years, students rights to pray in public school has been taken away, Bible is relegated to literature class if allowed in school at all, Canada imprisons pastors if they read certain passages from the Bible, there's some idiot suing Zondervan trying to get the Bible edited to suit his tastes, et cetera. How the heck am I misrepresenting history?

Anyway, I tried to be civil and you say, "expect a harsh response" basically for saying things you don't want to hear?? That's ridiculous.

your claim about the first amendment not protecting from religion. the intent of the law was twofold: first was to allow freedom of religion to all its citizens and to establish a government that was secular in nature. which is why god didn't appear in any national items* until the 19th century.


Treaty of Tripoly, article 11


"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."



James Madison
Summary of the First Amendment:

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

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (James Madison in a letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

# To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Madison in a letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).


*meaning like in the national motto, money, or in the pledge. god was nowhere on any of that until the later 19th century and the 20th century.[b]

Why do some atheists call atheism a religion, and some do not? Why are there differences between Catholics and Lutherans and Pentacostals? You are making an assumption that atheism is one large, monolithic entity when clearly it is not.

As I understand it, most atheists do not consider atheism a religion, but many non-atheists try to categorize it as a religion. For tax purposes, some ethical societies have filed as religious organizations, and were able to show that those particular organizations should get non-profit status, even though they do not have the doctrines that are usually considered hallmarks of religions.

Another way of looking at is that the religious beliefs of atheists consist of the null set, and they should be free to have those beliefs with respect to religion - a free individual should not be penalized by the state for refusing to adopt theistic beliefs.



There is no doubt that the founders wanted to avoid a repetition of the mistakes they suffered at the hands of the English King (as well as persecution suffered by other groups across Europe). There is also no doubt that they believed in freedom. While most of the founding fathers were adherents to Christianity, they did not establish our political order on Christianity - religious freedom was a founding principle. To penalize those who have particular beliefs (or who have no belief in God) is to make a mockery of religious freedom.

Last edited by monty on 28 Aug 2008, 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, and the 7 out of 50 states are incorrect in their legislation.

You're the one who has been just whining on and on about your delusions of persecution and then attacking anyone who dares confront you with the tiniest bit of reality.

Thus, if anyone qualifies to be a "worthless piece of s**t", it would be you.

quit being a troll.

"Religious freedom" should include freedom from religion.

The word "from" connotatively implies stealing other people's rights away.

Not really, it actually implies that freedom of religion should include the freedom and acceptance of atheism and agnosticism as well as any other religion, as long as those are not harmful.

That I have no problem with. But removing people's right to pray, assemble, et cetera is unacceptable.

Since, your use of "troll" means "someone who exposes your whining and puling for what it is", nobody with any ethics would quit.