Turbine Disclaimer

posted on September 16th, 2010, 3:16 pm

The founding wasn't really based on religion, just some of them were religious. Even if it does go against the founding, that doesn't mean that covering none wouldn't be a better idea. God does mean something to Atheists, specifically it means "that thing we don't think exists that certain other people want to push on us", and don't count on us being okay about things when god is mentioned in something like a contract as if its existence were undeniable.

I hope you don't think I am trying to push God on you.

Federalism is what lead to the bill of rights (imagine if the anti-federalists had been all over and so the bill of rights hadn't been made. ) They were an essential part of the nation, and are the most like modern government policy (federal says one way, states say other, federal wins for sure.)

Its ture, however, the federalist party supported completely different things at times.  The Federalist party that supported the bill of rights was not the federalist party that was popular at the time of the revolution. Sometimes they would support democratic views, sometimes they supported the oposite.  The early partys were set up like this.(I just read about this recently)

1776-1787    Federalist      vs. Nationalists
1787-1793    Anti-Federalist vs. Federalists
1793-1815    Jeffersonian Republicans  vs. Federalists.

I don't know if that is clear or not, but what I"m trying to show is that the Federalist Party completely switched polarity by 1787.  After then, they were a completely different party.


Don't you just hate it when Politicians Change Definitions on you. It gets extremely dificult to understand what everyone is talking about because someone uses one definition, and somebody else uses another.

[Dircome]

posted on September 16th, 2010, 3:26 pm

Last edited by Dircome on September 16th, 2010, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No offence dude but i could say the same thing about atheists, meaning that Atheists are usually trying to push off their lack of a belief in God off on me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Also the concept of "Separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep the Federal Government from creating a state church like England had which is a major reason that people started to come to America. Also that was not to say that states couldnt have their own 'state' church, one eastern state (Vermont??) had one for years.

The more modern Interpretation says that if you mention the word God that violates the separation of church and state. And it simply doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Also one more thing the bill of rights was created to get Maryland to agree to the new Constitution.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:00 pm

No offence dude but i could say the same thing about atheists, meaning that Atheists are usually trying to push off their lack of a belief in God off on me.

lol, I wasn't going to say that, in avoidance of a flame-war, but honestly, if you don't let it effect you, there is really no way someone can 'Force' any ideal on you via the internet(at least in this situation)



Wow, we went from 'Acts of God' to 'Separation of church and state' 'Saucer separation' to 'Inception'( ) to the 'Ground zero mosque' 



We are on a roll!!

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:11 pm

Haha, true Z.

Maybe FO should have a disclaimer:

Any new threads posted CAN AND WILL go off topic!!!

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:16 pm

Well, the problem comes into play when religions start dealing with the government, because we have a different government than when the Freedom of Religion clause was written.  Today' government bleeds money like a stuck pig.

The government owns land under a city.  They set up zoning.  Which zone does a religious organization build on?  Can they meet in an economic zone if they didn't build the structure?  Can they modify the structure?  There's a "religious" zoned patch near my house, it has 4 churches: 1 Christian, 1 Catholic, 1 Mormon, and 1 I think it Muslim.  They're all right next to each other, they practically share a parking lot.

Religious Organizations can't be taxed because their income is primarily donations, but what if they hold a bake sale?  Those things are really just people donating and getting a cookie as a thank you.  The Bible has some strong words about helping other Christians in need, if somebody loses his car and a friend gives him a new one, should they be taxed on it?  The law says both yes, transfers of property are taxable and no, the gift was part of their religious commitment.  Potential for inconsistency: Very High.

Then you have issues like fetal stem cell research:  Adult stem cell research has produced numerous advances in medicine without killing anybody, while fetal stem cell research has produced nothing.  It makes no sense to pursue FSC research, but it's also not forbidden.  Members of the Atheist religion are always rallying for the government to "let" them do the research, but that's not what they mean.  They can't AFFORD to do the research on their own, they want the government to PAY for the research.  So by not PAYING them to do FSC research, the government is "preventing" them from doing it.

Just like how the government "blocks" certain creationist science endeavors by denying them tax immunity.  Technically they are correct to not give monetary assistance to a semi-religious effort, but they already give lots of monetary assistance to science based on the atheist religion.  They have to choose one religion over the other, or else they can't give anybody money.

My personal opinion?  The government shouldn't be giving people so much money in the first place.  It's not like they HAVE any money to give away in the first place >.>

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:18 pm

(By the way, I want to apologize about the mosque post.  It was mostly true, but I dug and found a few incorrect statements so I've removed it.  I can make my point better with other issues.)

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:31 pm

My personal opinion?  The government shouldn't be giving people so much money in the first place.  It's not like they HAVE any money to give away in the first place >.>

There is the real root cause, government has no money of its own and it has to take it from us and then it begins to give our money to a lots of causes that i dont care about or agree with. The problem is the government thinks that its duty is to provide for people not protect them.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:41 pm

ok, wow this went wayyy off topic.  Where is Myles when you need him.  I think we need another chart.

Any new threads posted CAN AND WILL go off topic!!!

I like that. There should be one.  Or would it be unfare to all those threads that don't go off topic?

posted on September 16th, 2010, 6:47 pm

i could make another chart, but why rehash an old joke so soon.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 7:00 pm

No offence dude but i could say the same thing about atheists, meaning that Atheists are usually trying to push off their lack of a belief in God off on me.


Also the concept of "Separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep the Federal Government from creating a state church like England had which is a major reason that people started to come to America. Also that was not to say that states couldnt have their own 'state' church, one eastern state (Vermont??) had one for years.

The more modern Interpretation says that if you mention the word God that violates the separation of church and state. And it simply doesn't exist in the Constitution.

I'm not saying that all religious people will push their values onto others (nor am I saying most, as it seems there is a vocal minority. I do not know for sure whether most atheists push their lack of belief, but I think you are just focusing on a vocal minority, or possibly seeing pushing where there is none.), just that when some do, wording like that in a contract doesn't look so harmless (why are they going out of their way to mention it in a contract?)
I would be opposed to contract wording that pushes Atheism as well (instead of "acts of God" it might say "natural occurrences, which are not caused by God.")
I'd approve of a wording which does not imply God exists, nor implies he doesn't, like "natural occurrences." Notice it does not say the events are caused God, nor does it say they are not caused by God. The person signing the contract can make that decision for themselves.

Originally, but interpretations of the constitution change over time. Right to bear arms is one of those that has a different modern interpretation (originally allowed for militias to be formed and armed, now used to say everyone can be armed.) The constitution applies to the states as well as federal gov't, having a state gov't establish a church would infringe even on the old interpretation.

Mentioning the word God as an individual shouldn't be a problem (tho school policy would say otherwise, the High School I went to prevented a girl from mentioning God in her valedictorian or something speech some years back and she sued.) It's when the gov't, acting as a gov't entity, uses religious symbolism or wording that there's a problem. It's okay if the President were to mention God, but state supported ten commandments or laws that talk about God are a problem.
The contract issue is more up to the people making the contract, and would only maybe a problem constitutionally if they were supported by the gov't. That one is up for debate as to constitutionality I think. I just wouldn't be too happy to see that contract.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 7:12 pm

i could make another chart, but why rehash an old joke so soon.

True... Lets let it get reallllyy off topic first.   (that will be in like an hour or so, so you might want to start now )

posted on September 16th, 2010, 7:14 pm

True... Lets let it get reallllyy off topic first.   (that will be in like an hour or so, so you might want to start now )

it only takes a few minutes to make the graphs.

graphjam.com has a cool graph maker.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 8:34 pm

Well id say that part of the contract was meant to be a bit of a joke. So if it was me i wouldnt take it too seriously.
And about the second amendment its seems to me to be oddly written. So I rewrote it and added and "and" where it seems their should be one.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *and* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Its not that everyone can own guns its just that if you are "normal" you should be able to own a "normal" gun. Criminals and Mentally Insane people can't go out a buy a gun.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 8:40 pm

Any new threads posted CAN AND WILL go off topic!!!

This is going in my sig.

posted on September 16th, 2010, 9:02 pm

I'm flattered.