WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS "RELIGIOUS BIGOTS", EXCLUDING ATHEISTS' FROM RELIGIOUS TOLERATION RIGHTS?

May be so. From the get go, it had nothing to do with non-beliefs. Atheism and its adherents were left out in the cold by all the founding fathers. None were atheists. Perhaps it seems unfair, but there's lots of things in life that are unfair.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharon Mooney
To: Ed Babinski
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005
Subject: Sheldon's Histories -
Constitution of the American Republic

"He also thought that atheists had no valid title to toleration, since by denying the existence of God they rob oaths and covenants of the necessary sanction, and accordingly weaken, to a dangerous extent, the bond of civil obligations."

---------

In sustaining the theory of religious tolerance, no one rendered a more conspicuous service than John Locke, His "Letters concerning Toleration" constitute a plea for religious liberty which has rarely been equalled. The principles laid down therein are essentially identical with those embodied in the Constitution of the American Republic. The State, it is maintained, has no just prerogative to prescribe the faith and worship of the individual. The sphere of belief lies beyond the range of coercion and legal restraint. "Laws are of no force at all without penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely impertinent; because they are not proper to convince the mind." As for the Church, being but a free and voluntary society within the commonwealth, while it may fix the terms of its fellowship, it has nothing to do with the civil status of its members, and can properly inflict, or require, no further penalty than excommunication. In short, Locke provided in his leading propositions as broad a platform for religious tolerance as could be desired. It is true that in their application he affirmed some restrictions, but they were only such as in his judgment were required by political safety. He deemed that those who were licensed by their creed to break faith with heretics, who confessed a superior allegiance to a foreign potentate, and who could naturally make use of religious freedom for themselves only to destroy it for others, had no claim to toleration. He also thought that atheists had no valid title to toleration, since by denying the existence of God they rob oaths and covenants of the necessary sanction, and accordingly weaken, to a dangerous extent, the bond of civil obligations. In both cases it was rather the necessary safeguards of the perpetuity of the State that he had in mind, than the deserts of mere opinions.

Excerpt from: Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church
THE MODERN CHURCH--PART ONE
SECOND PERIOD (1648-1720)
Chapter II
Section III. The Reigns of William III. and Anne
Great Britain and Ireland

Henry C. Sheldon worked on the staff of Boston University, and wrote the Church Histories in 1895.

That's quite interesting...

Right after reading over on the Secular Web that Ingersoll (who understood these issues quite affirmatively) supposedly felt that the declarations of our founding fathers were put there to protect the rights of pornographers, and amoral deviants and I was saying all along, Ingersoll held deep beliefs in family values, but these people say those documents were not put there, to protect the freedom to exercise religion.

Biased little boogers, got their priorities backward, don't they? Distorting the truth to their own warped purpose.

Hmmm, something stinks about the bias...

I have said before, and I repeat myself now. "freedom from religion", doesn't speak for me (I am a deist), and their hope to usurp the religious freedoms here in the United States, --the ACLU and its hatred of a Sheriff merely expressing what his beliefs are on a tax-paid website (they really got their drawers in a knot over that one), don't you want to know what your Sheriff believes? Or do you want a Sheriff that keeps all his thoughts to himself - no insight into his character, or what goes on behind closed doors -- gosh, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill -- had he tried to use his government power to force people to worship, that's a horse of a different color --but that wasn't the case, now was it?

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharon Mooney
To: Edward Babinski
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005
Subject: The Separation of Church and State Defined

I need not discuss how the Roman Catholic Jesuits (for one example) would slither into positions of power and whittle their way into destroying whole nations in their hatred of Protestants --children ripped from their parents and forced to become Catholics --people sent to the stake and burned alive over insignificant differences on creeds. (This is the result when religionists get control over the state). But what about Atheists?

Thomas Paine, Founding Father, and a Deist (like myself) gave clear warning to be leery of both extremes.

Paine, Thomas (1737-1809)
Anglo-American political philosopher and writer, born in Thetford, Norfolk, England. In 1774, with introductions from Franklin, he sailed for Philadelphia. On January 1, 1776, appeared his pamphlet Common Sense, which argued for complete independence.

In 1787 he returned, by Paris, to England, where in 1791-92 he published The Rights of Man, the most famous of all the replies to Burke's Reflections upon the French Revolution. The work, of which a million and a half copies were sold in England alone, involved many in heavy penalties. Paine, however, had slipped off to Paris, having been elected by the department of Pas-de-Calais its deputy to the National Convention. Here he voted with the Girondists. He offended the Robespierre faction, and in 1794 was thrown into prison, just before his arrest having written Part I of The Age of Reason, against atheism and against Christianity, and in favor of deism. Part II appeared in 1795, and a portion of Part III in 1807.
Source: Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia

--------------

The point being, George Bush, Sr. may have had a semi (emphasis on the semi, I would not want to see anyone denied rights on basis of belief, or lack of belief) semi-relevant point when he stated he did not feel atheists should be considered "citizens". If the documents the founding fathers wrote were based upon writings by John Locke, and Sheldon's summary is correct...

I do find it rather ironic, the ACLU and other anti-religion organizations will fight tooth and nail to say the Founding Fathers would wish to defend the rights of Ku Klux Klan and NAMBLA to speak, --some seeking to wipe out the freedom of worship altogether -- like getting all uptight when a Sheriff in Lee County, FL publishes his personal opinion on a website paid by the taxpayer, expressing what his religious beliefs are. He was not attempting to use his power in government to force anyone to worship as he worships, rather he was simply conveying his personal beliefs to those individuals who voted him into office.

I want -and deserve to know, what my Sheriff believes. Don't you want to know what your Sheriff believes? Common Sense got chunked out the window that day, when the ACLU dragged that issue into the national spotlight. They are part of that dangerous element Thomas Paine warned of, if either the radical religious fundamentalists take hold of government power --or atheists --Paine, a Founding Father and a Deist, he opposed atheism equally with radical religionists.

Even Robert G. Ingersoll, an Agnostic, never went so far as to say the Founding Fathers were seeking to destroy the right of individuals to worship God. Why should they -all of them were either Deist or Christians! I am a Deist, like some of the founding fathers were, and sadly I have to say of all the people who've ridiculed my simple belief that a God exists, the worst --it's been atheists.

And here is what one Agnostic had to say. Very good website, but see what his opinion is of "atheist generosity and tolerance" for those who believe differently:

[begin snippet]
"My site contains some of the best arguments against Christianity on the Internet. Unfortunately, atheist websites, which make up the bulk of rationalist websites, will not link to mine because I do not automatically dismiss the possibility that intelligent life might have evolved for some mysterious cosmic purpose."
"Christians and hard atheists rule the internet.
Agnostics have got to join forces, after all, our position is the strongest, but at the moment, we have almost zero web presence."
[end snippet]

I've transferred some of Ingersoll's lectures, where he commented on the irony of those who had suffered and endured persecution of their beliefs, -- Ingersoll seemed to feel they should be on the forefront of understanding the importance of tolerance and acceptance of others' beliefs -that tolerance might be reciprocated mutually. But not so with many atheists who want to utterly stamp out spirituality in their hatred of anyone who is different than they are.

That's why no civilized nation needs them (or religionists) having any control in government. Keep it separate.

---

Malibu Skipper wrote:

Sharon wrote:
The point being, George Bush, Sr. may have had a semi-relevant point when he stated he did not feel atheists should be considered "citizens". If the documents the founding fathers wrote were based upon writings by John Locke, and Sheldon's summary is correct...

John Locke was writing in the 17th century, when the very idea of religious tolerance was new and radical. Expecting him to extend the idea to atheists (and, in 17th century Europe, there weren't a whole hell of a lot of atheists) is a bit much. The United States was founded a hundred years later; there still weren't a lot of atheists around, but there were enough that, had the founders wanted them excluded from citizenship, they certainly would have written it in. Instead, they wrote this:

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Sharon: Yes, but they wrote "what they wrote", based on documents which excluded atheists (obviously) the "lack of atheists" as you say. Funny they didn't bother to make special mention of where atheists fit into the scheme of things, founding father, deists, Thomas Paine warning against the dangers of atheism (alongside of religious extremists) -Paine would know, wouldn't he? --that is, if they were really so concerned with the rights of Atheists to usurp the government and stamping out the right for anyone to utter a prayer or religious view in the eye of the public (at tax payer expense). The ACLU has a fit every time the word God is mentioned. Doesn't bother me, just as long as they don't send the military to force me into the Catholic Church, or whatever denomination the fundies would try to make the state religion.

---

Malibu Skipper wrote:
They didn't make any special mention of where Methodists fit in, either, or Deists or agnostics or Unitarians. They wrote "no religious test".

Sharon: Yes, they certainly did -- all denominations were included, when they gave the right to all people to worship freely without fearing persecution, the right to assemble (something Europeans had long been denied by Religious/Political powers -- how wonderful, I can have my own spiritual beliefs without fear of the government sending troops into my home, to seize my property, snatching my children from me, to "re-educate" me and my children on creeds and doctrines a mere mortal invented, and a Pope sitting on his throne feeling justified that the action is by the will and inspiration of God.

And, are you saying atheism is now a religion to be tested?

Malbu Skipper: I suppose it depends on the atheist; but for most atheists I know, atheism is the absence of religion. An absolute prohibition on religious tests would seem to include tests to determine whether a person had any religion at all, wouldn't it?

"So much for atheists not being citizens, huh?"

Sharon: Did you read my initial post? Please don't become dyslexic. I stated most clearly, Bush Sr.'s comment about atheists may have been "semi-relevant" point. Do you understand (no of course not)_ what semi means?

My point being this, if indeed the founding fathers, all Christian and Deist as they were, based the document on John Locke's document --and that document excludes atheism, and the documents written by the founding fathers provide no specific indications as to include atheism --we have a problem. To say they would have included atheism is a case of putting words in the mouths of the founding fathers. One of the most notorious Deists who rejected Christianity and the Bible, Thomas Paine, himself warned against the dangers of atheism, hardly endorsing it for a "legitimate influence over government".

That's really a dumb question to have even asked me. I didn't say the atheists weren't citizens. That was Bush Sr.'s comment. Of course I wouldn't want to see anyone denied citizenship based on a religious belief or lack thereof, and it was insensitive of any President to even utter such a thing. All in all, however, that was totally beside the point.

The point is why defend the right of tax dollars wasted on a canvas with turd smeared on it as in New York, (the ACLU defends this as expression) but for a Sheriff to express his religious views to the voters in Lee County, FL on the Sheriff's website --the atheistic ACLU is crying unconstitutional! Separation of church and state. Paine warned about common sense getting chunked out the window when radicals on *either side* have power. The Sheriff was well within his constitutional right to say whatever he needed to say (tax paid website or not). The ACLU get ticked off anytime _GOD_tm is mentioned. I am all for the freedom of personal expression, just don't use government power to force a belief on people. That includes government power to force a Sheriff to keep his personal views to himself -when voters have a right to know.

It's clear to me who's really against Freedom of Speech and Expression of Religious beliefs.

-----------------

L.Roberts wrote: Upon preponderance of the lack of evidence of, and the irrational arguments for, the existence of God, I have chosen, as my religious choice, the EMPTY SET, which means I am without belief in a god, which means I am an atheist. Get over it, I had to.

If your religious beliefs, and faith therein, are so 'feeble' that the voice of doubt is unbearable to you, then you haven't got a hell of a lot, have you?

L.Roberts.

Sharon: The point being, atheists are as intolerant and bigoted and filled with hatred toward others (even toward Deists and Agnostics who hold no belief in any religion) --incidentally, that intolerant zeal is exactly what lead to the decimation of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives at the hands of whacko religious fundamentalists.

I have love for others, and tolerance. that sounds like more than you have and everything you need.

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharon Mooney
To: Christopher Lee
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005
Subject: Re: Ouch!@# --Agnostics and Deists Unite

Sharon: I do find it rather ironic, the ACLU and other anti-religion

Christopher Stop right there, paranoid lying fundy. The ACLU isn't anti-religion.

Sharon: I think it is.

Point blank, where does your "fundy" insult come from? That's the effect of usenet --it turns everyone into cussing, swearing heathen. Normally I avoid the scene. So, you assume everyone who holds a belief in God or Gods is a fundy? obviously you have no understanding of what Deism is, much less fundamentalism, and for that, in no position for dubbing slurs.

Christopher: You think wrong. The ACLU has supported the rights of individuals to practice their religion, read their bibles etc.

Sharon: Of course, unless they practice their beliefs in public where somebody might figure out the person is "no atheist". Oh, how offensive! They hold spiritual beliefs.

Sharon: When a Sheriff in Florida is not even allowed to share his beliefs with the folks who elected him into office -- freedom of expression, repression of thought, 'nuff said.

Christopher Lee: Do you honestly not understand the difference betwen a sheriff acting as a private indivual, and acting as an agent of the government?

Sharon: Do you? The ACLU agreed they were out of line that morning on national television. LOL. The best they could settle on, was sputtering Well,.. umm.... then its 'good' (grumbling tone) the voters of Lee County know what their Sheriff believes...as if the Sheriff was wrong to have an opinion.

Point blank, he didn't use his power to force his religious denomination on anyone, merely stated his beliefs.
I have no problem with that. Thank goodness that we have the right to express a belief.

Some certain people, extremists, are trying to take that right away. Aren't they?

Christopher: You're either a liar or an idiot. It doesn't matter which. The end result is the same.

Sharon: Da jesuits had days like this, didn't they, and a "paranoid lying atheist" back to you.

---

What I gather from what Sheldon stated on John Locke's and the Founding Fathers -- the atheists of course did not like it, and they began hurling insults, and would say "There weren't many atheists, but the founding fathers would have included them...."

Really now, putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers? John Locke's document purposely excludes atheists, and the founding fathers made no effort whatsoever to include atheists in the provisions for tolerance. Right? Further damaging to their cause, we have Thomas Paine, one of the most notorious Founding Fathers, a Deist, known for his rejection of the Bible, warning about the dangers of atheism.

It is *not* apparent to me whatsoever, the founding fathers had intention to extend "toleration rights" toward atheism at all, --atheism is not a religion to begin with! what need would they have of "religious protection" -- they do not worship, point blank, no consideration for it, whatsoever.

The Founding Fathers, (1) Deists and (2) Christians --why should they want to see an Atheistic Government, with its intolerant zeal usurping a government they were creating to protect their own rights of freedom to worship? --coming in and decimating the right of people to worship freely and express their religious beliefs --for those who believe in God, to worship however they may choose, without fear of persecution from religious extremists, -or atheists.

That includes a Sheriff having the freedom to state his beliefs on a public website, so long as he does not use his power in government to force his beliefs on any individual. The govt. is forbidden to do so. That is the Separation of Church and State. However, it did not extend rights of toleration to the Atheists!
Yes, in a manner of speaking, I now believe it was a nation founded as a nation under God, but not founded necessarily under the "Christian God".

I think I am better understanding what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish. The atheists and their "beliefs" are completely irrelevant. The founding fathers were only considering the rights/privileges of individuals who hold a belief in God... for their protection and welfare, to keep them separated from killing each other! to be free to exercise individual spiritual beliefs (that includes Deists, such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist, he held no belief in the Bible, thus, it can be deduced the nation was not founded as a "Christian Nation" -- James Madison, not to omit Thomas Jefferson's strong sentiments against the Bible.) Yet, a number of the Founding Fathers were Deists, none that I am aware of were atheists, and all held a belief in the existence of a Deity, a God. The documents were struck to guarantee the right of all men (and women) to worship freely, however -- by no means ! was it ever intended for Atheists to usurp the government and make it a "nation without God", "Freedom From Religion" as the lie goes.

However, the policies of the founding fathers benefit nothing for the radical religionists who say the nation was intended to be a "Christian Nation". For reasons like this, we have the Separation of Church and State. I am a Deist, and I do not want any Christian denomination imposing itself on my freedom of spiritual expression. It was not, because Deists (non-Christian) assisted in striking up the policies -the policies were enacted "for" the protection of all who believe in God (whatever Deity that God may be) -- to keep the denominations separate and out of government -once having power they always kill each other. They have centuries-long history of slaughtering, pillaging, and otherwise persecuting by lynching, and burning at the stake, those of different faith.

---

The atheists were *not* wanted in government power, because these founding fathers foresaw the danger of a Sheriff simply expressing his beliefs on a website --and an ACLU rushing in to make a national issue to "suppress" his freedom of expression. We see clearly who is really against the freedom to exercise religion, and freedom of expression.

When a Judge exercises his right to hang a plaque of the ten commandments on his courtroom, (just so long as he does not mingle his religious beliefs with the law of the land) - he should have the right to do so, the government (atheists in power, which Paine warned against these radicals!) -- would come in and try to stamp religious expression off the face of the planet -in their intolerance and persecution of any religious belief. Thus, they were excluded from rights of toleration.

A monument with the ten commandments is demanded removed from public property -- who gave them the right? -- atheists want to see the freedom of expression stamped out and destroyed. They should have never been given any power over government with their non-belief.

Likewise, if Deists erected some monument to honor their belief in a God -- it would be wrong and unconstitutional for Christians to say "Take it Down, it is not representative of Our Christian God". That's exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect us from.

This nation was not founded as a Christian Nation, but certainly was far from ever being intended as a "Nation without God" as Atheists are currently seeking to make the law of the land.

---

Correct me if I am wrong on this point, as well.

The Founding Fathers intended tolerance of religious / spiritual expression.

The Founding Fathers excluded (exempted) the atheists of any_right to toleration of their non-belief.

So, it is safe then to assume, it was completely constitutional for a teacher to say in the morning, "Children, you may say a morning prayer."

Oh, the gasps! The wailing of atheists -- "but we do not believe in God! I do not want that cursed word "God" uttered on any tax-paid lips!"

Founding Fathers: INCLUDED NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER FOR TOLERATION FOR ATHEIST NON_BELIEF. They had no right to take prayer out of the school. No right given to them, to hinder religious expression. They were considered an enemy of the state, by Thomas Paine himself. (i.e., Communism's history prove anything?).

The teacher does not have the Constitutional right to say "Bow your head and pray to my Methodist God." Or, "Bow your head and pray to my Catholic God", can't even say "Bow your head and pray to the Christian God." -- and no, cannot force an atheist child to bow their head at all! However, the constitution protected the right of the teacher to say that children may_have_the_right, to bow their head in prayer, to God.

How did the atheists get power over government when they were to have none at all?

---

The way I am seeing things now, after gaining better insight into the background and framework the founding fathers were working with -- you know, I had never been told atheists were purposely *excluded* -- and the founding fathers took no pains to correct that. To say "they would have" is both a lie and speculation, and putting words into their mouths.

The way I am seeing things now, was that atheists somehow maneuvered, whittled, and ultimately steal (yes, stolen) the inheritance from the rightful heirs, the freedom of religious expression. They (believers in God) no longer have the right to express their beliefs. Oh, woe as me, they might offend an atheist. Well, from the looks of it, the founding fathers didn't personally care if the atheist was offended, let them practice their non_belief at home, in private.

One atheist kid sits in a classroom, and everyone else "better shut up" out of fear of offending that atheist. Perhaps it is better if religion is not discussed in the classroom, but who gave them the right to say it was forbidden? The atheist bully. ... who up and decided (usurping the government powers, a thing that ought never have had happened) that everyone else, "has the freedom to exercise their belief, as long as they keep it in a closet." That's not what the founding fathers intended at all. The atheists have the right to exercise their non_belief, but they can do it at home, and without intruding on the rights of others in either private or public. THEY HAD NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO "RELIGIOUS TOLERATION"... because their's is not a religion. They only objective an atheist can possibly have to accomplish is not tolerance, but rather, using their influence (yes, in government) to destroy the rights of others to exercise their religious beliefs. And, that's exactly what they've done, and pressing further to do. They have robbed the rightful heirs to freedom, of their inheritance. They never had any rights in this matter, to begin with.

I know its painful for you as an Agnostic, that you are -- but a truth is a truth.

---

I was wrong Ed.

The religious bully. ... who up and decided (usurping the government powers, a thing that ought never have had happened) that everyone else, "has the freedom to exercise their belief, as long as they keep it in a closet." That's not what the founding fathers intended at all.

I meant the "atheist bully" who was never to be given religious toleration to begin with. (atheism is not a religion). is it?

And...

"Woe, as me... they might offend an atheist."
Our founding fathers made no effort to protect an atheist from "offense" to begin with.

Their only offense comes, when others might have something to say for God, and the only way to keep from offending an atheist, is by stealing the right of expression from the majority who believe in God.

You may not like the result, but it is the truth, and I believe you are the type of person who seeks that, even when its not what you want to hear. Lots of Christians don't want to be told either, this country wasn't established as a "Christian Nation".

Depends if you want to see things done according to the way the founding fathers intended, or by personal bias. Take notice of the atheist aims to keep the Bibles out of public places. No difference there from the Roman Catholics, feeling the common people had no ability to take it upon themselves to read scripture and interpret it properly. These radical Atheists and Roman Catholics in history, have lots in common and reason to fear them if they have any influence over the government.

They can't tolerate a plaque of the Ten Commandments on a wall.

It's really foolishness to think a government says out of one side of its mouth, "This government is here to protect your right to religious expression", and out of the other, "but you're going to have to take that religious expression off the wall."

---

Edward T. Babinski wrote, December 18, 2005:

I guess it depends on what you mean by exclusion.

Kids can pray at public school in unison around the flag pole before school begins, and even say all the quiet prayers they want to themselves and wear crucifixes too and carrying Bibles and read them in school during the day. And they can use classrooms for Bible study groups after school.

But during school the idea is to teach the kids something, not indoctrinate them in any particular religion or non-religion. So, you can pray in public schools just like you can pray at gas stations, but neither is really there for that purpose.

Of course speaking of freedom, there's not much freedom in church is there, to raise your hands and ask questions during a sermon, or to try and use church classrooms to teach evolution if that's not the church's belief. Churches are not about freedom at all, but about spreading their own narrow sectarian views via their church/schools/billboards/radio/tv outreaches, etc.

As for the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson replaced the missionary courses at William and Mary with strictly non-religious sociology courses.

When a Judge exercises his right to hang a plaque of the ten commandments on his courtroom.

You can look up on the web the various court decisions concerning that case and why the highest courts in the land decided against displaying the commandments. Personally, I don’t believe that ancient Near Eastern laws, posted or not, are going to change society for the better or the worse. Most people can't even name the commandments, including the people who most want to post them everywhere. And if judges want to start posting commandments or any wise sayings from say, ancient Egypt or Greece or Babylon, the doors are going to get crowded real soon. Yes, that last one was a flippant remark, since I don’t care either way, and haven't studied the legal precedents. But one thing's for sure, the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me [under penalty of death]," doesn't seem to jive well with the first amendment, "Freedom of religion."

---

What I gather from what Sheldon stated on John Locke's and the Founding Fathers -- the atheists of course did not like it, and they began hurling insults, and would say "There weren't many atheists, but the founding fathers would have included them...."

ED: Historically, agnosticism and atheism didn't really come into their own in Christian Europe until the Victorian Era, an age when scientific societies had grown in prominence and effect, and people were marveling at science and engineering and discovering and pondering all those dinosaur bones. It was then that the term agnostic in fact was first invented by Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's Bulldog. Prior to that, yes, lots of folks were Deists, and then Deism slowly became squeezed out between outspoken Victorian agnostic/atheist writers and scientists, and outspoken churchmen on the other side. Though it's true that France seems to have led the way in atheism a little prior to the Victorian era what with Napoleon being an atheist, but then the French also led the way in science too because prior to Darwin there was Lamarck.

-----------------

Really now, putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers? John Locke's document purposely excludes atheists, and the founding fathers made no effort whatsoever to include atheists in the provisions for tolerance. Right?

ED: I think back then there was great deal of anti-clericalism, anti-organized religion, especially a derision aimed at Catholicism and its "priestcraft." Madison and Jefferson were both appalled at organized religion and its bloody European history and involvement with governments.

--------------------

Further damaging to their cause, we have Thomas Paine, one of the most notorious Founding Fathers, a Deist, known for his rejection of the Bible, warning about the dangers of atheism.

ED: I don't know what case you're talking about. Perhaps it's in an earlier email I haven't read yet, since I am reading them in reverse chronological order of being received, because my home email has a glitch, and my email screen is blank, so I can't even see what I've rec'd but have to answer each email starting with the latest and work my way down.

Exactly what are you saying, that there's no right to worship freely in America? Or that atheists ought to have no right to raise legal cases when they or their kids are offended by blatant evangelizing? In the first case, there is plenty of religion in America. I see megachurches, church school complexes, the religious own huge amounts of the airwaves, both radio and tv, and influence government, including a born again in the White House. Religious films like the Passion and now Narnia, rake in lots of money. Even public schools are targeted by the religious in this country. They pray around the pole in the morning, and use public school classrooms for Bible study groups after school. Let's see a church-school complex allow agnostic/atheist clubs to meet in THEIR classrooms after school.

I don't think you can ever please two groups with such different beliefs as Evangelical Christians and atheists, though if they would work together on ethical issues that concern them both and that they agree on, they might actually achieve some major improvements in society. There's a group that has tried that with pro-choicers and pro-lifers, called, Common Ground, or maybe it's one word, commonground. They try to find common ground and work on problems together. The trouble of course is in maintaining focus on the issues they agree on most on, and not bringing up the ones they disagree on.

----------

a "nation without God", "Freedom From Religion" as the lie goes.

ED: It definitely is not a nation without God, nor without believers in God. You see God a lot.

---

Ed: "... even say all the quiet prayers they want to themselves..."

Sharon: And, who made it the law, they must keep their prayers quiet? Sounds more like Communism than a Democracy, wouldn't you agree?

----------

Ed: "But during school the idea is to teach the kids something, not indoctrinate them in any particular religion or non-religion."

Sharon: Oh, you mean to teach them about American History, the framework of the Constitution, that states the freedom of [now, part time, thanks to atheists,] religious expression --"except just not in the classroom, or if you're in an occupation paid by the government." At those times, you are not allowed to practice what the government says you can practice. Oh, that makes lots of sense... tell the kids the truth, their rights are protected now, only "part of the time".

----------

Ed: "But during school the idea is to teach the kids something, not indoctrinate them in any particular religion or non-religion."

Sharon: Who said anything about any particular religion? The nation was founded "One Nation Under God". To say otherwise is a lie. Nothing was included to indicate any toleration was to be extended toward atheism. Why shouldn't a child be told anything about a non-denominational God in the classroom? That's right. Atheists and Agnostics, and even Christians are so deluded they don't understand that there's a God beyond the Bible. I believe in God. I am non-denominational. I believe the education system has fallen sorely behind in teaching kids about God. The Deity God, that myself and Thomas Paine believe in.

Because some like you, up and decided God doesn't exist, and therefore not relevant in school? Out in the real world, God is very much a part of things, and children perhaps ought to be prepared for that reality. That is, what school is there for afterall, isn't it? Teaching, and preparing children for the world. Perhaps it would benefit tolerance of religion, (instead of demonstrating another form of intolerance of religion, known as atheistic indifference to spirituality) if the teacher were allowed to say "Whatever your faith may be, you may say a prayer now." What can it hurt? To prove to children they do indeed have the right and power given by the state, to utter a prayer, exercise religion, at all times -- the protection of their rights, acknowledged by state and federal employees themselves. The atheist has the option to opt out. What's to lose?

------------------

Ed: "Churches are not about freedom at all,"

Sharon: Wrong. Somewhere in ancient times, man apparently sensed (by whatever means) there was something beyond us, more than simply a material realm. Spirituality evolved. Religions evolved, churches built. Don't you feel that children ought be made aware of religions? Or does it threaten your non-belief?

-----------------

Ed: You can look up on the web the various court decisions concerning that case and why the highest courts in the land decided against displaying the commandments.

Sharon: And just when did those court decisions begin? When the atheists starting re-writing the laws for their own personal interests in government, to advance toward an anti-religious, communistic style state? In other words, just another chapter in Christian History, when the atheists usurped the rights of private individuals through its influence over government. I've read about the leftist socialist parties trying to wipe out religion... i.e., in Europe, the Socialist Party, proposed legislature imposing up to 2 years imprisonment for certain religious denominations! The Jehovah Witnesses were one group who had to prove they were a legitimate religion. Who gave the government the right? How long until this oppressive regime comes to The United States? Oh, its already here. Can't utter a prayer in a classroom.

Tell me, if the teacher is at her desk and the building begins shaking and crumbling whilst an earthquake is taking place and she's seeing the roof collapsing on top of her students, is she forbidden to scream "GOD! HELP US!"?

----------------

Ed: "Historically, agnosticism and atheism didn't really come into their own in Christian Europe until the Victorian Era..."

Sharon: And the Founding Fathers, many being Christians and the rest Deists, gave no indication, whatsoever, that any toleration would be offered in behalf of atheists, now did they Ed? No effort to build on that point around John Locke's document, was there? The atheists took it upon themselves in recent years to twist and distort a truth into a supposed, "intent to be a Secular Nation, without God."

----------------

Ed: "As for the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson replaced the missionary courses at William and Mary with strictly non-religious sociology courses."

Sharon: Non Sequitur. Did Thomas Jefferson jot that down on the Constitution and saying "we're now making it an atheist state?" -- you're saying a nation founded on principles that protect the freedom of worship are forbidden to have a classroom session without discussion of religion? Gotta be all about religion, all the time? Why is it that it's always got to be in measures of extremes? No happy middleground.

By the way, on your question about Thomas Paine and his opposition toward atheism? I looked up the encyclopedia which discussed The Age of Reason briefly, and it states he was opposed to both Christianity and Atheism.

We can draw from :

1) The Constitution's built around John Locke's document which excludes atheism as a threat to the state -- Paine obviously agrees, no effort was made to include atheists under toleration rights, unless you can find historical documents to show otherwise?

2) Now, if this founding father, the Deist, Thomas Paine, rejecting atheism as it were, was opposed to atheism, then how much more these Christian Founding Fathers who participated in drawing up of the Constitution?

Do you believe for one moment the Christians involved were in support of atheists running the government?

If you do, I'll say beforehand, you have became insane.

On 12/20/2005 Ed Babinski wrote:
I never said that the founding fathers included atheism, for the simple reason that atheism was hardly even recognized by anyone back then (the

Sharon: But it was well enough known of, that Locke considered it a threat, and atheism was excluded from toleration rights. Right-o, nobody knew about atheism. Nobody knew right up until a hundred years had passed and Paine's busying himself writing against atheism in Age of Reason. Funny how only these men seemed to be aware of atheism, and denounced it, but nobody else.

later Victorian era was the first time when a lot of major intellectuals, writers, poets, scientists began declaring outright atheism), though Jefferson seemed content to observe that one should be willing to ask questions even including ones about God's very existence. What some of the

Sharon: I ask you, where did matter come from? Empty space? Just out of thin air, perhaps the imagination of a chimp. But where did the empty space and thin air come from? I agree with Jefferson, questions are a good thing. . .

founding fathers did not appreciate was organized religion having a direct control over the policies of the new nation, nor organized faiths

No no no Ed. They were against a state religion imposed on a nation. How is a Senator, expressing her beliefs as a Christian, on National Television "having a direct control over policies of the nation"? Curious. Perhaps when one takes a stand on something, others can see "well, I'm not alone in my dislike of this or that immorality . . . and a nation is changed by its individual citizens through religious expression and convictions." Even a teacher, who would dare to stand before her class, and utter a prayer -- it seems so "crazy" and "out of place" these days, chilling --illegal, and unconstitutional -- seems outright weird, doesn't it? That's how *intolerant* people have became against religious expression. (And how fearful people have became of exercising religious expression).

Private citizens have been deprived of their freedom of expression.

acquiring power and amassing wealth via the new nation's government. So the founding fathers were not fond of clerics, especially those clergymen that belonged to religions with the most far reaching, manipulative, and power seeking heirarchical religions that would just as soon see everything under their particular throne.

By the way, the words "In God We Trust" are very recent, from the 1950s Cold War, anti-commuism days. America's original motto was E Pluribus Unim, "Out of Many, One."

Sharon: Are you saying they're not fully "American" words, and fail to live up to the very thing the founding fathers hoped to accomplish? -The guarantee of freedom of religious expression for future generations. Enough Americans rallied around it, and non-believers had to bust their bubble. Atheists seem to feel, we Americans, are not allowed to add on any "religious expression" to national sentiment, like "In God We Trust", but more than welcomed to take away everything sacred.
Okay, I get how that works, but it seems sort of biased if you ask me.

"In God We Trust" sounds very "American Culture" to me.

That is enough answers for you.

---

On 12/20/2005 Ed Babinski wrote:

I never said that the founding fathers included atheism, for the simple reason that atheism was hardly even recognized by anyone back then (the

But it was well enough known of, that Locke considered it a threat, and atheism was excluded from tolerantion rights. Right-o, nobody knew about atheism. Nobody knew right up until a hundred years had passed and Paine's busying himself writing against it in Age of Reason. Funny how these men seemed to be aware of atheism, and denounced it

ED: It was pretty easy to denounce atheists back then, since atheism was an extremely small minority in the world, and neither could atheists publish or speak in public since they were forbidden by laws that forbade the raising of questions considered "blasphemous." And such "blasphemy" trials continued until the early 1900s when one of the last ones was held in America. In fact for nearly two millennia Christians outlawed rival forms of Christianity as well, and other religions, not just atheism.

Sharon: So, seems that the founding fathers would have made that extra special effort in behalf of atheists, if as you've tried to imply, 'Jefferson said to question God's existence', 'Jefferson tried to turn his classroom into a classroom without religious expression' -- they should have said something for atheist rights! But they didn't. Now why not?

From my understanding, it's on record that some of the founding fathers were quite opposed to slavery, and were not afraid to have said so. But couldn't do anything about it at the time. Now, can you produce the same kind of documentation to prove the founding fathers were so keen on atheists having rights to ridicule, persecute and seek to stamp out religious beliefs? That is afterall what they do with their "religious beliefs", isn't it? Their "religious expression" is seldom or never about anything "spiritually enlightening" or "morally uplifting". Usually it consists of profanity, paranoia of others (anyone who believes in God is marked off as an insane invalid), the quickest road to amoral beliefs is the right path to be on -- and the atheists want to "cure" these "religious freaks" with "Freedom from Religion" and "Religious Non_Expression" and are pushing with all their might to have said intolerance, made into law.

------------------

later Victorian era was the first time when a lot of major intellectuals, writers, poets, scientists began declaring outright atheism), though Jefferson seemed content to observe that one should be willing to ask questions even including ones about God's very existence. What some of the

I ask you, where did matter come from?

ED: Where did "God" come from? You can keep asking "why" about any question forever. But at least we have an interaction with "matter/energy" in nature that no one denies, be they atheists or theists.

SHARON: Where does poetry come from? Where does love come from? Where does artistic expression come from? Where do moral values come from? According to evolution, we're merely a monkey shaved --and we logically ought to be behaving like amoral primates --but that's where God, religion (including Humanism) come into play. Deny if you wish. We're *not* just animals Ed. . . That's where, why and how God connects to man.

----------------------

They were against a state religion imposed on a nation.

ED: Of COURSE they were against that. But they were also against priestcraft and Jefferson and Franklin raised questions concerning the veracity of the Gospels themselves. Just read Jefferson and Madison.

Sharon: Point blank, did they outlaw Priestcraft? Did they outlaw the Gospels? Is this suppose to serve to an allusion the founding fathers supposedly intended a nation without God? Total Non Sequitur. "That" is where they, themselves refused to cross the line and interfere with anyone's religious expression. Some Protestants back in Christianity's history, outlawed the Roman Catholic religion, and vis versa . . . but unlike back in Europe and England/Ireland, this was intended to be a free nation, with room for everyone.

---------------------

How is a Senator, expressing her beliefs as a Christian, on National Television "having a direct control over policies of the nation"? Curious.

ED: I never raised that issue with you or anyone else. As for recent ACLU cases, I'm not a member of that organization. But if you are up in arms about them in a specific case then please cite the exact case and show me some documents from the ACLU website as to exactly what the ACLU is in court arguing. I want to know specifically what the ACLU is saying and arguing in each case before I will add my two cents.

Sharon: I think you need to start tuning into your nightly news then. More cases are always up and pending. There's always going to be Christians, and always the ACLU following right behind, gnawing at their drawers --any religious expression that gets "a little out of line" the state is right there to keep it quiet and under control. The ACLU has set itself up as our new Pope, to tell us when, where and how we can and cannot practice our religious and spiritual expression.

---

On 12/21/2005 10:18:48 AM, Ed Babinski wrote:

There are Christians in Porn too.

Sharon: Ed, you are way off the original point in regard to the discussion we actually having. This is how atheists and agnostics argue. Non Sequitur.

What do any of these examples have to do with proving the Founding Fathers intended atheism to usurp itself over the government, and ultimately rob people of their freedoms, and turning the country into borderline communism -- quite like Hitler's regime, they got the right lawyers, in the right places, in power to re-write legislature over a period of time, --the same thing has happened right here in America, to a point where religious expression is forbidden, with use of any tax dollar. i.e., Sheriff of Lee County, FL states his beliefs to his public, the voters of Lee County, FL --and the ACLU rushes in to make a national issue out of it, squealing "unconstitutional". But it isn't. The Founding Fathers themselves used religious expression in the very documents the nation was founded on. I ask you again, do we take scissors and snip some "offensive words" out the documents in Washington, DC, like "Lord" and "Created"?

Locke and Paine had no desire to see the vermin gain influence over government. You know why Ed? Because it would unleash the barrage of misguided sub-culture, some of which incidentally were included in that "list" you carbon copied just moments ago. These things are not the *proof* that atheism belongs in government, rather the *product* of atheism getting its fangs dug deeply into our rights... constraining the rights of moral citizens to take a stand on any issue. If people in office were allowed to speak their true mind, many of these perverts and weirdos would be sent packing!

TIM: "Surely we all realize that atheism is a hell of a lot lot older than Locke. The writings of ancient Greek philosophers comes to mind. It's never been popular, but its been with us as long as human rebellion has."

SHARON: Yes Tim you are correct. Even the Bible, thousands of years old as it is alludes to "Only a fool says there is no God." So, we can deduce atheism has been around a very very long time. Yet, Paine, like Locke still saw atheism as unfit for toleration rights and made absolutely no efforts on behalf of this "ideologue".

Ed wrote: ... to hell raisers ... From those who "hear the Lord" telling them to seek diamonds and gold (via liaisons with bloody African dictators), or sell "Lake of Galilee" beauty products...

---

Ed wrote: The Southern Baptist Convention has labeled Mormons a cult and ran a series of bashing articles in their house organ. The SBC decided it would hold its convention in Salt Lake City and send messengers door to door to convert the anti-Christian Mormons. The local newspaper, partial to Mormons, was not amused. One of the investigative pieces they did was to check all the SLC hotels to see if those holier-than-thou Baptists were imbibing in hotel porn.

What does this have to do with the Founding Fathers and their intolerance of atheism? Can you explain what your point is? Please stick to the issue.

This is completely, /broken record, "Non Sequitur"... since your argument is so very weak, you resort to non-related arguments against non-related groups of people.

#1 Founding Fathers. Were they in the Hotel room watching skin flicks?

#2 Atheists. Did the founding fathers intend this vermin to gain control over the government and like a plague on social morale, numbing the population where they can no longer distinguish on right from wrong. That is, if this story you sent me is even true, or not swayed with personal bias. Personally, I am not impressed.

Does this prove "Porno" benefits American society --or that moral bankruptcy is the "right direction" for the nation?

Let's just burn the Bibles and the Holy Books, get drunk, throw all caution to the wind and have a big orgy? Is that where your argument is going Ed? You want to take everyone down to hell with you. Oh, OK, I get that line of argument.

For every Southern Baptist that's strayed from what they were taught to do in church, I can find two who try to practice the "good things" that they're taught to do in church. --I sure never heard taught in Church, they vindicate looking at Porn -- I know, because I attended Southern Baptist Churches in my life.

There's plenty of Baptists trying to practice the simple doctrines of loving their neighbor, being kind to others, keeping away from negative influences, abstaining from drunkenness, drugs and smoking --trying to live a moral life.

There's plenty of good Southern Baptists.

My grandmother happened to be one of them, and she seemed to feel it brought out the best qualities in people.

Of course with the atheistic influence in society as a corrupting influence . . .

---

Ed's Argument Fallacies and Religious Intoleration

This discussion has crossed over into ridiculous. Only take a look at Ed's argument fallacies.

He has nothing to offer in this discussion except examples of discrepancies by some individuals. That, is the foundation and framework for his "religious intoleration and bigotry". Baptists have God and a Bible, Mormons have God and the book of Mormon, Catholics have Mary and Jesus, Jews have JHWH and the Tnakh and Torah, and Deists have "God" -- but what has Ed got? Arguments against worshipers. Nothing more than nit-picking for the worst examples. He's very happy when he sees religious adherants dragged down to his immoral level. That's where he wants everyone to be. He doesn't want people to have higher standards than his own : Anything goes is his motto.

The best he can offer for a so-called argument, is to dig up dirt on religious groups. And his whole belief system revolves around "since some individuals have been lead astray under the liberal atheistic influence of modern society, and they do not practice what the preacher has taught them.... well, then, this must be proof God doesn't exist! and you cannot look to religion or sacred texts for any guidance on morality, you may end up where these misguided folks did --looking at Porn in a Hotel room. My kind of people."

Argument fallacies to the bitter end.

Digging dirt up on people, has nothing to do with religious expression -or, can't you see this Ed?

That is why Locke felt atheists did not deserve toleration rights. They would use the freedom for one purpose only -- to destroy worship for others... they never concentrate on positives of worship, but negatives ALWAYS negativity against the worshipers-- in an attempt to unravel social morale.

---

Politely bowing out of Discussion Now

...This discussion has crossed over into ridiculous. Only take a look at Ed's argument fallacies.

I feel the point about John Locke and Thomas Paine / Founding Fathers vs. Atheism not intended to have toleration rights extended to it, has been well established.

I've put the bulk of conversation on the web. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing more worth discussing.

By no means does a Deist share the indifference and immoral license of atheism, though a mutual license to question the Bible is shared. Atheists, in my experience, do not particularly like Deists, yet, often quoting deists like Paine when convenient for their own cause. But Paine himself argued against atheism in the Age of Reason.

But, I'll close the conversation. Ed could not provide any documentation on the founding fathers that express even remote toleration of the "atheist non-religion".
Non Belief?
They don't settle with non-belief, but seek to destroy the right of worship for others in their hatred of the concept of God and variegated religions.

Therefore what need have they of "religious" toleration rights? --a type of oxymoron. atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

Instead of earnest research to dig up documentation proving founding fathers intended toleration of "atheist non-religion", he begins digging up dirt on individuals, using the worst examples of adherents as a reflection on all. The only point I assume he was trying to make is that religion today, lacks backbone (moral bankruptcy, result of the indifferent atheistic influence), and its adherents are becoming as corrupted and immoral as himself.

Best, Sharon

---

On 12/21/2005 Ed Babinski wrote:
You talk about atheist influence. But it's the same old influence that existed long before either atheism or organized religion, it's the attraction of power and money and sex. The desire to make a profit, or make your body tingle, or gain control over other people's minds via spreading your own memes. Those factors are what drive America, since we have the most money and are the most powerful nation, and we'll do everything we can to retain that money and power, to stay on top, because that's the American way. Even if it means kicking everyone who can't keep up, under the carpet, both in our own country and foreign countries. And

Sharon: Oh Ed, you really are a crude, deluded person. The Darwin way, in other words, "Natural Selection", -- "Only the strong survive". "Dog eat dog".

That is not the "American Way", and I hope the mass population never succumbs to your cynical view, toward their fellow Americans --America, due to religious influence (primarily Humanist and Christian teachings) on compassion, and generosity helping those who cannot help themselves, etc.

followed by Patriotism, dignity, respect, honor, duty, courage -- things our military strongly believes in.

Virtues which some of us still hold dear, none of which you addressed in your email is what made this country great.

Your argument is not only biased, it is at an all-time low for pathetic.

Message awaits moderator approval

---

---

RELATED ARTICLES
The Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths..."
Vic Reppert, Christian philosopher and author discuss rights of man and whether or not rights are given by "God". Ed Babinski reminds us of how the history of the Church oppressed the population when Kings and Priests had power over state affairs.

"Fictional Biography" and Thomas Paine
Defending the reputation of Thomas Paine against a fictional biography which slurred the Founding Father. Published in 1945.

Constitution of the United States
The religious controversy surrounding the Constitution of the United States, when it was created. Danger lies with polarized religious bigotry, and the push to intermingle church and state.

Declaration of Independence
100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence -lecture explaining the events which lead up to the creation of this document, and results that followed thereafter by Robert G. Ingersoll.

Flouting the Bill of Rights
Historical essay, published in 1945, about the proposed Lynch Bill, which would prohibit citizens from criticizing any religious belief, intruding on rights of freedom of press and speech.

Famed Atheist Philosopher, Antony Flew, Now a Theist/Deist
Antony Flew, atheist philosopher, now claims that he believes in God, but what kind of God? Flew is new to the 'Designer' literature.

Factcheck: "Good" Things Clinton Did vs. "Bad" Things Bush Did
Fact checking criticism on an email that is circulating comparing the positive reactions liberals had toward things done by Clinton, with the negative reactions liberals had toward the things Bush did. The hope is to equate things Clinton and Bush did, and show that Bush's decisions were as "good" as Clinton's, or at least no "worse."

America and its "Christian Heritage"
A misleading circular by the Religious Right which aims to convince readers the Founding Fathers intended a Christian Nation, and Church-State alliance. Debunking its "facts", with actual facts.

Attorney General Phill Kline (Kansas) and Open Abortion Records for Underaged Girls
Open letter to the Kansas State Attorney General's Office on the push for a new law that would mandate open medical records of young girls who have reported sexual activity / abuse to any professional, including abortion records --in attempt to investigate child predators. Contains link to PBS NOW documentary.

Article last updated December 18, 2005
Certified error free by http://htmlvalidator.com