Interesting Quotes from Presidents and Founding Fathers

[shunyadragon]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." ` Thomas Jefferson.[/QUOTE]

Good quotes!

 

[Father Heathen]

Better morals (IMO).

True, although it needs to be taken with a handful of salt. Anton LaVey was a pretentious douche who fabricated much of his own backstory and whose book heavily borrowed from Ayn Rand, Neitzsche, Ragnar Redbeard, and Aleister Crowley.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, although it needs to be taken with a handful of salt. Anton LaVey was a pretentious douche who fabricated much of his own backstory and whose book heavily borrowed from Ayn Rand, Neitzsche, Ragnar Redbeard, and Aleister Crowley.

I considered The Satanic Bible to be a humorous work.
Besides, everyone borrows from everyone else.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Dr. Benjamin Rush - Signer of Declaration of Independence.:

By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime.

Maybe there is truth to his statement.

A number of Christians believe that all people possess knowledge of God, and only through an act of will are they able to deny Him.

A number Christians also believe that all people have a destiny that God is ushering them toward, and that God's will cannot be denied.

Do you, personally, believe that something like taking The Bible our of school would have such drastic effects? Even though:

1. Those students are said to have an understanding of God, regardless
2. The will of the students is at most being actively bent and shaped by God, and at the very least being enabled by God

Or are the Christians who believe those two items (red and blue above) simply fools?

This is sort of like the question people have formulated for the Pope, along the lines of: "If you are so secure in your faith, then why is your car's chief material bullet-proof glass?" If God is so powerful, His will cannot be denied, and people are merely plodding their course according to His desires, then how can it matter whether The Bible is being actively taught in schools or not? Is that mere fact that The Bible isn't in the schools enough to foil God's plan? Perhaps He has no plan?

 

[Jedster]

That's a great quote! Although it was tailored to American quotes... I appreciate the addition. He is a great man.

What does tailored to American quotes mean?

 

[Kenny]

Can students pray in public schools? Can teachers say ‘Merry Christmas’? What’s allowed — and what’s forbidden.
Please, tell me how the bible was taken out of schools. I look forward to you enlightening me.

Go back about 25 years.

 

[Kenny]

Who is "getting the bible back in" and how? How would you feel if the taxes you've paid were used to buy and distribute korans or gitas to students by faculty? Or if students were lead by schools to participate in muslim or hindu prayer?

Not the government, of course. But Bible clubs, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Intervarsity etc.

 

[Kenny]

What does tailored to American quotes mean?

Sorry... go ahead and quote

 

[Kenny]

No. The fact of the moral against 'wrongful death in human history is not dependent on this commandment.

Not sure I understand... if we say "it's ok to commit murder" or promote "It is NOT ok to commit murder" makes no difference?

 

[Jedster]

Sorry... go ahead and quote

i just don't get it. I've had a hard week

 

[Kenny]

A number of Christians believe that all people possess knowledge of God, and only through an act of will are they able to deny Him.

A number Christians also believe that all people have a destiny that God is ushering them toward, and that God's will cannot be denied.

Or are the Christians who believe those two items (red and blue above) simply fools?

yes... you can find Christians who believe just about anything. But why does that make them fools? I don't understand the hyper jump.

Do you, personally, believe that something like taking The Bible our of school would have such drastic effects? Even though:

1. Those students are said to have an understanding of God, regardless
2. The will of the students is at most being actively bent and shaped by God, and at the very least being enabled by God

There is supportive that would lean to that:

 

[shunyadragon]

Not sure I understand... if we say "it's ok to commit murder" or promote "It is NOT ok to commit murder" makes no difference?

Not related to whether the Bibles were allowed officially in the classroom. There is no correlation between having Bibles in the school and the commandment.

 

[Valjean]

Go back about 25 years.

But anyone can bring a bible or Quran to school, just as anyone's free to pray in school. Teachers just can't use religious books as textbooks, teach religion or lead or mandate prayer.
Religion was removed from the curriculum, not from the schools.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

yes... you can find Christians who believe just about anything. But why does that make them fools? I don't understand the hyper jump.

I was doing the jump for you... basically. In that it is simply interesting to note how much of a difference there can be even between adherents of the same faith. And your statement "yes... you can find Christians who believe just about anything." would imply that, if you don't feel as they do on some of those beliefs, then you feel that they are "wrong" to some extent ("fools" may have been a bit harsh, I admit). But if you do not feel that they are "wrong," then you should probably amend your own beliefs, should you not? So that you too can be practicing the faith the correct way? Or do we simply have to admit that there is no correct way?

And that graph you posted is outdated - and after fact-checking I know exactly why it stops at 1993. I'm not sure where you got it... but I would imagine that with the ear-mark labeled "Religious Principles Separated" plastered across the graph that this was from a religiously affiliated source - and it is very obviously biased for this very reason. Here are a couple of graphs I found from various sources (none of them religious):

The above was taken from an article at Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

And this one:

I made myself in Google Sheets using data I pulled DIRECTLY FROM THE FBI.GOV website. And it seems to corroborate the data for the same period (1997-2016) from the "politifact" site's graph above it. And if you examine the period from 1960-1993 from the "politifact" graph, it appears to align really well with the same period in your original graph. Ultimately meaning that these graphs and their data appear to be legitimate from all angles.

So, as you can see... violent crime has overall decreased since the EXACT period at which your graph STOPS. In other words, your graph is deliberately taken out of context. Whether you knew that or not, I don't know... but somebody is certainly being a little disingenuous.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder...
Does anyone here refrain from violent crime because the Bible tells them it's bad?
It always seemed obvious to me, & I had no religious instruction whatsoever.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was doing the jump for you... basically. In that it is simply interesting to note how much of a difference there can be even between adherents of the same faith. And your statement "yes... you can find Christians who believe just about anything." would imply that, if you don't feel as they do on some of those beliefs, then you feel that they are "wrong" to some extent ("fools" may have been a bit harsh, I admit). But if you do not feel that they are "wrong," then you should probably amend your own beliefs, should you not? So that you too can be practicing the faith the correct way? Or do we simply have to admit that there is no correct way?

And that graph you posted is outdated - and after fact-checking I know exactly why it stops at 1993. I'm not sure where you got it... but I would imagine that with the ear-mark labeled "Religious Principles Separated" plastered across the graph that this was from a religiously affiliated source - and it is very obviously biased for this very reason. Here are a couple of graphs I found from various sources (none of them religious):

The above was taken from an article at Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

And this one:
View attachment 21365
I made myself in Google Sheets using data I pulled DIRECTLY FROM THE FBI.GOV website. And it seems to corroborate the data for the same period (1997-2016) from the "politifact" site's graph above it. And if you examine the period from 1960-1993 from the "politifact" graph, it appears to align really well with the same period in your original graph. Ultimately meaning that these graphs and their data appear to be legitimate from all angles.

So, as you can see... violent crime has overall decreased since the EXACT period at which your graph STOPS. In other words, your graph is deliberately taken out of context. Whether you knew that or not, I don't know... but somebody is certainly being a little disingenuous.

Actually the decrease in crime may be partly related to aging of the Baby Boomers. The age when most people commit crime aged out.

 

[columbus]

I wonder...
Does anyone here refrain from violent crime because the Bible tells them it's bad?
It always seemed obvious to me, & I had no religious instruction whatsoever.

I went to religious schools for 12 years.
But I don't remember them feeling the need to emphasize that commandment. Nobody ever said, "Hey kids, don't forget that God doesn't want you to commit murder!"
Tom

 

[Kenny]

There are many presidents who went from saying that the US isn't a Christian Nation to those who said it was with statements like these from the same person even:

pro:

The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth ... it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, oration at Newburyport, Jul. 4, 1837

Against:



“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 Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] 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.

[Adams submitted and signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]”

When there are differences, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court then weighs in and has the last word unless Congress enacts a law otherwise stated:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

 

[Kenny]

But anyone can bring a bible or Quran to school, just as anyone's free to pray in school. Teachers just can't use religious books as textbooks, teach religion or lead or mandate prayer.
Religion was removed from the curriculum, not from the schools.

Not according to all the lawsuits that have been fought and continues to have to fight for that right

 

[shunyadragon]

When there are differences, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court then weighs in and has the last word unless Congress enacts a law otherwise stated:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

1892? I believe Supreme Court decisions since this have reinforced the separation of church and state, and rejected the concept that the United States has a state religion.

The different religions and cultures represented on the Supreme Court building are a witness to this.