Keep up the good fight but don’t tar all xians with the tar brush that a few have earned by their public preaching. One thing I have learned over the years – don’t hate or dislike an individual solely because of their membership in a group, whether that group is a religion or a race or a political party. Most people are good. Make your judgments about a person based on their actions, not by their external appearance. Give everyone a chance to make a fool of themselves (or not) before dropping the hammer on them.

Make your own decisions, don’t let others’ words affect you in those choices.

I hate (or strongly dislike) most Christians because of people like RWC, Jeannie Sheffield, Erik, etc. They persecute others who don’t believe like they do(ESPECIALLY RWC…) and use god as a tool in order to justify their intolerance. Mr. Lay and Coach Freeman, whether they admit it or not, behaved in a similar manner when they requested a word of prayer instead of a moment of silence. When do the other religious groups get to bow their heads? Before, or after the Christian prayer is being led? That’s my problem with Christians these days. Most tend to walk over other nationalities and belief systems because they presume THEY are still the majority. Acknowledge all faiths, or acknowledge no faith.

You may be in a better position than many luke warm Christians. Jesus said He’d rather we be hot or cold than lukewarm. Most Christians I’ve known in my life have seemed lukewarm, and didn’t even want to discuss The Word outside of a church setting. You have some legitmate questions…..questions that only God should answer. It is too bad you do not believe in Him, for He is very real. I had to find that out for myself from Him. I did not want to hear from anyone but Him. And, I was angry, and poured out my heart to Him. He answered, not in an audible voice. It was much deeper than that. It was a still small voice deep within, and it was very clear, and Peaceful. It is written that the fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” I do not think you are a fool, and I do not think you are convinced there is no God. You are angry about what you perceive to be God. Ask Him. He said we’d find Him when we search for Him with our whole heart. The fault in not in His Word. It is in our hearing. He has said that His Word is Spirit. Most miss that, or skip over it. It was important, or He would not have said it, and have it recorded. Luke 11 helped me. So did Romans 12:1.

I would list off scripture until the day ends; but sadly, I don’t have the time (or the patience). I don’t want to come back and see a bunch of dribble about how “He works in mysterious ways,” or that “God is perfect,” either. Science is the only absolute in the universe, even if sometimes there are too many variables for human comprehension or understanding… and I’d rather have my fate in the hands of those variables than the Christian god.

Frank Lay’s case was not determined by your god. You should all be quite angry if that were true; after all, isn’t there plenty of true suffering in the world more deserving of His attentions (and I capitalize only for reference, not out of submission) than a man charged with criminal contempt of court, a crime he actually did commit? Why doesn’t your god alleviate the suffering or cure the sick, instead of giving a man lee-way and you all an issue into which you can spill your copious amounts of nostalgia? That’s a question that should be answered, instead of ignored so that you can justify your zeal with nonsense.

People are seldom changed by debate or argument; we all hold things close that we value.

I have enjoyed the exchanges. Thanks.

It said:

Mr. Somerville, you are, indeed, the worthy opponent; I say that in the most positive and sincere way. Thank you. I am enjoying this debate and will so long as the website will allow or until we decide to close it. I will add that while we debate I am sure that I will not change your view, nor will you mine. I feel that at some point, as I play on your more secular field, I will lose the debate since I will be tempted to revert to the scriptures, which we are ultimately debating (to some degree) as much as we are arguing the Constitution. For example, one cannot use the word being defined as its own definition. Furthermore, I am not well trained in Christian Apologetics; my views come as much from my personal belief system.

That being said here are my refutes to your latest post.

My referral to the Declaration was only to refute another’s post about the founders being athiest. You are correct and I agree with your statement as such.

You are also correct when you imply that Mr. Jefferson’s views might not be well received in a Southern Baptist church; I would add that his view might not be well received in any Christian church.

You are again correct when you make the reference to words being used in one time period versus another. Actually, Mr. Jefferson used the word Christian almost exactly as the Webster dictionary defines it today. I say almost because the definition leaves some room for interpretation (not unlike many of our laws and Constitutional interpretations).

I also agree with you that if I stood up in my church and expressed Mr. Jefferson’s views as my own, I would most certainly be admonished (again, I think that would apply to any Christian church, not just a Southern Baptists church); I doubt, however, that I would suffer bodily harm-I can’t really believe you think I would.

As for considering Mr. Jefferson a Christian. I cannot read his heart, only his writings (or lack thereof) as you decribed. With that in mind, you are again correct that I would not consider his views as Christian inasmuch as I do believe in the Trinity of God and the resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. I utilize the part of the Webster definition where it mentions the ‘truth as taught by Him.’ Jesus did teach that he was the Son of God and that he would be resurrected and that he was the Messiah. If this definition was the same in Jefferson’s time, then, by definition, Jefferson would not have been a Christian if he indeed believed (or more accurately didn’t believe) those things, as you stated, to be true and was not merely presenting them as a matter of argument in some philosophical discussion.

[Again, I remind you that I referred to the earlier posted statement about the founders being athiests; I didn’t necessarily say I thought they were all Christian, just not athiest.]

You are correct, I meant to write ‘another’ instead of ‘the’ in my post when I referred to Mr. Adams quote.

Regarding the Treaty, I believe I mentioned the treaty as ratified 8 years after the original. If the treaty was written, broken, then re-written would you not agree that the later one supercedes the earlier version (especially if it carried the same name)? I also believe that 1797 + 8 is 1805. I don’t mind arguing symantecs as long as we stay on point, professor.

I still think your ‘Freedom’ quote makes my case. If you present your whole quote, it makes a circle. Your last sentence reinforces my point, in my opinion. Don’t you just hate it when that happens? Many of our laws evolve from the (I know you’re going to chide me for this) but the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, which were written before the birth of Jesus Christ, therefore not Christian, by Webster’s definition, right?

You once again tried to misquote me regarding the Holy Trinity case. I used an exerpt from that case that said the United States was a religious (not Christian) nation. Please, Mr. Somerville, don’t keep trying that tactic.

I guess I missed your point regarding the New Orleans case, sorry.

I deal with government regulators on a regular basis. They seem caught up in the ‘the law means this’ or ‘I believe it means that’. I believe that what is writtten is writtten. The philosophy of judicial activism has been practiced by both sides of the political aisle to no good end. However, since we give the Supreme Court the last word, the writing of the majority opinion as rendered is the law; the dissenting opinion is worthless except to express how the other side felt about the majority opinion. This activism, as matter of fact, is just exactly how the ’separation of church and state’ philosophy entered into our legal system from Mr. Jefferson’s writing.

I am not sure, sir, are you calling me or ‘Lee’ a liar? I understand, very well, the definition of ‘to plagiarize’. I referred to his posts only as points I would have presented. His first post gave credit to the writer/speaker; his second post may have come from another source and probably should have been properly cited.

All that being said, my original point (and I feel we have drifted somewhat) was that Christians seem to be the target of very liberal attacks. It almost seems personal in nature at times. In your first reply this morning, you accurately stated that the reason the court exonerated the defendants was because the event was not a school function. The beloved ACLU sure jumped quickly to create this frivolous lawsuit; do you think their attorneys were trying to sincerely be the self appointed religious watchdog in this situation or do you think they were just simply using the court as a tool for harrassment? Do you find it ironic that the judge who issued the original order, then decided the defendants were not guilty of violating it? I honestly do not know, but would find it almost uncanny, if the Judge who issued the contempt citation was one in the same, too; if that were the case, one should raise an eyebrow to such questionable circumstances, don’t you think? (providing of course, she had all the information and the accusing attorneys didn’t file half-truths)

I look forward to your next post. By the way, I have been assuming that your name indicates you are a male; if I have been mistaken please accept my sincere apology, I meant no disrespect.

2) You are wrong in your claim about the Treaty of Tripoli. There were two Treaties, the first ratified in 1797, the second in 1805.

3) My earlier quote from John Adams is not from the same document as the one you provided. You have failed to acknowledge this after originally stating:

“In your reference to Mr. Adams’ quote, here is the complete quote:
” Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”

as if the quote I posted September 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am were part of the one you provided.

4) You failed to comment on L’Hote and the Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of New Orleans and it s relationship to the earlier decision Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

Mr Wilcoxon posted:
“You are mistaken about your graven images comment. The graven image was not supposed to be of anything on, in, or above the earth in order to be worshipped. The Ten Commandments were writtten in stone, after all; I don’t think anyone worships them, per se.”

In response I offer the following with my emphasis on the one word that shows Mr Wilcoxon’s error in describing the Commandment.
KJV – Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, OR any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Mr Wilcoxon also posted:
“Which ones of the Ten Commandments should not be used? Show me one, that, in principle, is not an accepted part of any religion. “

In reply, I offer the “graven images” commandment, as there are many religions that do call for the use of images, either of deitys or of holy persons and artifacts. There is the one about working six days and keeping the “sabbath”, that certainly is not one that all other religions would follow and we also have the “take the name of the LORD” in vain.

A statement was also made about the value of the Ten Commandments as “foundational fundamentals”. Thomas Jefferson and most of the Founders certainly didn’t believe they were such, rather it was English common law and the Enlightenment philosophies of Locke that were used in forming the Constitution.

I was pleased to see that Mr Wilcoxon does support historical studies of the world’s religions. Such studies could be valuable to America’s youth, the problem of course comes in maintaining neutrality within the classroom while looking at various beliefs.

With this reply, I will cease my efforts at showing the errors that all too many believe are true historical facts. Thank you Mr Wilcoxon, I don’t think I have offered disrespect toward you but if you feel that one who disagrees with your interpretations is disrespectful of you, I cannot change that.

thou shalt have no other gods before me.

that is fine for a group of people agreeing on how they will conduct their own personal lives.

It is not fine for people who have not chosen to follow that God or any god.

I most certainly did address your comments. Maybe you just chose which parts of my post to read.

You are mistaken about your graven images comment. The graven image was not supposed to be of anything on, in, or above the earth in order to be worshipped. The Ten Commandments were writtten in stone, after all; I don’t think anyone worships them, per se.

Sir, I am not attempting to force anything on anyone, just desiring the freedom to practice or not to practice; just as other religions are allowed to do. I even support a historical study of all religions in schools as a matter of educational value.

If you insist on using the term religion and Christianity interchangeably, then you are, indeed, refusing to give other religious entities their rightful place by definition. The Buddhist religion follows the teachings of Buddha, Islam-Mohammed, etc. Are they not religions? How can you possibly validate your position? Furthermore, if you use them interchangeably, then the government is, indeed, discriminating against Christianity…by your own definition, would you agree?

Which ones of the Ten Commandments should not be used? Show me one, that, in principle, is not an accepted part of any religion.

By the way, I have attempted to have a gentleman’s debate and have extended every courtesy to you as a manner of respect. You have not afforded me the same courtesy. It seems obvious that you do not respect me; I dare say that you may be one who doesn’t respect anyone who doesn’t hold with your view. I am enjoying our debate, but will discontinue if that, indeed, is your attitude.

First, the two men were not in a public school when the prayer took place. Thus, the judge’s ruling.
Second, I don’t believe any teacher or administrator FORCES his/her religion and/or Christianity on any student—in a public school. Yes, that is against the law.
Third, most of you over fifty have heard prayer in school at some point. I don’t believe it traumatized any of you emotionally or physically. And I don’t believe it will leave any scars if heard or witnessed today.