Arky State in the news

[Chuckles]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.



Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

 

[cf3000]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.



Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.

As for the chaplain, read the Madison quote again. Seems that people were playing the 'Christian' card for votes even back then.

The Declaration is not the law of the land.

 

[Chuckles]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.





Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.

As for the chaplain, read the Madison quote again. Seems that people were playing the 'Christian' card for votes even back then.

The Declaration is not the law of the land.

Wow! So Madison as well as Jefferson were playing the "Christian" card when they--according to the Library of Congress--attended congressional church services? Would this make Madison a hypocrite?

I attributed the source of the quote to Thornton. Guess we'll have to leave that to someone who goes to this source instead of a self-proclaimed fake history webpage. I have others so we can continue to play the quotations game. Conveniently you leave out the Library of Congress as an authoritative source while linking to wordpress.com. Is it not inconvenient that both the Declaration of Independence is "not the law of the land" and the Constitution which is the law of the land both make a religious reference? Was that also playing the "Christian" card.

Is this as authoritative as the fake history webpage that in "about the creator" link identifies him/her as sbh?

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/franklin.html#BM1

 

[Sandman211]

Wasn't this to honor someone that died or was killed?


What the **** is with people feeling they need to interfere in every little thing. Understand why the school caved, I dont get why someone felt the need to **** about this. Who's rights or liberties were being infringed by the players honoring people with crosses on their helmets?

It was to honor two people. One was an equipment manager killed in a car accident this summer, the second was to honor a player who was murdered during the break between the bowl game and Spring Practice. Went home for a few days, discovered his father had turned to drug use. Couple of thieves came in looking for drugs while he was there. They shot his father and were in the process of terrorizing his mother when he charged them. He was shot and killed, but it spooked the thieves enough to abandon their pursuit and likely saved his mothers life.

Fans are doing a cross out for the Utah State game next week. Local company got a Tshirt with the emblem designed and is selling them for 5 dollars, with all money going to the two families.

Good to see someone in the community standing up for the players and the families since the University wouldn't.

 

[INCaneFan]

This country is being destroyed by liberalism. Complete garbage to not only ask them to remove the cross, but completely disrespect the families and lives of the fallen teammates they were trying to honor.

Oh jesus christ, how the **** are the families and dead being disrespected? Numbers have been used forever, even initials. I don't give a flip if the deceased were christians and putting a cross on there doesn't change that.

Nice gesture, I have no problem with that. Make some of those hood shirts, put a big stinking cross on it, and wear it underneath your pads. The law is pretty clear on these things, so it shouldn't be a big deal. You give a little on this type of situation, someone will push it further eventually, and so forth.

 

[Chuckles]

Yeah right, in our third century as a nation someone is really pushing it, but not in the direction of the big stinking cross.

 

[chiefsfan]

Wasn't this to honor someone that died or was killed?


What the **** is with people feeling they need to interfere in every little thing. Understand why the school caved, I dont get why someone felt the need to **** about this. Who's rights or liberties were being infringed by the players honoring people with crosses on their helmets?

It was to honor two people. One was an equipment manager killed in a car accident this summer, the second was to honor a player who was murdered during the break between the bowl game and Spring Practice. Went home for a few days, discovered his father had turned to drug use. Couple of thieves came in looking for drugs while he was there. They shot his father and were in the process of terrorizing his mother when he charged them. He was shot and killed, but it spooked the thieves enough to abandon their pursuit and likely saved his mothers life.

Fans are doing a cross out for the Utah State game next week. Local company got a Tshirt with the emblem designed and is selling them for 5 dollars, with all money going to the two families.

Good to see someone in the community standing up for the players and the families since the University wouldn't.

University couldn't. Even if we had taken advantage of the few lawyers willing to take our case for free, its still a major deal that becomes National Attention. There is absolutely no precedence for a case like this. If we won...great, but it might come with an injunction to stop them anyway, and if we lost, we can pretty much kiss ever doing something like that again goodbye.

In the end...its just not worth the risk.

 

[arkstfan]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.





Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.

As for the chaplain, read the Madison quote again. Seems that people were playing the 'Christian' card for votes even back then.

The Declaration is not the law of the land.

Wow! So Madison as well as Jefferson were playing the "Christian" card when they--according to the Library of Congress--attended congressional church services? Would this make Madison a hypocrite?

I attributed the source of the quote to Thornton. Guess we'll have to leave that to someone who goes to this source instead of a self-proclaimed fake history webpage. I have others so we can continue to play the quotations game. Conveniently you leave out the Library of Congress as an authoritative source while linking to wordpress.com. Is it not inconvenient that both the Declaration of Independence is "not the law of the land" and the Constitution which is the law of the land both make a religious reference? Was that also playing the "Christian" card.

Is this as authoritative as the fake history webpage that in "about the creator" link identifies him/her as sbh?

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/franklin.html#BM1

Considering that Jefferson made his own bible that omitted the miracles of Jesus and ended with him dead in the tomb, he probably wouldn't be defined as an orthodox Christian.

 

[canedoit]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.





Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.

As for the chaplain, read the Madison quote again. Seems that people were playing the 'Christian' card for votes even back then.

The Declaration is not the law of the land.

Wow! So Madison as well as Jefferson were playing the "Christian" card when they--according to the Library of Congress--attended congressional church services? Would this make Madison a hypocrite?

I attributed the source of the quote to Thornton. Guess we'll have to leave that to someone who goes to this source instead of a self-proclaimed fake history webpage. I have others so we can continue to play the quotations game. Conveniently you leave out the Library of Congress as an authoritative source while linking to wordpress.com. Is it not inconvenient that both the Declaration of Independence is "not the law of the land" and the Constitution which is the law of the land both make a religious reference? Was that also playing the "Christian" card.

Is this as authoritative as the fake history webpage that in "about the creator" link identifies him/her as sbh?

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/franklin.html#BM1

Considering that Jefferson made his own bible that omitted the miracles of Jesus and ended with him dead in the tomb, he probably wouldn't be defined as an orthodox Christian.

Yessir, he knew it was astro-theology and Brother Paine did what he could to illuminate people as well. Well, at least "tear down that wall" still lingers for copy-and-pastors...err pasters.

 

[Notsince1985]

If we are going to argue from authority, let's at least look to the guy who had more to do with the constitution than anyone else.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.





Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.

Madison

If we're going to "argue from authority" in all honesty:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
– John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.

Years of "progressive" education have made it fashionable to separate the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers. It is clear that our founders did not want an official state religion. Yet the Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and a "supreme judge of the world." Then the Constitution ends with "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Despite the fact the founders were against a state religion they had no problem with creating the office of a chaplain (existing still today) and demonstrated they had no fear, or objection to religion by publishing a Bible and having church services (which Madison attended):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Careful readers will note that at no point have I endorsed a particular religion or stated my personal preferences. For the benefit of my good debating buddy (who likes to jump to conclusions) I will state that I am not particularly religious and only rarely can I be found inside a church unless someone has died, got married, or I'm curious to see the tall organ pipes at Duke. This does not mean that my irrational fear of the roof cracking over my head is concerned with your wish to attend or not to attend any kind of services.
Unless your faith tells you to kill me. ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html )

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fake-quotations-adams-and-the-indissoluble-bond/

The words were written by John Wingate Thornton, and were part of his introduction to a collection of American revolutionary-era sermons published in 1860.

As for the chaplain, read the Madison quote again. Seems that people were playing the 'Christian' card for votes even back then.

The Declaration is not the law of the land.

Wow! So Madison as well as Jefferson were playing the "Christian" card when they--according to the Library of Congress--attended congressional church services? Would this make Madison a hypocrite?

I attributed the source of the quote to Thornton. Guess we'll have to leave that to someone who goes to this source instead of a self-proclaimed fake history webpage. I have others so we can continue to play the quotations game. Conveniently you leave out the Library of Congress as an authoritative source while linking to wordpress.com. Is it not inconvenient that both the Declaration of Independence is "not the law of the land" and the Constitution which is the law of the land both make a religious reference? Was that also playing the "Christian" card.

Is this as authoritative as the fake history webpage that in "about the creator" link identifies him/her as sbh?

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/franklin.html#BM1

You don't want to use Jefferson as an example. He was a Deist.