I disagree! First of all, “We the People” are not an Empire! “We the People” are a “Republic”! Second, you have overlooked an important detail. The Roman Republic collapsed into the Roman Empire. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that the American Republic we collapse into a American Empire, unless “We the People” stop it! Furthermore, the danger is the collapse! The Roman Republican transitioned into the Roman Empire during a series of Civil Wars that lasted over hundred years. This is the danger! The threat within is greater than the threat abroad, because “We the People” are divided, and a Country Divided CANNOT stand!

We need a third party! Progressivism is the problem and “We the People” must confront this movement. The Progressive Party DID NOT win in 1912, but it inspired a century of Progressive Politics within the Democrat & Republican Parties. In other words, each Political Party has its own brand of Progressivism, but each Party has each Progressive agenda. Therefore, the solution is an Anti-Progressive movement.

We need form the Anti-Progressive Party!

“We the People” of the Anti-Progressive Party,” in Order to save Our Republic hereby reestablish “Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote (NOT PROVIDE) the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (FUTURE GENERATIONS), do ordain and establish this” Political Party.

Furthermore,“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Party Platform

“We the People of the Anti-Progressive Party” expressly declare and hereby promote the “Bill of Rights” as our Party Platform. Especially, Amendments 9 and 10, we shall consider them before all others.

Amendment IX

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

No you are not misinformed. In every situation that this approach has been used, the explaination given is that the country attempting stimulating their economy in this manner did not respond quick enough and/or with enough money. Well, this time I think it safe to say they responded quickly and with more than enough money, but in the end the result will more than likely be the same.

Also, just thought you may want to edit your original post, not everyone will look at the replies for the correction.

Did you read all of the replies attached thereto? More to the point, for you to cast such a stone you must be without sin? am I correct? Are you perfect?

I agree, well said. I wish though he would tone it down just a little :)

My apologies for my slow response, but I have been on a small vacation & chose not to have internet access or be able to be reached via e-mail.

:) You do not see the perversion of “separation between church and state” and yet you use the perverse quote of Jefferson’s actual quote “thus building a WALL OF SEPARATION between church and state”. Context matters, “separation between church and state” sounds concrete and is far more easier for those with little patients with abstract thought to understand and accept, where as “a wall of separation between church and state” is not as easily understood, and leads to more questions, for one: Where is the “Wall of Separation between church and state” located? (Be precise, because keep and mind by hobby is Land Surveying & one thing I have learned is the location of Boundaries may not be as they appear.) My point is, the “wall of separation” was presumed by the Supreme Court in 1947 via “Everson vs Board of Education” to be wall of division between church and state to keep one from perverting the other, but the did not take in account the location of the wall. The location of wall is of the up most importance in understanding Jefferson’s metaphor. And to understand Jefferson’s metaphor we must take Jefferson’s entire letter into context. Therefore, I find it reasonable, as I described to you before in detail, that Jefferson’s Wall is a wall of protection and not a wall of division.

In addition, I do not understand why you have chosen some of your tactics. You seem, (not sure) to have drawn a “line in the sand” about two main topics, which you know will angry Christians… Why do you think it necessary to provoke Christians in this manner. Now, I agree it is not accurate for Christians to claim complete responsibility, meaning take all the credit for the founding of “Our Republic”, but I do not see the logic in dismissing their contribution either. It seems counterproductive or dare I say it, IRRATIONAL to provoke them.

And finally, I am complete agreement with you on the following: “I think it goes both ways and i think Jefferson understood this. The church will be perverted by the state and the state can only infringe rights once perverted by religion, even if those who subscribe to the particular religion don't see it and I think that is the problem today.” Also, You have stated in the belief of “Freedom from Religion” as the only way to ensure the “Freedom of Religion”, now this concept sounds VERY rational to me, at face value I like it a lot. However, things must be taken in Complete context. The First Amendment is just one amendment of the Constitution, our charter of which “Our Republic” is founded, in other words, a legal document or contract.

My point is, “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance.” In other words, the establishment of secularism “a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship” is still the ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION! In the broadest use of the term religion “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (but not completely) when considered as the creation of superhuman agency or agencies, usually (but not always) involving devotional and ritual observances, and often (again not always) containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Therefore, I summit to you the Establishment of Secularism has been perverted just as any other religious belief can be perverted; example Department of Education.

In conclusion, the problem is not Secularism the problem is “Progressivism” Just like any other religion it is not the religion that is the problem, but rather those claiming to share the VALUES of the religion, those claiming to be of the faith :), those whom act in the name of the religion, but their actions DO NOT support the faith :). In other words, Secularism has “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Progressives) that profess the faith and since Christians are not able to distinguish one from the other perhaps your time may be better spent educating them that there is a difference, rather than condemning their faith. Just a thought :)

Ok :) Logic good. Reason good. I’m down with that!

However, I do not BELIEVE it to be reasonable, that secularism is above perversion :) Now, that being said, as a Deist, whom studies the Christian Theology, I DO NOT WANT the endorsement of any belief for or against religion by the state. I just want the perversion of Jefferson metaphor “thus building a wall of separation between church and state” corrected, because the result thereof perverted the First Amendment.

In addition, consider the following: If you put Jefferson’s letter into proper context, it appears to me, that Jefferson was a man concerned with protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church, and that the purpose of the metaphor was to summarize this belief. Now, let me be clear, that does not mean that we should not protect the state (“We the People”) from the church. I just think “We the People” our responsible for that task.

However, I do share your concern of mob rule, but the reality is Christians are FAR from unified. Perhaps :) One may even reason that their inability to unite behind one unified Theology contributed to the founding of a Republic base on the Rule of Law, instead of a Theocracy ruled by “The Mob”, but that's just a theory not a scientific fact :)

The last word is yours!

Regards,

Jim

Is the First Amendment a value or a principle?

Value: Ideas, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard; values may be positive, such as cleanliness, FREEDOM, or education; or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy

Principle: an accepted or professed rule or action or conduct

Now, I concede the fact that in reality I am drawing a distinction that favors my belief structure. I am human that is what we do. My point is, so are you!

I cannot prove the existence of a God, Christian or otherwise any more than you can disprove the existence thereof (Rationally speaking of course), because by definition atheism is the belief or doctrine there is no God, and a belief is based upon opinion or conviction, not REASON or LOGIC, but feeling or intuition.

And finally, I propose to you this premise that “Our Republic” was not intended to be Secular or Christian, but Anti-theocratic with perhaps a hint of Deism.

Perhaps :) We all can unite behind this theme!

Sorry for my late arrival, but it would appear that the primary objection to your thesis by Christians is that you have asserted that “Our Republic” was intended to be secular, and you have repeatedly ask for link between Christian Theological Principals and the Founding Principals (individual rights) of “Our Republic”. Well, I have a question for you. Can you provide a list of Secular Principals used by our Founding Fathers?