Chick Fil-A gives in

[CarmelHP]

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.


In context, it was not exactly advocating a religious free politic. It was paying homage to the protection of religion from government.

 

[rambone]

They also announced a new ingredient in their sandwiches.

 

[gunman41mag]

If true,I won't be eating there

 

[GTM]

Freedom of religion - not freedom from religion, as is being pushed right now.

Yes, freedom from religion as well.

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

1785

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes, freedom from religion as well.

Let me explain to you that YOUR freedom from religion doesn't equate to restricting MY right to practice my religion and beliefs, nor do you have a constitutional right to not be offended by my practicing my religion and beliefs. Using the heavy hand of government as a poison pill to prevent me from practicing my religion is just as unconstitutional as having a state-sponsored religion.

 

[Phil502]

Apparently the almighty dollar is more valuable than the owners personal beliefs.

Wonder how those who camped out for a couple hours to get medicore fast food are feeling today?

I don't know how anybody feels but I ate there during that time, for the first time, to support their right to open a restaurant where they choose without city officials blocking them based on their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. I did not eat there as a statement against gay marriage.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Yes, freedom from religion as well.

Intellectual gymnastics.

I see and understand what you are saying by quoting Madison but to derive from that entire quote that religion has no role in the public forum is an intellectual stretch. I agree that force (of any kind ... actual, legislative, tax, etc.) should not be wielded by Government to coerce any person into "belief." However, "non-belief" itself is not a benign force. It should not hold pre-eminence in our public forum. Like John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governement of any other."

 

[GTM]

Intellectual gymnastics.

I see and understand what you are saying by quoting Madison but to derive from that entire quote that religion has no role in the public forum is an intellectual stretch.

It's not really an intellectual stretch. Further down in the document we have this:

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

The full text can be found here:

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[LEaSH]

I'm going to buy one of their chicken sandwich right now and then I'm going to have sex with it.

 

[Designer99]

Please inlighten all of us ont the exact location of the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution ?
And do you know the origen of that phrase ?

Try the first Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson maybe? You are on the internet. Why don't you use it to search?

Lib lawyer phrase, so libs believe it.

Ahh I see. Didn't know Thomas Jefferson was a lib. I bet you guys can't go one day without saying lib in some sort of out of context way. Surprised you didn't throw Hitler in there too.

It doesn't have to be in the U.S. Constitution. You only have to repeat the phrase enough times and people will start to believe that it's in there somewhere.

Carmel HP already found it for you guys. I know it hurts your brain to think outside of what's been engrained in you, but please give it a try.

Seriously, if you guys want a religious government, head on over to the Middle East. They have plenty over there and it seems to be working well for them.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's not really an intellectual stretch. Further down in the document we have this:



The full text can be found here:

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

Just skimmed it; it seems like an argument against a bill which would have established a state religion - which would have been wrong. And this article predates the US Constitution's ratification, so I'm not certain it applies generally.

 

[GTM]

Just skimmed it; it seems like an argument against a bill which would have established a state religion - which would have been wrong. And this article predates the US Constitution's ratification, so I'm not certain it applies generally.

But it gives insight into their thoughts.

 

[SERparacord]

Try the first Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson maybe? You are on the internet. Why don't you use it to search?




Ahh I see. Didn't know Thomas Jefferson was a lib. I bet you guys can't go one day without saying lib in some sort of out of context way. Surprised you didn't throw Hitler in there too.



Carmel HP already found it for you guys. I know it hurts your brain to think outside of what's been engrained in you, but please give it a try.

Seriously, if you guys want a religious government, head on over to the Middle East. They have plenty over there and it seems to be working well for them.

The State cannot pick a religion for you. You obviously do not know what you are ranting about.

 

[PointFiveO]

That's hot Leash... I wonder if they support this type of sexual interaction?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

But it gives insight into their thoughts.

It gives insight in to a faction's thoughts; the First Amendment to the Constitution stands for itself as written, if not as interpreted by lawyers.

 

[spencer rifle]

"America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."
— President Woodrow Wilson (not a Founding Father, but a founding Progressive)

"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
— Patrick Henry

The whole quote:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"The greatest pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."
Patrick Henry

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure … are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

 

[ryan3030]

I don't understand people who try to make the argument "YOU CANT STOP ME FROM PRACTICING MY RELIGION" as a counter-point to those who are arguing for freedom from religion.

No one is trying to stop you from practicing, the side arguing with you is saying that you are trying to prevent other people from doing what they want to do based on your personal faith. You are using your religion as an excuse to impose your will upon others, that is the opposite of what this country is about.

If the anti-gay crowd wants to present an argument that would actually be effective, try basing your argument on facts, rather than what your favorite fiction book says. I say this because next you will argue that allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope, because based on my logic who are we stop people from marrying animals? Point being, you can argue that particular case easily by citing facts, like a lack of consent.

The one thing gun owners typically unite behind regardless of religious belief is the desire for less or smaller government. I see no reason why marriage should be a federally governed thing. Let churches sanctify their marriages how they see fit. If that means a particular church only marries straight people, good for them, that is their right as a privately owned entity.

No one is asking you to bend over backwards, they are simply asking for equality. We've been here twice already in recent history with women's rights and civil rights.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Try the first Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson maybe? You are on the internet. Why don't you use it to search?

It's nowhere in the First Amendment ... or U.S. Constitution. I'm almost certain that TheRude1 knew the origin of the phrase and was wondering if anyone else (that quotes the phrase) knew the origin.

Just skimmed it; it seems like an argument against a bill which would have established a state religion - which would have been wrong. And this article predates the US Constitution's ratification, so I'm not certain it applies generally.

Beat me to it. Madison was opposed to the establishment of a national religion, not religion itself or the free excercise thereof.

 

[spencer rifle]

The one thing gun owners typically unite behind regardless of religious belief is the desire for less or smaller government. I see no reason why marriage should be a federally governed thing. Let churches sanctify their marriages how they see fit. If that means a particular church only marries straight people, good for them, that is their right as a privately owned entity.

"In light of the fundamental nature of procreation, and the importance placed on it by the Supreme Court, safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest."
— Maryland Court of Appeals, Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al.

No one is asking you to bend over backwards, they are simply asking for equality. We've been here twice already with women's rights and civil rights.

Sex and skin color are genetically determined. There appears to be insufficient evidence that homosexuality is, and certainly not the predilection to have sexual relations with siblings, children and/or animals. Denying a slope is slippery doesn't suddenly increase the friction coefficient.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't understand people who try to make the argument "YOU CANT STOP ME FROM PRACTICING MY RELIGION" as a counter-point to those who are arguing for freedom from religion.

No one is trying to stop you from practicing, the side arguing with you is saying that you are trying to prevent other people from doing what they want to do based on your personal faith. You are using your religion as an excuse to impose your will upon others, that is the opposite of what this country is about.

If the anti-gay crowd wants to present an argument that would actually be effective, try basing your argument on facts, rather than what your favorite fiction book says. I say this because next you will argue that allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope, because based on my logic who are we stop people from marrying animals? Point being, you can argue that particular case easily by citing facts, like a lack of consent.

The one thing gun owners typically unite behind regardless of religious belief is the desire for less or smaller government. I see no reason why marriage should be a federally governed thing. Let churches sanctify their marriages how they see fit. If that means a particular church only marries straight people, good for them, that is their right as a privately owned entity.

No one is asking you to bend over backwards, they are simply asking for equality. We've been here twice already in recent history with women's rights and civil rights.

The whole Gay Rights community condemns us as "haters" and "homophobes" if we disagree with their choice of lifestyle because it conflicts with our religious beliefs. They've managed to get their view taught to our children in our schools without our consent. The government, under Obamacare, is forcing businesses to pay for abortions and birth control (which is primarily abortifacients) whether their institutional beliefs conflict or not. Don't tell me no one is trying to prevent me from practicing my religion.