new

Graham Kerr:
Madison, like Jefferson, never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite. Remember, the Church of England was one of the things they objected to.

Guzzman:
So you claim Jefferson and Madison "never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite"? Do you have a primary source for that claim?
The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense.
The very idea is self-contradictory: If ANY religious group is free to encroach upon and control government and thereby achieve a privileged status, all others are at risk of falling into disfavor and facing government discrimination and even persecution. One of the primary objectives of the First Amendment was to prevent arming any religious group with the force of law. A government controlled by religion is the very definition of theocracy - and that is precisely what the founders wished to avoid.

Graham Kerr:
"The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense."
Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.
The aforementioned Church of England.
I'm not a product of the 21st century public school system, so I'm not quite as stupid and easy to manipulate as you think I am.
Peddle your lies somewhere else.

Guzzman:
Jefferson's "wall of separation" between religion and government means exactly that - a barrier that divides two things into distinct domains. A "usurpation by one side or the other" (to use Madison's phrase) would be a breach of that wall. Government can no more encroach upon religion than religion can encroach upon government.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed since 1879: "Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped... 'The great American principle of eternal separation' - Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition - is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.' McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948.

Graham Kerr:
If you read the aforementioned letter, you'd know what Jefferson had in mind was protecting church from government. To imply anything else is a lie.

Guzzman:
From Jefferson's letter: "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."
How does "building a wall of separation between Church & State" protect only religion from government and not also government from religion? Read James Madison's 1817 "Detached Memoranda - Amendment I (Religion)" where he discusses "the dangers of encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" as being a violation of the First Amendment. He further states that religious liberty is only safeguarded when you have constitutional "separation between Religion & Govt." He then discusses several historical examples of "encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies" and the "danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government." I don't how the founders could have been any more explicit in their writings that government and religion should be kept separate:
"The settled opinion here [in the United States] is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both." (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpelier, March 18, 1823).

Graham Kerr:
The thing is, you wish for it to be the case, and yet, it is clear the Jefferson letter doesn't make it so.
Why do you think the Constitution says freedom OF religion and not from it?
It's nothing but a lie to assert any of our founding fathers were against acknowledging God in a public venue. God is mentioned on the SCOTUS building, for Pete's sake.
If you want to campaign for a Godless America, do it at a website better suited for that sort of garbage. Because you are not impressing anyone, you're just trying to make yourself look important.

Guzzman:
FYI, the Constitution does not contain the words "freedom of religion" as you claim, but Amendment 1 does prevent government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Embodied in the concept of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. The government cannot dictate to us which god we must have, how many gods we must have, or that we must have any god at all. That is most certainly freedom of, and freedom from religion. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
"Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Graham Kerr:
"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 a redress of grievances."
Notice the words, "freedom from religion" don't appear. Period. Saying it does is just a wish of yours.
So far, you are zero for two.
If you dislike religion so much, move to China.

(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: https://christiannews.net/2018/12/04/discovery-of-giant-synapsid-fossil-in-poland-throws-a-wrench-in-evolutionary-expectations-for-triassic-layers/ )

edwitness:
"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

edwitness:
Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

edwitness:
What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

edwitness:
"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

edwitness:
"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.