do Christians want their values enforced on everyone by law?

The problem, of course, is that not all "Christian values" are created equal, at least not in the eyes of the Godstapo.Let the rationalizations begin!

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

All true, but completely beside the point.The question is why the religious right, or anyone for that matter, wants to put only some so-called Christian values into law.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Many people have put together a list similar to the following, but this is the one I can find easiest. From The West Wing:

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

When they either amend the Constitution or appoint enough Supreme Court Justices who are willing to ignore over 40 years of jurisprudence.So far, no luck, thank god.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Specific examples, please.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I'm not sure that this would be an off-topic discussion, but if you wish to start a new thread, I'd be delighted to take this discussion there.As for that particular example, I don't see that as "far more Christianity in government." Church services were held in the Capitol building because, according to the site, there were no church buildings in Washington D.C. People who were in government attended the services, but there's nothing to suggest they were doing so in their capacity as a governmental official. In fact, given that Congress now is opened by a prayer led by a Chaplin employed by the government, I don't find the practice you describe as remarkable in the least.If you don't want to go into a lot of things, just give me your best shot. So far, you got nothing to support your assertion that there was "far more Christianity in government" then than there is now.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

You are quite correct in what you are saying, but the point that Buz is trying to make with his church example is broader than that.According to the site that he linked, the Capitol building itself was used as a church, for non-denominational services, which Jefferson himself attended. The significance of this is that Buz believes this demonstrates that some of the founding fathers had a more liberal attitude about governmental involvement with Christianity than is allowed today, suggesting, I suppose, that we are misunderstanding their views.Now, the site does say the services were "nondenominational," but I can't find any place where they define how they are using that term. Do they mean the services were Christian, but not geared toward any particular flavor, RC, Protestant, etc, or were they simply worshiping a deity generally, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or what-have-you? If it means the latter, Buz's example shows, at most, governmental involvement with religion in general, not Christianity specifically.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Yes, Buz, I missed that. I have a learning disability that prevents me from reading boldface.How long the practice continued is irrelevent. It began where there were no churches. That's what the site says, and I have no reason to doubt that's true. Do you? I rather thought I was succeeding in arguing that very point.First, as I mentioned in message 29, there's no mention of whether these were in fact "Christian" services. It says non-denominational, which could well mean religious in general, not simply Christian.We now have a goverment employee opening each session of Congress with a prayer. I'd say that's more religion in government than Congress allowing the Capitol to be used for services where there are no government officials presiding over the service.Consider also, there are many, many governmental facilities where religious services are held even today. If you think about it, I'm sure you will realize where they are.We may be at an impasse. I'm not aware of any way to measure units of religiosity. You think your example is more involvement, I don't, given all the circumstances. By what measure do you propose we resolve this dispute?In the alternative, since your original assertion was that there was "far more Christianty" in goverment in the past than there is now, perhaps you can find another example.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I did more than just not accept your single example. I gave substantive reasons why I didn't find it significant. I'd have more sympathy for your reluctance to continue if all I'd said was, "Nuh-uh!" If you'd care to explain why my reasons aren't persuasive, please do so. In any event, I'm certainly not about to go looking for examples for you to support your proposition.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Once again, ignoring the point, either intentionally or obtusely.These are all counter-examples to your claim that there was more "Christianity in government" in the past than there is now. Are you now prepared to either retract that statement, admit that you have no support for it, or provide further examples?Or is it time to cut your losses and go try to fight another battle?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin