FordFusionClub.com banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Negative

*I contemplate with solemn 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 and State. (1)

^^^^1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

*The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers


*The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

*There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

*The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.

*God was taken out of the public schools in the 1960's and things have not been the same since. SAT scores have gone down. Teen pregnancies have gone up. Teen suicide has gone up. Teen homicide has gone up. Sexually transmitted diseases have gone up.

*If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?

*Even on AP English tests you still have to know basic and some detailed passages of the Bible and understand what they mean.

*Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

*This is in reference to our founding fathers-They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

*Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.

^^^3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

*An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.

*Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

*
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Negative

*I contemplate with solemn 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 and State. (1)

^^^^1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

*The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers


*The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

*There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

*The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.

*God was taken out of the public schools in the 1960's and things have not been the same since. SAT scores have gone down. Teen pregnancies have gone up. Teen suicide has gone up. Teen homicide has gone up. Sexually transmitted diseases have gone up.

*If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?

*Even on AP English tests you still have to know basic and some detailed passages of the Bible and understand what they mean.

*Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

*This is in reference to our founding fathers-They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

*Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.

^^^3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

*An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.

*Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
hkhj

Joey McAneney
Mrs. Gabe
Pacesetter English

Essay

The film Rear Window was put together with many different technical features and different types of visual imagery. The setting of the movie was detailed for the mood. The exterior building walls are red brick and we rarely get to see the sky. The story took place in one of the less fashionable towns of New York. I believe they choose the setting of a mid class rather then upper class because neighborhoods in the upper class tend to be more controlling. People in the luxury environment seem to tend to themselves more and car about their strict privacy. If this story was taking in a upper class neighborhood then the whole plot would have been different because the neighbors would have been more private and had their doors and windows closed. There probably would have been someone who already called in on the murder.
This movie focuses on Jeff’s point of view. It seems as if 90% of the frames shot involve what Jeff sees or is around Jeff. In Rear Window Jeff is immobilized which symbolizes that he needs to be independent. In the beginning of the movie you can tell that he is a man who doesn’t like to depend on things. By the way he talks and acts it is clear to see that he is very self efficient. Jeffries overlooks a course of events and suggests to the other spectators that a murder might have gone down but they don’t believe him at first. The other characters investigate and then find out for themselves. Jeffries observes all different types of people. He overlooks a murder, loneliness, a couple fighting, and many other affairs. Oddly enough there is an illusion that the neighbors don’t seem to care. They don’t have time to sit around and worry about who is watching who because they are too busy with their own lives.
The relationship between Lisa and Jeffries doesn’t seem to be balanced at first. Lisa kept visiting Jeffries and sweet talking him and made sure they she got all dressed up and looked her best for him while on the hand Jeff didn’t seem to care as much. He told her that they couldn’t be together when he went on his trips because she was a pretty girl and wasn’t fit for that type on environment. Well boy did she prove him wrong. Lisa helped Jeff out with the observing and she later became involved hands on. I think that this was a major step forward in their relationship because now Jeffries will respect her as a person now also with her looks.
Hitchcock shows the limitations of Jeffries’ point of view by showing only want Jeffries sees. Hitchcock allows us to explore the possibilities of what is happing but he doesn’t let us put two and two together. He only shows us one point of view so therefore that is all we know. Also by limiting us he feeds us initiative to wonder what else is going on out there. Well if there is something such as a murder case going on then it tends to make you think what else is going down.
I also think that Rear Window was very symbolic. Jeff was hurt and forced to be independent which could play into two different roles, the person who is so used to taking control of everything and then in a blink of their eye they cant, and also the person that was forced into being independent like a mother of 7 who just got divorced and is on her own (she needs to figure out how to take care of them now that her husband is gone). Lisa symbolized the everyday blond hair beauty queen that is portrayed to be dumb and predicting. She started out playing the role but then did a complete 180 and was now this daring fearless young lady.
Hitchcock was brilliant in Rear Window. His visual imagery was amazing. My favorite part of his film was his film technique of how he could make you feel like you were Jeffries. The camera angles from his eye height and the many scenes all contributed. His lighting was also great. An example could be when the so called murder came over to his house. You could hear the footsteps and the door cracking open and the lighting was very dim because of the mood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
hkhj

Joey McAneney
Mrs. Gabe
Pacesetter English

Essay

The film Rear Window was put together with many different technical features and different types of visual imagery. The setting of the movie was detailed for the mood. The exterior building walls are red brick and we rarely get to see the sky. The story took place in one of the less fashionable towns of New York. I believe they choose the setting of a mid class rather then upper class because neighborhoods in the upper class tend to be more controlling. People in the luxury environment seem to tend to themselves more and car about their strict privacy. If this story was taking in a upper class neighborhood then the whole plot would have been different because the neighbors would have been more private and had their doors and windows closed. There probably would have been someone who already called in on the murder.
This movie focuses on Jeff’s point of view. It seems as if 90% of the frames shot involve what Jeff sees or is around Jeff. In Rear Window Jeff is immobilized which symbolizes that he needs to be independent. In the beginning of the movie you can tell that he is a man who doesn’t like to depend on things. By the way he talks and acts it is clear to see that he is very self efficient. Jeffries overlooks a course of events and suggests to the other spectators that a murder might have gone down but they don’t believe him at first. The other characters investigate and then find out for themselves. Jeffries observes all different types of people. He overlooks a murder, loneliness, a couple fighting, and many other affairs. Oddly enough there is an illusion that the neighbors don’t seem to care. They don’t have time to sit around and worry about who is watching who because they are too busy with their own lives.
The relationship between Lisa and Jeffries doesn’t seem to be balanced at first. Lisa kept visiting Jeffries and sweet talking him and made sure they she got all dressed up and looked her best for him while on the hand Jeff didn’t seem to care as much. He told her that they couldn’t be together when he went on his trips because she was a pretty girl and wasn’t fit for that type on environment. Well boy did she prove him wrong. Lisa helped Jeff out with the observing and she later became involved hands on. I think that this was a major step forward in their relationship because now Jeffries will respect her as a person now also with her looks.
Hitchcock shows the limitations of Jeffries’ point of view by showing only want Jeffries sees. Hitchcock allows us to explore the possibilities of what is happing but he doesn’t let us put two and two together. He only shows us one point of view so therefore that is all we know. Also by limiting us he feeds us initiative to wonder what else is going on out there. Well if there is something such as a murder case going on then it tends to make you think what else is going down.
I also think that Rear Window was very symbolic. Jeff was hurt and forced to be independent which could play into two different roles, the person who is so used to taking control of everything and then in a blink of their eye they cant, and also the person that was forced into being independent like a mother of 7 who just got divorced and is on her own (she needs to figure out how to take care of them now that her husband is gone). Lisa symbolized the everyday blond hair beauty queen that is portrayed to be dumb and predicting. She started out playing the role but then did a complete 180 and was now this daring fearless young lady.
Hitchcock was brilliant in Rear Window. His visual imagery was amazing. My favorite part of his film was his film technique of how he could make you feel like you were Jeffries. The camera angles from his eye height and the many scenes all contributed. His lighting was also great. An example could be when the so called murder came over to his house. You could hear the footsteps and the door cracking open and the lighting was very dim because of the mood.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top