Well I salute you 'skyhook'!

It takes a special brand of courage, lucidity, humility and profound loyalty to stand for one's convictions in the face of such negative controversy.

As I said earlier, there is something good and dignifying in all of us, and you are lucid enough to dig the gold out of L.R.H. works, from what seems to be a mud pile (perceptions) to a lot of us.

Reminds me that if it hadn't been for Plato, SOCRATES would have died a bum and forgotten freak of the human race.

Got to wonder!

Again, I salute you 'skyhook'.

Hello 'creative'

... good to read you right back!!!

I highly respect 'bdbc' ! He knows this is anything and everything BUT personal.

I trust we are all having fun traveling in the deep hidden pockets of our unmastered brains, and having a field day debating about our approximate findings.

No winners, no losers here!

Just playing in the sandbox with neighborhood friends. Right Billy!

OK Mom, I'm coming !!!

OK Last try!!!

... or I'll have to ask for research grants!!!

The different theories revisiting 'Newtonian Time' are pretty much collected under 'The theory of IMAGINARY TIME', paradoxically the real one !!!

Little metaphoric tale for starters:

So this is the old ‘clock time’ meets ‘timelessness’ or Imaginary time, at the OK CORRAL!!!

But it’s not as simple as the ‘Newtonian Clock Time Dimension’ gunfight draw out!

You see in the old Newtonian time dimension, ‘timelessness’ would be a seasoned gun fighting, prairies riding cowboy, with a mean look, and slow burning cig hanging out the corner of his sun dried lips.

Well, in the Einsteinian dimension, for most of us, our ‘timeliness’ dualist will seem like a ghost!!!

At first, this will give our John Wayne ‘clock time’ homeboy a false sense of security; no big threat with no opponent in front of you.
… until ‘clock time’ starts experiencing some violent intestinal reactions as though something was literally ‘shooting him up’ form the inside. A sort of Alien ripping out!!!

See!!!

You expect your dualist in front of you, ready to shoot him down.

Instead, IT comes from inside of you, reconfiguring and destroying every internal organ you’ve got,

YOU’RE DEAD IF YOU SHOOT, AND YOU’RE DEAD IF YOU DON’T !!!

The moral of this little invented metaphor is : ‘DON’T WEAR A GUN AROUND YOUR BELT IF IT’S ONLY TO END UP SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE GUT!!!’

Let's get down to business:

Timelessness or IMAGINARY TIME, paradoxically because it is real (verifiable), but doesn’t in any way shape or form agree with our current conception of time, which of course we ‘know’ to be real, even though it is unverifiable, therefore unreal.

Translation: let’s call the imaginary time (real), to grab your attention, because you hold as real, something that is entirely imaginary!!!

Focusing on the pillars of the time redimensioning would bring Albert Einstein, of course, who gave us, in his later years,

‘… the past, present, and future allexist
simultaneously…’.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now, the infamous ‘CLOCK TIME’.
He believed there is no true division between past and future. Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed.

The two most highly recognized physicists since Einstein, Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking arrived at similar conclusions, and even made dramatic advances toward a timeless perspective of the universe, yet they too were unable to change the temporal mentality ingrained in the mainstream of physics and society. So I don't feel so bad! :)

Following Einstein was the colorful and brilliant IMO Richard Feynman. He’s the one who developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics known today as 'Sum over Histories'.

Just as Einstein's own Relativity Theory led Einstein to reject time, Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory gradually led him to describe time simply as a DIRECTION IN SPACE. Nothing else!

What I understand of Feynman’s theory is that it coins the probability of an event, as determined by summing together all the possible histories of that event.
SO, what does that mean? Well, taking a particle moving from point A to B, we have to imagine the particle traveling every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time paths. When all summed up, the vast majority of all these directions add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few paths that abide by the laws and forces of nature. Not bad hey!!!

While I don't get the whole ‘Sum over Histories’ process, the essentisal point doens't get lost on me. I clearly get that the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise. Feynman's summing of all possible histories could very well be described as the first timeless description of a multitude of space-time worlds ALL EXISTING SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Now, Stephen Hawking. Got to like this amazing guy. He wrote in ...Cosmology From the Top Down; 'Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral.'
So, having a hard time with the mind reorganization of ‘time’??? Not alone!!!

Hawking and James Hartle developed the No Boundary Proposal, a theory which extends other theories such as Sum Over Histories. The no boundary’ proposal is a model of the early universe during the big bang which includes a second reference of time, called Imaginary Time which has no beginning or end. NO BEGINNING! NO END! NO CLOCK NEEDED!

In this mode of time we could in fact reach back and touch the original conditions of the early universe, because they still exist in a common time to all moments.
Isn’t that amazing just grappling with that thought.

Hawking also explains that what we think of as real time, a beginning at the Big Bang, some ten to twenty billion years ago, is incoinceivable in imaginary time where the UNIVERSE SIMPLY EXISTS. Got to love teh guy!!!

And back to my opening paradoxical metaphor. People often think from the tag 'imaginary' that this other mode of time isn’t real. Quite the contrary, clock time could be said to be imaginary compared to this ultimate mode of time, since in imaginary time, our clock time is totally indistinguishable from directions in space. GOT THAT!?!?!

From his most popular book A Brief History of Time, Hawking provides this word image to picture ‘imaginary time’ :
‘One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

Of course since the moments of past, present, and future all exist simultaneously in this other mode of time, the duration of each moment of time would seem to be ceaseless and eternal. The existence of the universe in imaginary time doesn’t have a past or a future, instead all times exist in one enormous moment of now-always. Isn’t that amazing, … NOW-ALWAYS!!!

Another jewel I want to share with you from Hawking:
"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."
The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE according to Hawking's 'Boundary Condition'.
According to Hawking the universe doesn’t have a boundary point where it suddenly begins existing. The first moment isn’t any different than the second in respect to existence. Both moments exist forever in imaginary time. It takes very little reasoning to figure out that if the universe exists in an unseen way without beginning or end, at right angles to regular time, then that reference to time is
simply more elementary and even more real than ordinary clock time.
The term imaginary applies more accurately to our time. Quoting Hawking again: 'This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.

If the universe exists in another time reference where conditions are permanent or static, suddenly it doesn't matter that we humans so convincingly observe a beginning to time, since the imaginary time reference applies regardless of our sense of where we are in time. The universe could be said to exist before our clock time began, and after our clock time ends.

The past and future exist now-always.

Obviously, imaginary time relates directly to existence. Imaginary time relates to the whole, to all that can be imagined. It also easily relates to numbers and ideas and the concepts we think with, which we already sense exist forever.

The only reason this can be so disorienting at first is because we have been trained to think inside a frame where we are splitting time into two separate dimensions.

We are splitting in two, the more common meaning of the word time.
Here, one time dimension is related purely to the existence of each moment, so it is the omni-directional time we exist within.
The other time dimension, the time we measure with clocks, is here limited to change phenomenon experienced by human beings, which is necessarily a construction of many moments in the first dimension bound together in some way that creates a second time dimension. Each moment is necessarily a time frame, which is a sort of fixed pattern of matter and space. Somehow those frames or spaces are fused together, creating a false sense that existence is changing and transforming, when change is actually observed only by whatever moves from one time frame to another.

That's it for me! I moving to the Imaginary time zone!!!

Anyone still there?!?!? Hello!?!?! Anyone?!?!?!

I know you have a sense of humour and so this might be just that, a product of your humour.

If not however, and while I absolutely wouldn't think of judging you for this choice, I do wonder about the choice!?!?!?

First off, I like what I read of you, and respect you fully, so this is not personnal.

BUT L. RON HUBBARD?!?!?

I am baffled.

I mean again no disrespect to you, and while I trust that there is something good and dignifying in all of us, including L.R.H., this man's road took a few too many wrong turns to the 'dark side'!!!

His 'scientology' legacy is largely regarded as the worst 'cults' have to offer. Nothing ever clear or clean seems to come out of stories about the 'organization' he founded and lead for years.

OK! enough said.

If he is your choice, no judgment from me, you still have all my respect.

If it is a joke though, GOOD ONE!!!

I like that keen sense of observation of yours 'Jess'.

N'f'said!!!

Well 'becca', from my take, that makes at least 3 or 4 or more of us on this tread alone,
... hoping we're right about this that is!

Who knows! Maybe the 'open hand' collaborative and cooperative spirit, with a pragmatic and lucid handle, will spread!!!

Mostly agree with you 'drivinmeniutz' (just got your avatar writing it out :) )

And very true US federal reserve 'deal' our destinies away with other World Banks, and that is precisely where the changing order is taking place.

Other National World banks are rapidly changing their antiquated WWII 'stance' about the economic and financial order of the world.
The carrying cost of their explosing 'debt' alone (higher interest rates they must offer in order to attract investors) are already considerably heftier than the US.

In WWII those European contries understood the lopsided logic. They had to rebuild their country, while the US played the role China is playing today, outperforming economy and major lender.

But that was then. It makes no sense to them today.

Now, while the European nations weight doen't amount to much in convincing the US to address the situation, those same European nations will not do much to stop Russian, Eurasian, and Indo-Chinese initiatives to bring change and turn the tables in a way that would increase other Nations' say in the matters that concern and affect the COLLECTIVE state of all Nations.

I believe the Hillary Clinton quote:

'The US cannot handle all the problems of the world alone, but the world cannot solve their problems without the US!'

... is a powerful hint of the 'reality check' spirit the Obama administration is applying to the situation, both to the US itself: can't keep walking around the world as though we owned it, and the rest of the world: don't confuse US willingness to collaborate with a sign of weakness.

Let's trust that the correlate cooperative action, not just from the US administration, but from the people of the US (getting WITH the program through their voice in representative voice in congress), and the people of the nations of the world will follow!

Thank you 'skad' !

Regardless of the narrow opinion of some 'protectionist' and 'isolasionist' minded US citizens (every country has sme of those zealots), the current economic and financial world crisis is entirely US made.

So, here you have countries other than US whom suffer from a global situation which not only is costing 'zillions' to 'pump' back up, but they have to deal with the cost of radical devaluation of their currencies against US$.

Simply put,

... in a global situation of National debtors (western world countries)
... needing to borrow on international markets
... to cover the stimulation packages
... needed to pump up their economy because of US wrecklessness,

the lending nations (largely China, and other 'anonymous' sources) will prefer endorsing US debt SIMPLY BECAUSE it is the 'preferred' world's reserve currency.

You have to go back to WWII to make some sort of sense of this anomaly. Europe, lead by GB, was the Financial and economic powerhouse of the time. Gold and the 'Sterling Pound' were the currencies of choice. We all know the 'pounding' GB's pound got and substituting the US$ (rising star of the day) to the SP felt like the right thing to do at the time.

The other rising star of WWII days was the USSR. Of course Western Countries (mainly Europe) had no hesitation in backing the USA over the USSR as the World Superpower replacing the then 'healing their wounds' former superpower GB.

Completely artificial situation, that the US benefited from??? You bet. Is it wrong? No, it was the call of the day.

But that was more than 60 years ago. Is it borderline 'abuse of privileges past' in today's context, YOU BET!!!

I'm not suggesting any form of US bashing here. It is a situation where all of the western world showed extreme complacency, and this complacency is ironically the root of the 'greed and irresponsible' financial and economic chaos we are all facing today.

Without taking sides, if you turned the tables, I am confident you would understand the silent as well vocal determination most world nations are showing to correct this world problem.

Oh! and by the way, there is no downside with sharing WR currency with other nations. On the contrary!

As it stands today, the only 'privilege' this confers to the US is that it will be the largest debtor standing, and last nation to come out of the hell hole, if it gets out.
That a Nation (US) keeps finding other nations to buy their debt is only half of the equation. You have to pay the piper somewhere along the line!!!

We are irreversibly engaged in a WORLD ECONOMY!!!
We can't keep addressing it with COLONIAL AND IMPERIALIST views (addressed to the Western world mentality a whole)!!!

No bashing. Just a serious reality check.

I think Obama gets it. And I only hope enough of the 'we the people' get it also.

Without 'we the people', no amount of
'getting it' by a political leader will make much difference.

Well it would appear that you insist on this clock, watch, or other forms of 'OUR TIME' measurement which would somehow 'sync' with 'classical physics meets movement' or some sort of universal time out there?!?!?

Not that I'm trying to 'call you' on anything BDBC, but since there seems to be differences in our views, and stricly for healthy debate sake, I feel this one is worth another crack.

Let's see...

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale (which is what I understand your position to be) have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics.

The problem IMO, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality, as you appear to claim.

So, if I say that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality, then what is time?

And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience?

You'll probably agree BDBC that the meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics.

We could probably safely locate the start of this 'time' dilemma a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One radical consequence of Einstein's work, is that the past, present, and future ARE NOT absolutes.

Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (the realm of the tiny).

The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the 'problem of time.'
It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum.

Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future.
All the laws — whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules — would work equally well if time ran backward!!! As far as anyone can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.

Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. This is where you and I diverge BDBC. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos.

While it is clear that at least you don't subscribe to Newtonian 'time': 'Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external', it appears you are still trying to tie 'our clock' to the universe's?!?!

But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Nothing to do with what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure the kind of time Einstein is pointing at. From Einstein perspective, clocks don’t really measure time at all.

As an interesting aside, the NIST timekeepers (the US government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation) interstingly claim: ‘Our clock doesn’t measure time’.
Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt mathematical equation, inside which time ends-up disappearing.

'We never really see time,' they say. 'We see only clocks'.

If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on.

We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, and yet, we represent that as if everything is evolving in time!?!?!?

There are fascinating emerging theories about 'time', all dissociating themselves from our current accepted notions of 'time'.

But they're theories.

For now, the most accurate statement about time might be,

'... we thought we knew 'time', but became clear that we had to 'unknow' it, and are now on the verge of knowing it all over again!!!

This 'time' where you refer to Einstein,



... and this 'self-referential' time which you define here,




Have nothing in common!!!

So 'Logan',

... do you propose a 'nuke 'em all' kind of game???

or would rather opt for a game like, 'stand on guard, the RUSSIANS (Muslims, Chinese, etc,) ARE COMING???'

Just curious in understanding your point correctly.

Thanks.

Sad!

... but nailed!

Since this is 'Science & Philosophy', I thought I would take the 'phil' angle to the question.

'... Has science reached it's limits? ...'

Can't answer!

THE QUESTION IS 'WRONG' !!!

It's a bit like asking: 'Does 1+1 really equal 'CAR''?!?!?

Well it's not '1+1's job to equate directly to 'car', and it is not 'car's job to equate directly to '1+1' !

As it is with the question. It is not 'science's job, or purpose, or mission to answer 'limit' as an end, and as such, 'limit' surely has no 'purpose' to 'IMPOSE' finality on 'science'.

But I'm glad you raised this 'wrong' question, because you are raising it as a genuine question, as 'science' does.

Science wasn't designed to 'answer' finality, on the contrary, it's sole purpose is to endlessly 'question' (without final answers ever) the 'infinality' of 'unknowns'!!! No end in sight!!!

That being said, the post raises an interesting question:

... if the question makes no sense in addressing 'science',
(and yet I thank our host for posting it, because it is being insistently posed as a false debate by many)

... where, or from what mentality is this wrong question even raised ??? (other than the genuine inquisitive perspective of our host)

... whom, or what mentality (perspective) feels existentially threatened by the 'forever-infinite-unknown' which science questions endlessly???

A question! Not an answer!!!

I couldn't help thinking of minorities other than Muslim, and much closer to home as I read your post 'ianminty2'.

Try it 'ianminty2'!!!

Substitute the thought of Muslim, for a number of other groups, much more like 'us', and much closer to home. You'll see, it's uncanny how it fits to 'us'.

Oh! and try and give that 'other' group a call.

Nothing feels better than a first open-minded step to discover that what we hold to be true about others, is really what ends up being true about 'us'.

Have a blast my friend, and come back to tell us all about that call.

To the question

'... does time truly exist? ...',

the answer is unquestionably YES !!!


HOWEVER,


To the very distinct question '

... does time truly exist? ...',

The answer is unquestionably NO !!!


When 'Bushidobilly' asserts that time exists and quotes Einstein to support his assertion.

Is he right???

In his assertion that time exists, is Einstein right???

What about the question itself, is IT right???

What 'time' is the question asking about?

What 'time' is 'Bushidobilly' talking about?

And what does Einstein assert when he says that time exists???

What struck me while reading the different posts, was what strikes many of us when we are observing a discussion going on where the participants are unware of conflicting perspectives: the place or space people are unconsciously 'thought from'!!!

THOUGHT FROM!!! Yes, thought from, distinct from, THINKING that which thinks us.

As human beings, it could be said that we are either unconsciously, automatically and exclusively ...

... 'SELF-AWARE', a state which seperates the 'I' (self) from everything else (a possible perspective or space to observe from)

or

we take a step back and observe or take responsibility for the exclusively self-aware being that we are.

The operative here is 'step back'. A changed space, or perspective from which to view.

But if it is not the 'I' or self-aware; knowing or needing to know, perspective, which 'adventureBegins' correctly pointed to (I think therefore I am), which corresponds to the changed perspectivem, than what is it.
If that is the exclusive and only perspective of 'known' existence for humans, than what 'possible' alternative perspective are we then talking about?

Well, 'I' don't know!!!

That is the possible perspective.

It is a perspective, fully assumed, where 'I', which is ALL 'I' (we: a bunch of 'I's) KNOWS, no longer 'dictates' the view.

It is a willingness to not know, inside the compulsive prison of the 'I' dictating the perspective of the 'known' all the time.

It is a voluntary shift in space, or shift in perspective, against the separateness of the delusional 'I' perspective.

So the 'time' we claim and assert (a bunch of separate 'I's) we 'know',
from the exclusive human 'I' space or perspective,
this 'separate' space or perspective of past, present, and future, the operative (if you missed it) being 'separate',
that 'time' DOESN'T EXIST!!!

That 'time' is but a convenient illusion to suit and always agree with the 'I' self-aware perspective: the illusion of all illusions.

On the other hand, the 'time' we 'do not know', this 'time' for which the 'I' has no use, this 'time' which Eisntein doesn't know either, and yet evokes as the only possible time which may exist, only exists outside of the 'I' (separate) perspective.

It only exists in a possible phenomenom comprising 4 inseparable and dynamic dimensions (not 3) which encompasses everything-nothing where 'knowing' from a 'self-aware' and separate perspective makes no difference.

When the earth is perceived as flat, with its 4 corners, humanity's thinking is being thought through a perspective of an 'existing' flat earth!!! Nothing else is possible for humans unless it agrees with the 'known' perspective.

When the earth is perceived as 'relatively' round, humanity's thinking is being thought through an 'existing' 'relatively' round earth!!!

... and nothing else is possible for self-aware humans other than that which agrees with the 'known' perspective.

Einstein is not speaking about 'time' inside the 'self-aware' exclusive 'I', or 'known' perspective.

He is speaking of it from the distinguished 'I' or 'known' perspective, therefore 'unknown' to the 'I', therefore, at least, PROBABLY closer to, POSSIBLY, NOT AN ILLUSION, AND THEREFORE POSSIBLY CLOSER TO WHAT IS TRUE!!!

Time as we 'know' it, and 'time' which thinks us, unquestionably doesn't exist other than in the 'self-aware' 'I' illusion.

And yet, the 'time' we do not know, this notion of time which we doesn't think us, unquestionably exists in that unified, whole and 'complete' dimension, which the 'I' doesn't know.

That 'time', which none of us know, is possibly much closer to an intrinsic 'direction' in space than the 'boxed' and separate concept we hold.

And what the heck, why not 'time' we don't know but evoke in a unified field, as a concept much closer to an existing phenomenom of 'god', as that which is there but eludes us totally, rather than the categorically unexisting 'gods' whom so many assert they 'know' in a primitively separate and exclusiv 'I' perspective!!!

Here are a couple of interesting links:

http://www.everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

http://everythingforever.com/

I am so glad I logged on. I wouldn't have wanted you to suffer too long through this self-imposed 'deeply offended' state.

For nowhere have I accused you of anything, much less 'intellectual dishonesty'!

If I intend to accuse someone, I use the proper words for such communication: '... I accuse you of ...'

But in the case you seem to be reffering to, I wrote: 'Again, you are inviting me to point out a serious misinterpretation...'.

No accusation there!

An exchange between two parties, where one party (I) points out what he perceives to be a misinterpretation on the part of another party (you).

Nowhere can an accusation of intellectual dishonesty be extracted from those words. Misinterpretation, self-imposed victim status, 'reading into', maybe. But that would be for you to answer.

N.B.: When you repeat your misinterpretation '... Thanks for accusing me of intellectual dishonesty...' with the following statement of mine:

'... Misinterpretation often occurs when some pieces of a whole are taken out of context, in order to suit a particular ideology, dogma, or unilateral point of view...'

You are again on your own. There is no such accusation intended on my part.

The statement is a straigh forward explanation of what I see as the source of the misinterpretation I raise in the post.

So please stop suffering from this 'deeply offended' self-imposed state.

Other point of contention:


Not sure what you are inferring here, but I was addressing the following points made by you:


I addressed YOUR point. If you feel the debate was changed, it would have been YOUR point that changed it.

Which bring us to our third point of contention: the infamous ‘OF’ vs ‘FOR’ face-off!!!



When you say this:


are you, by any chance, refering to this: ??


I APOLOGIZE!

My mother tongue is French, and I sometimes am guilty of prepositional oversight when speaking or writing in English. I meant ‘OF’ and wrote ‘FOR’.

I am confident you wouldn't even think of using this rather weak 'out' to suggest that I might have changed the debate from 'OF' to 'FOR'. I don't know you well, but I wouldn't lend you any intention of such bad faith.

Especially since the prepositional ‘faux-pas’was not committed on the preposition in contention. The ‘FROM’ side prompted my addressing your post in the first place, when you wrote :

‘… Like it or not, Freedom of Religion does not mean, nor imply Freedom from Religion...’

Of course ‘freedom of religion’ does not mean, nor does it imply ‘freedom from’, but this is where you left out the ‘whole’ of the ‘Establishment Clause’ of the ‘First Amendment’, which very much deals concurrently with the ‘OF’ as well as the ‘FROM’ sides of religious freedom.

And, might I add, your constitution strictly PROHIBITS STATE (Government) from establishing or preferring a religion over another.

That a person from the numerous chapters of Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Judaic, or Hare-Krishna faiths, cares to proselytize on a street corner is entirely legitimate, as long as they do not disturb the peace.

It is the ‘State’, all levels of US Government that is in contention here. It cannot in any way, establish a religion of state, nor can it in anyway show a preference for any religion. Quite the opposite of this original statement of yours:

‘… This is a Christian Nation …

(NO! The establishment clause of the First Amendment of your Constitution PROHIBITS the USA from being a christian nation), …

'… founded by Christians...' (not necessarily, a lot of non-christian had a significant part in the founding of the USA),

'… inhabited predominately by Christians…'
(inhabited predominantly by US CITIZENS all equal under the constitutional law of the USA, regardless of their freedom ‘OF’ ANY religion, or freedom ‘from’ any and all religion).

So again, when you claim :

‘… Like it or not, Freedom of Religion does not mean, nor imply Freedom from Religion...’

In light of the whole, rather than its parts, the US Constitution means both, freedom ‘of’ and freedom ‘from’ religion.

It 'created' the citizen, as the French did through their own revolution, and elevated the status of ‘citizen’ above one’s religious, or any other status.

There are only EQUAL U.S. CITIZENS under the law, regardless of religious denomination, or absence thereof.


In closing, and not that I want to make a big deal out of it, I suspect you might not be familiar with french, but the correct spelling is 'Voileazur'.

Isn't that funny! I guess we're even on the misspelling front !

I FAIL NOT! ... my dearest and most esteemed Sir,

... and again you are inviting me to point out a serious misinterpretation on your part of the 'establishment clause' of the 'first amendment'.

The accepted interpretation of the Constitutional Amendment by YOUR SUPREME COURT is summed up in two straightforward interprative statements:

'... It squarely PROHIBITS:

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, (sorry to break it to you, but that would include Christianity. The USA, which only exists through its constitutional edict, is not a Christian Nation)

and further PROHIBITS;

2) the preference of one religion over another ...'

You are free to believe, and exercise your right to do so, but the 'State' cannot show any form of preference for one religion over another, and that again includes Christianity.

Misinterpretation often occurs when some pieces of a whole are taken out of context, in order to suit a particular ideology, dogma, or unilateral point of view.

I thought it would be useful to provide the following information to help clarify the whole, from its ideologically misinterpreted parts.

________________________________________________

The ‘First Amendment’ and the ‘Establishment clause’
(from Wiki)

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.


The establishment clause has generally been interpreted TO PROHIBIT

1) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION BY CONGRESS,

or TO PROHIBIT

2) THE PREFERENCE OF ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.

The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to (freedom from) or to remain away from church (freedom for) against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion (freedom from).

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs (for) or disbeliefs (from), for church attendance or non-attendance.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

________________________________________________________________________

This, my dearest and most esteemed Sir, is all I inferred by my ‘for’ and ‘from’ religion statement.

While the United States of America might still hold a majority of citizens whom are of CULTURAL Christian background, and a portion of those whom choose to practice some form of Christian faith, as afforded by the constitution, the US Constitution Squarely PROHIBITS the NATION FROM BEING 'CHRISTIAN' (a religion amongst other religions for which the Nation cannot show preference). You can be Christian all you want, but not the Nation.

If only through the simple and straightforward ‘legal’ interpretation of the ‘Establishment clause’ of the 'First Amendment' of Your Constitution:

‘PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION’,

As a citizen of a religious neutral nation, if you have a problem with your constitution, take your fight to Congress, as many ‘religious right’ folks have done without any success before you.

Politicians may opportunistically cater to the minority ‘religious right’ voting block by throwing around the compulsory ‘god bless you, and god bless America’ as a vote getting ploy, and some may still fall for it, but at the end of the day, politicians will be politicians, and the Constitution will be the Constitution.

The Law of the land, founded on the Constitution, always has and always will speak louder than any opportunistic politician.

It states clearly: ‘PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION’.

You are free to interpret that any which way you personally wish, but until the Constitution is revisited, and re-written, ‘WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF TH LAND, IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE LAND!!!’

(SEAMNOSTER's OP made the subtle nuances that the forefathers intended for the Nation: the neutral co-existence of the 'Freedom for' and 'freedom from' religious concepts, without any form of governement intervention, except to ensure 'freedom for' and 'freedom from'. The line is fine. People cross it indiscriminantly, and that is what Seamonster, in my humble opinion, is pointing out quite wisely with this post.)

'... name your influential philosopher(S)!

Camus (essay on 'Myth of Sisyphe'),

Krisnamurti,

Nietzsche and,

... SOCRATES-(Plato)!!!

Sorry to rain on your parade dear sir, but it sure does mean freedom 'OF' as well as freedom 'FROM' religion!

It is the first amendment of your constitution!

Don't mean to upset you, but IT IS WHAT IT IS!