Why "One nation under God" is harmful

[Ipecac]

We've all heard it. Whenever the issue comes up, Christians argue that having "One nation under god" in the pledge, on our money, and in the public square is nothing significant. "Don't worry about it. It's just a phrase. It's not that big of a deal."

But it is a big deal and here's why. On several occasions recently (mostly on TV), I've heard people discussing the separation of church and state. At some point, one idiot, without a brain cell to himself, trots out his best argument on why non-believers and non-Christians should just shut up and let Christians ride roughshod over them. "This is one nation under god, after all!" usually followed by, "If you don't like it, go to another country."

So now this "harmless" "unimportant" phrase has become a political argument of the stupid. Sheep-like, they bleat this mantra as if it's our new residency requirement. If you dare disagree, you're unAmerican, not kowtowing to our national motto.

Just ranting here, but it is becoming increasingly irritating that this phrase is becoming a political catchphrase used to silence support of the Constitution. And that's just wrong.

[geni]

Why are you so desprait to keep a seperation between church and state? If you got rid of it you would:

A)Get the various relgious groups so busy fighting over which church they would not have time to fight anyone else

B) Going by the british experience pretty much wipe out the one that won.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ipecac
But it is a big deal and here's why. On several occasions recently (mostly on TV), I've heard people discussing the separation of church and state. At some point, one idiot, without a brain cell to himself, trots out his best argument on why non-believers and non-Christians should just shut up and let Christians ride roughshod over them. "This is one nation under god, after all!" usually followed by, "If you don't like it, go to another country."

Reference?

A mono-cell brain making such an argument does not, in and of itself, cause harm. If said mono-celled brains didn't argue that, they'd argue something equally stupid. Better to do away with them and keep the pledge the way it is...sort of as a satire.

[bluess]

The next time someone says that phrase doesn't mean anything, ask them to substitute the phrase 'Under Goddess'.

Then stand back, their head might explode.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Reference?

A mono-cell brain making such an argument does not, in and of itself, cause harm. If said mono-celled brains didn't argue that, they'd argue something equally stupid. Better to do away with them and keep the pledge the way it is...sort of as a satire.

Someone said it on the O'Reilly Factor the other night. You haven't heard anyone say it? Lucky you.

True, it doesn't, in and of itself, cause harm. But it lowers the level of political discourse.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by geni
Why are you so desprait to keep a seperation between church and state? If you got rid of it you would:

A)Get the various relgious groups so busy fighting over which church they would not have time to fight anyone else

B) Going by the british experience pretty much wipe out the one that won.

Not a bad point. :)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ipecac
But it lowers the level of political discourse.

:dl:

as if.

[Kitty Chan]

A empty drum makes the most noise

Dont forget the news loves to make headlines. I often wonder what the news would look like if the sensational were eliminated. Todays news does not look very different than the Enquirer most days.

It would be boring to report that various groups got together and decided that the forefathers were trying to avoid falling into the problems and traps they were escaping from and everybody agreed to look at it that way instead of grinding axes.

Much better to describe the drama of the day rather than the result.

[Anathema]

The real damage is that it is a cover for a fallacy. Advocates of the phrase believe that "what made this country" is faith in God (and Guns and Guts, if you like bumper stickers). Those who spout off on the importance of the phrase represent the "blessings" set -- they believe this country became the Land of the Free because God granted us an exception to the Law of the Jungle. If we abandon public adoration of God, he'll remove "His veil of protection", just like Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson said after the World Trade Center was toppled. You know, as punishment for us not cracking down on "moral relativists, homosexuals, and abortionists."

This country is special because of the secular wisdom under which it was founded, not the good fortune of supernatural intervention. If we fail to realize that, not even a genuine God can save us.

[wittgenst3in]

At some point, one idiot, without a brain cell to himself, trots out his best argument on why non-believers and non-Christians should just shut up and let Christians ride roughshod over them. "This is one nation under god, after all!" usually followed by, "If you don't like it, go to another country."
Originally posted by Rob Lister
Reference?
A mono-cell brain making such an argument does not, in and of itself, cause harm. If said mono-celled brains didn't argue that, they'd argue something equally stupid. Better to do away with them and keep the pledge the way it is...sort of as a satire.

From: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush

Reporter:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
George Bush. (Senior):
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

Reporter:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
George Bush. (Senior):
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Thanks. Definitely a good example. :)

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by bluess
The next time someone says that phrase doesn't mean anything, ask them to substitute the phrase 'Under Goddess'.

Then stand back, their head might explode.

Or "Under Allah", to the same effect. :)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by bluess
The next time someone says that phrase doesn't mean anything, ask them to substitute the phrase 'Under Goddess'.

Then stand back, their head might explode.

Actually, if the ACLU had a clue, they would file their next challenge not under religious protection, but on the grounds of sexual discrimination...unless of course the thiests are prepared to show up in court with proof of God's gender...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Or "Under Allah", to the same effect. :)
"Under Water" if you have sense of humor.

And "Above God" if you need to show how that preposition defines a certain type of relationship with a certain type of God, and why "under God" is linguistically the same thing.

[Atlas]

If god doesn't exist and you utter the phrase "one nation under god" does it mean "one nation under nothing."

Could you teach you kids to go along but say "one nation under good" explaining that we're not perfect but we need to try.

Some people want to curtail McDonalds advertising because the food lacks nutrition and contains lots of fat... Most "fat heads" don't believe change is necessary.

Congress and the Supreme Court seem to be able to accomodate the word god in their invocation without conflicting with the establishmant clause.

This just seems like the wrong war for atheists. Let the masses suck their pacifiers. They just scream and scream when you take it away.

There are better ways to show the atheist ideal superior than using the phrase "STOP THAT!"

There is nothing in the word god that implies Christian idiocy, you need to infer that - and that's yer problem.

People get warm fuzzys from their personal ideals of country, flag, and god - you start messin with that and they get all killy and mean. Why do we want to antagonize and bring out their worst. Their worst is pretty bad. Under god shouldn't hurt so much. Anyone who thinks so is too sensitive.

Besides if you can't honestlly pledge your allegiance... why would ya. Skip it. For others, why stop their honest pledge against their highest ideal? It doesn't make any sense.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Atlas



There are better ways to show the atheist ideal superior than using the phrase "STOP THAT!"

There is nothing in the word god that implies Christian idiocy, you need to infer that - and that's yer problem.

An excellent way to think about this!
I've always thought that pledging one's allegience to a flag, and even to for which it stands ( it's obviously ' not' indivisible, since we get all divided over stuff like this ) , much less under God, was pretty idiotic.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Diogenes
An excellant way to think about this!
I've always thought that pledging one's allegience to a flag, and even to for which it stands, much less under God, was pretty idiotic. Yeah, every country led by a half-wit, evil dictator, and megalomaniacal villain (no reference to Bush needed) has a flag. Why not pledge to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Why not pledge to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? Taking the politics out and just considering this question is pretty interesting.

Surely we could pledge as you suggest. But it was deemed advantageous to rally round the flag. Why exactly is that?

Something with words beyond platitudes gives the mind something to argue with. A symbol like the flag or the swastika or any such symbol of state communicates something without words. You KNOW it. You either agree or disagree with it on a very fundamental level. So fundamental it gets wrapped up with self.

I think one could choose to die for the Bill of Rights but you would need to know what they said. People can choose to die for the flag because it is like dieing for family. It's not intellectual at all, it's virtually all emotional.

That's my take. I liked the question. I think you're over the top on Bush. But you probably aren't alone.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Or "Under Allah", to the same effect. :)

With all due credit to Robin Williams, I believe "One nation, under Canada" is most appropriate :D

[KelvinG]

It's funny how Christians say "Oh leave the under God in the pledge, it's no big deal, no one gets hurt."
Of course, if you mention taking it out, they start to foam at the mouth.
If it's no big deal, why not just take it out? Having a pledge without a reference to God does not make it an atheist pledge. It makes it a pledge that is neither theist or non-theist.
It's exists a patriotic pledge, and leaves the God question to each individual.

Of course, if you want to keep providing idiots like George Bush Sr. with ammo to preach his form of bigotry, then leave in the "under God."

[American]

I think people on both sides are not so bothered by a static world where God and state are close, rather they fear that things will forever move in one direction. For example, there could be more and more "God" in our laws until eventually we are arrested for not going to church every week. On the other side, freedom to worship could be made virtually impossible if enough venues are banned, taxed, regulated, or if religious people are denied public services.

I'd be happiest if things stayed the way they are right now, but jerks on both sides keep pushing and pulling in an endless cycle back and forth. Both sides have to sacrifice sooner or later, or else it's a silly war that goes nowhere.

[Kitty Chan]

Maybe its the both sides countering one another that keeps it from falling to one side or the other. . .

I always though at least Americans agreed in the country and flag no matter what else. You do have to stand for something I thought. Besides if you didnt all agree in say the flag you would be a nation under Canada or whoever else decided to fly their flag over you. :)

[riverlethe]

Originally posted by Atlas
Taking the politics out and just considering this question is pretty interesting.

Surely we could pledge as you suggest. But it was deemed advantageous to rally round the flag. Why exactly is that?

Something with words beyond platitudes gives the mind something to argue with. A symbol like the flag or the swastika or any such symbol of state communicates something without words. You KNOW it. You either agree or disagree with it on a very fundamental level. So fundamental it gets wrapped up with self.

I think one could choose to die for the Bill of Rights but you would need to know what they said. People can choose to die for the flag because it is like dieing for family. It's not intellectual at all, it's virtually all emotional.

That's my take. I liked the question. I think you're over the top on Bush. But you probably aren't alone.

How could dying for the Bill of Rights not be emotional? I can't see a person "choosing" to sacrifice himself without some emotional content. (Actually, I can't see a person doing anything without some emotional content.)

But maybe this is off-topic...

[Atlas]

Originally posted by riverlethe
How could dying for the Bill of Rights not be emotional? I can't see a person "choosing" to sacrifice himself without some emotional content. (Actually, I can't see a person doing anything without some emotional content.)

But maybe this is off-topic... I don't think we're in danger of a total derail with this line of reasoning so I'll comment.

Choosing to die for the Bill of Rights or the Constitution would indeed be emotional. But it would be partly intellectual. Yah, some people who haven't read the Bible might choose to die for it but many of us would think that was a stupid thing to do.

The Bill of Rights or the Constitution in total are many ideas rolled into one. The flag doesn't suffer from this dilution. There is no 18th ammendment to the flag (Prohibition).

Because of it's wordlessness the flag is a special iconic representation of the ideal of America. It transmits a sense of oneness as it flaps in the breeze overhead. In times of threat or tragedy the flag serves a purpose that goes beyond words. It speaks to the heart and soul of the citizen at times when words just get in the way.

Think of the red state/blue state division. It is a deeply felt thing. So is our feeling for the flag. It transcends the red/blue division. And it does so without the need for a single articulated thought.

The Bill of Rights could possibly attain this status but it would have to be something alive in our hearts. We would have to know the thing intimately. How many people can recite the first 10 ammendments.

[Art Vandelay]

Some more quotes:Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"

So in other words, "so help me God" and "In God We Trust" are being used as justification for "under God". And if these were challenged, I'm sure that "under God" would be used as justification. Each piece of bigotry is used to justify every other piece.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Some more quotes:
So in other words, "so help me God" and "In God We Trust" are being used as justification for "under God". And if these were challenged, I'm sure that "under God" would be used as justification. Each piece of bigotry is used to justify every other piece.

What bigotry is in the quotes? Or if you didnt mean the quotes then what bigotry are you referring to?

[H3LL]

This doesn't work because of the context of the thread, but it made me laugh. Paraphrased from a good humoured conversation I witnessed. Not logical, probably not original, but still funny.

F: "The only real truth is the word of god."

S: "So the only real way to get educated is to be at one with god?"

F: "That's right!"

S: "So America is 'One nation under educated'?"

[Ipecac]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

Wow. That shows an appalling ignorance of history and the founding fathers.

[Fun2BFree]

The oath of office for President is in the Constitution and does NOT contain the phrase -"so help me God." That was added by each President according to his own conscience...which is the whole point...not that God should be gone from public utterances...but that it should be left to individual conscience not codified as national belief...Let's talk about OUR FOUNDING FATHERS--first of all they were not correct about everything (slavery, women, Native Americans less than human, etc)-- always referring to whatever it is they wanted is a false logic- an appeal to authority rather than reason--but by way of history and fact--they did not include any mention of GOD as an official part of our country...The Constitution is remarkable for it's time in completely leaving God out--(except for the reference to year of our Lord at the end which is just showing the units being used not a statement of belief, really)--a lot of fundies at the time wanted the Constitution changed before ratifying to include God- but SECULARITY PREVAILED--back then...and others have been fighting it ever since...our original motto was NOT "In God We Trust' but E PLURIBUS UNUM-which translates of course as "From Many-ONE"--which seems a better national unifying phrase--do you have to trust in God to be American? or is America the unification of many different sorts of people under one nation- dedicated to the crazy idea that liberty and equality are the highest ideals?

The reason this is important is summarized in the notion that evil will triumph if good men do nothing...the forces of ignorance and intolerance are comforted and aided when we allow these chinks in the armor...they should be stomped out when they are just little embers...before they engulf us in the flames of hatred.

[Achán hiNidráne]

It always floor me that the Right would be so quick to defend the Pledge when it was written by a socialist:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

The "under God" stuff was added in order to somehow fight "Godless Communism."

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What bigotry is in the quotes? Or if you didnt mean the quotes then what bigotry are you referring to?
"In God We Trust"
"so help you God"
"under God"
And most of all, the idea that respect and consideration is "PC run amok".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

We've all heard it. Whenever the issue comes up, Christians argue that having "One nation under god" in the pledge, on our money, and in the public square is nothing significant. "Don't worry about it. It's just a phrase. It's not that big of a deal." Instead, how about "One nation under random order" or, "chaos?" Of course there's not much of a unifying principle behind that now is there?

[Fun2BFree]

..how about "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That is the way it was originally worded...it expresses the necessary idea/unifying concept... You don't have to say "under" anything...that "under God" crap was added in the midst of the hysterical communist witch hunting days of the 1950's..it is far from unifying --it fact it immediately divides out non-theists as not part of America in a way inconsistent with the principles upon which the USA was actually founded...

[Achán hiNidráne]

To be completely honest, I would be opposed to the Pledge even if it didn't have the "one-nation" line. It's the crypto-libertarian in me talking, but I don't think that "free nations" should recquire their citizen's to pledge their loyalty to the government, "the people," or anything else.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
"In God We Trust"
"so help you God"
"under God"
And most of all, the idea that respect and consideration is "PC run amok".

My best guess at the moment

In God we Trust

- just saying one trusts God probably for wisdom and guidance

So help me/you God

- just asking and showing that you will ask for that divine help

Under God

- would be living with Gods laws in mind

I have never heard anyone say respect and consideration have anything to do with PC.

PC is a invention to control society to perform to particular standards. The individual is refrained from speaking their mind as they may offend someone and get caught. Its a rewriting of everything you once knew. Like Firepersons. I could make a great arguement that it was a marginalization of women, not to be "more fair".

Why did gender have to go out of it? When one thinks fireman there is a image. When you think firewoman there is another image. When you think fireperson you still envision the man.

So, where is there any advantage whatsoever here? It just SOUNDS better and one can puff the chest and say wow they are PC and so much more aware. When in reality its all a smoke show.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Instead, how about "One nation under random order" or, "chaos?" Of course there's not much of a unifying principle behind that now is there?

:)


Also, what about if you dont stand for something

you fall for anything. A nation needs unity. A family needs unity. Any group needs unity.

No man is a island.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
- just saying one trusts God probably for wisdom and guidance
Were one to wish to convey the idea that one trusts God, the logical method would be simply state that one trusts God, rather than speaking for people in general.

- just asking and showing that you will ask for that divine help
And that's not bigotry? Am I not supposed to be offended by the idea that I cannot be trusted to tell the truth without divine help? What business does the government have asking me about my religious beliefs in this context? What if it were "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and may the heritage of the White Race guide you"?

- would be living with Gods laws in mind
Not just living with "God"'s laws in mind, but expecting others to defer to them. What business does this idea have being taught in schools? If you want to teach your children that God is the ultimate authority, that's your privilege. But what right do you have to teach MY children this?

I have never heard anyone say respect and consideration have anything to do with PC.
Then you didn't look at the quotes carefully: " 'Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok,' Bond said." Really? The worst kind?

Why did gender have to go out of it? When one thinks fireman there is a image. When you think firewoman there is another image. When you think fireperson you still envision the man.
But now the problem is with the person, and not the word. I consider that an improvement. If I say that "I'd like to thank all the firemen that helped save my house", people might consider that to be referring to only male firefighters. If I say "firefighter", they may still only think of male firefighters, but now it's THEIR male-centrism that is the cause, not MINE. Plus it eliminates the Bradbury-esque double meaning of "fireman".

[Kitty Chan]

Seems to me the founding fathers escaped to america to follow God and have freedom to do that how they chose too without the leagalistic church of england breathing down their necks

But now its not pc to follow God so now its out of date????

maybe thats what the quoter is getting at.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
And that's not bigotry? Am I not supposed to be offended by the idea that I cannot be trusted to tell the truth without divine help? What business does the government have asking me about my religious beliefs in this context? What if it were "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and may the heritage of the White Race guide you"?


Swearing should only be

"I will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

God doesnt want you to swear anyway:

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Seems to me the founding fathers escaped to america to follow God and have freedom to do that how they chose too without the leagalistic church of england breathing down their necks

There are two things wrong with that. First, most of the founding fathers were born in the colonies, not in England, so there was nothing to escape from. You're thinking of the Pilgrims, and for them it was about 50/50 escape/expulsion. Second, many, if not most of the founding fathers were deists, whose God was nothing like the Christian God upon whom the fundies in this country assert that their nation was founded.

There's a reason God does not appear in the constitution anywhere, and the founding fathers had everything to do with that.

edited for grammar

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

..how about "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That is the way it was originally worded...it expresses the necessary idea/unifying concept... You don't have to say "under" anything...that "under God" crap was added in the midst of the hysterical communist witch hunting days of the 1950's..it is far from unifying --it fact it immediately divides out non-theists as not part of America in a way inconsistent with the principles upon which the USA was actually founded... Of course this was back in the days when people were more religious. Nowadays, I think people could care less, while I doubt very much that it will change things if you removed the "under God" part. I kind of like it the way it is, otherwise it seems too abreviated, like something is "missing." I personally don't see the religious right taking over this country, not unless they want to start a bloody revolution or something. I just don't see it happening, thank God! ;)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by monkboon
There are two things wrong with that. First, most of the founding fathers were born in the colonies, not in England, so there was nothing to escape from. You're thinking of the Pilgrims, and for them it was about 50/50 escape/expulsion. Second, many, if not most of the founding fathers were deists, whose God was nothing like the Christian God upon whom the fundies in this country assert that their nation was founded.

There's a reason God does not appear in the constitution anywhere, and the founding fathers had everything to do with that.

edited for grammar

Pilgrams, I was focusing on founding as in the start my bad I forgot thats how your refer to them. England as a point of referference I could have said over the seas.

Whats the big deal with america and freedom then if they had just happily relocated. I have been told that it was to escape england the king the church whatever thats all Im pointing out.

God was a part of their life and is the same God then and today as He does not change. There may have been deists but one would have to go through the records to see who believed what. Probably a bit of a mixed bag just like today as nothing really changes.

I do believe the writers would be rolling in graves if they knew how much what they wrote was being argued about. As it seems they were trying to cover all the basis so there would be no arguement.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this was back in the days when people were more religious. Nowadays, I think people could care less, while I doubt very much that it will change things if you removed the "under God" part. I kind of like it the way it is, otherwise it seems too abreviated, like something is "missing." I personally don't see the religious right taking over this country, not unless they want to start a bloody revolution or something. I just don't see it happening, thank God! ;)

Back in the day :)

I always smile when I hear that people think the christians are going to take over. If Gods so big on choice then how could there be a takeover?? The only religion that can take over will be one of the governments. (Bush isnt the governent, case that idea comes up)

Christians can influence just like anyone else can influence thats about it. Other than that we are all stuck together to figure it out the best we can together and thats what the founding fathers were after.

[Iacchus]

This is an interesting email that someone sent to me that I thought I'd pass on ...

DID YOU KNOW?

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law ... an oligarchy ... the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

**************************************************

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Forward this to everyone you can. Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

Thank you!!

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not simply delete...

[monkboon]

Send this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp) to your friend.

Man, I love snopes.

[Ratman_tf]

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."


Scary stuff.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!


Heaven (har har) forbid the religious should be in the minority someday and be forced to "Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!"

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Scary stuff.[/B]

...or it would be, if Iacchus had bothered to question what he'd read instead of blindly accepting it as true. Be sure to check out the link monkboon posted.

[Nex]

Originally posted by monkboon
Send this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp) to your friend.

Man, I love snopes.
Thanks for the link! :D

I need to remember to check Snopes more often...

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But now its not pc to follow God so now its out of date???? If your idea of "following God" includes treating other people with disrespect, then yes, this isn't PC.

lacchus' post really shows the point of this thread. Basically, what it comes down to is "We have been complete ******** in the past, therefore we are justified in being complete ******** in the future". How can anyone in their right mind think that the fact that the separation between church and state has not been respected means that it shouldn't be respected?

If Gods so big on choice then how could there be a takeover?? So are we supposed to be somehow relieved by the fact that you think God exists, and he doesn't want a takeover? There's already been a takeover, you're just so used to it you don't notice.

[Kitty Chan]

Art

Jesus said when someone hits you to offer the other cheek, thats following God. If you are reffering to that senator and it doesnt sound like hes doing that then with the little info we have to know what happened I would have to guess hes having a heated discussion with someone.


I posted

"I always smile when I hear that people think the christians are going to take over. If Gods so big on choice then how could there be a takeover?? The only religion that can take over will be one of the governments. (Bush isnt the governent, case that idea comes up)"


I do not state that anyone should be relieved by the fact I think God exists. What I do hope one would get is that God honours choice so no one, not even God is going to take over. Its got to be a choice to follow God period.

But a government can impose any belief system it wants. Probably why this separation thing to avoid it. But if a government imposed pc rules no one could complain because they are not religion. BUT they do mimic it with potential agendas behind all of it.

Now I want to be clear there is a total difference between the fake sentiments of pc and geninue respect and caring for one another.

And I dont know how there could be a takeover already. Isnt prayer in the schools gone, been gone for years here. Public prayer is not allowed to mention Jesus. etc etc

If there was a takeover none of these things would be taken away. Like I said earlier;


"Christians can influence just like anyone else can influence thats about it. Other than that we are all stuck together to figure it out the best we can together and thats what the founding fathers were after."

:)

[Nex]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
"I always smile when I hear that people think the christians are going to take over. If Gods so big on choice then how could there be a takeover?? The only religion that can take over will be one of the governments. (Bush isnt the governent, case that idea comes up)"
That's right. Only the government can institute an official state religion, but in the USA's case, it can't even do that-- it's unconstitutional.
However, the institution of an unofficial state religion can very well happen. Ignoring the basic rights laid down by the Bill of Rights, or even simply letting them slip a little, can very quickly throw the balance of power off-kilter. Small things like "under god" in the pledge and on our money seem very trivial, but to let it go without a fight is like saying it's OK to do it again, and again, and again...
The next thing you know, it's an unofficial theocracy.

Kitty Chan, I think what you're missing is that there are millions of people here in the States who want more religion in government, more people making legal decisions based on religious views. There are thousands of people who will do or say anything to get it.

If we give up the inch, they will take the mile. I'm not willing to take that chance.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I do not state that anyone should be relieved by the fact I think God exists. What I do hope one would get is that God honours choice so no one, not even God is going to take over. Its got to be a choice to follow God period.
I see your point-- the decision to follow god/s or not is in one's heart and mind. No one can force that. However, that's not the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But a government can impose any belief system it wants.
This is the problem.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Probably why this separation thing to avoid it.
Bingo.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But if a government imposed pc rules no one could complain because they are not religion. BUT they do mimic it with potential agendas behind all of it.
Anything and everything can have a "potential" agenda behind it, but the original topic of this thread is not PC, but separation of church and state. This is NOT a PC issue, but a Constitutional one.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Now I want to be clear there is a total difference between the fake sentiments of pc and geninue respect and caring for one another.
I'm sure there's a good amount of PC that's fake, but not all of it. I'm not even a big fan of that particular movement as it is today.

However, there are certain parts of PC that are very genuine and caring, which is where the movement originated. Really, PC started as a way to reinforce simple manners in society, like not telling dirty or meanhearted jokes in public, not stereotyping people or using derogatory names for them, and being generally courteous and respectful in both words and actions.
(I admit, I suck at being PC. :D )

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
And I dont know how there could be a takeover already. Isnt prayer in the schools gone, been gone for years here. Public prayer is not allowed to mention Jesus. etc etc
That is simply not true. Public prayer, at least here in the US, is very much allowed and practiced. Students can also pray in school all they like, and can even have Bible study after classes. It just cannot be teacher or staff led, as they are state employees.
For example-- I went to public school in New York, and our school had 2 bible/religious studies in the afternoons, one for Catholics and one for Protestants. As far as I know, they're probably still there. Neither were teacher or staff led, it was all arranged and led by students, so I never took any issue with it.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
If there was a takeover none of these things would be taken away. Like I said earlier;
If there was a fundamentalist takeover (which is the most possible right now), we can expect some serious breaches of Constitutional law. Have you read any of the fundamentalist websites dedicated to somehow gaining power and theocracy here in the USA? If you haven't, I invite you to do so. Many are downright terrifying.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
"Christians can influence just like anyone else can influence thats about it. Other than that we are all stuck together to figure it out the best we can together and thats what the founding fathers were after."
Yes, for the most part. Please remember that although Christians are the majority, we have checks and balances created by our forefathers in order to keep the majority from stepping all over the minority. The First Amendment is only one of many of these checks.



*edited for typos*

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

...or it would be, if Iacchus had bothered to question what he'd read instead of blindly accepting it as true. Be sure to check out the link monkboon posted. And yet the only thing that's in dispute, aside from one or two things that may be contextual, is whether James Madison or Patrick Henry actually said what they said. While I noticed (not unless I missed it?) they didn't bother to mention anything about the Bible verses being etched all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington DC. Just an oversight on their part do you think?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Cosmo
...or it would be, if Iacchus had bothered to question what he'd read instead of blindly accepting it as true. Be sure to check out the link monkboon posted.

I did. It doesn't seem to contradict on the point of John Jay, or maybe I'm missing something?

Not that I think some dead dude is an absolute authority.

[Kitty Chan]

Nex

I see we are a little bit on the same page just stating it from different views.

Dont forget Im in Canada and there is no prayer, in fact our govt actually asked ministers in the army to not reference God so much. (I never heard where that one went) They were not wildly going amok as may you may think theres no fundys here. Its just another example of govt slow erroding of our freedoms.

But I do worry about a government impossed religion for you and us. Im glad its unconstitutional I was not sure. But some form of pc fake could sneak by because no ones watching that. With that in mind I can see why you would be concerned about a fundy movement. What I see is on one side your saying dont let things slip. But I see the fundys saying that they are experiencing slips and they are trying to hold on to what they got.

When either side feels threatened they are going to go overboard defending themselves. That perhaps is what the fundys are up to. I would need a site to see exactly what they are on about to know or a hint to which ones you mean. Falwell, Robertson?

Let me put it another way the trend here and there as of late is to pander to the whining force so its no surprise that the christians have seen the game plan and are in or they will become bowled over. I have heard preachers say it in that many words.

The media loving a good scrap gets in there and stirs things. What has ever been solved when both sides are hysterical? nothing calmer heads need to prevail but with the circus sideshows events take place nowadays how is it possible to get good discussion or the actual facts or truth. I agree its very frusterating but it can only start at the individual levels.

Going back to the under God throwing the balance of power. It is a response to a imbalance of power that alot are referring to. Part of it is the marriage which is a cornerstone of christianity. Let me give you an insight to show how the threat is seen.

In Canada the justice of peaces were given to April this year to resign if they were not going to marry gay couples. Now they are hired by the govt so I feel that is fair to ask them to do as the government has decided (marry gay couples) But why resign? Whats wrong with a transfer to another area? Govt does that all the time whys this any different.

Now Pastor X at the Baptist church is worried (especially with what the govt wanted the army ministers to do) Pastor X wonders when the govt will tell him he has to marry gay couples to.

Now gay couples want to have someone to marry them and have rights. Heres the problem, with some possible exception (never heard of this) they could always get married with the justice of peace. The United Church and some Lutheren Churches have married gay couples for years. So why the push? Rights were extended they didnt need to push. So now Pastor X feels rightly threatened so he will push back. I have heard from the mouths of gay spokespeople that they want to be married in any church and that is their goal. The only way that goal will be met is a government impossed rule.

Now, Pastor R is in America and sees whats happening here and hes worried. He sees how others have won so goes with the same gameplan to protect himself. It may not be that he wants religion in govt but more to push off this threat.

As for the broader idea with more religion in govt I dont want you to think I do not understand what you say and I agree. America has it all over everyone else in being generally fair. Its because of this history of freedom etc. In Canadas efforts to appease everyone it pleases no one.

I have heard many American preachers speak to the people to get off their duffs and defend themselves because they feel attacked. You say they are trying to take a inch to get a mile. The media wont tell the truth they only want headlines. I really am at a loss unless both sides lay aside differences and actually talk it will never solve.

You say that the point to follow God is in ones heart and mind and its not the discussion. But thats what is being threatened by forcing a church to follow govt orders and marry gay couples for instance.

Hopefully the Constitution can make this all clear but it needs to look at both sides in relation

As for pc Im just pointing out that while everyones arguing about that inch something like pc can sneak in and take the mile.

And yes I agree pc or more accurate manners have gone the dodo birds way and I think society is at a loss for it. One place it remains is in air traffic control and pilots. They address each other formally and say pleasentries. They are also a real calm bunch for it because it forces one to consider their thoughts before saying them.

(In these forums one can do the same as time is on your side somewhat to form thoughts before typing.)

Im glad to hear about prayer being allowed , it does seem to be challanged most often in schools and thats all I hear from the media so I have the impression its not allowed. All I did know is at NHRA events they have a prayer on sunday before the finals which I thought was pretty cool as I dont get to see it often.

Yes, christians are the majority there and they know it. Its the last country that they are and perhaps why they feel threatened if one considers other countries. They worry to become like the others and will be the minority. I hope (and pray) that America will keep those checks and balances in proper perspective for both sides. As America is the last country where the people can actually still do that.

Bagging about America is a pass time for some Americans and foreigners. But I am a fan of America because of the fairness it strives for. This is a big issue, everyones watching some would love to see the christians become minority then America will no longer be apart from the rest of the world. (and then America would no longer be special or something to strive for, cause even if they dont admit it other countries use America as a goal.)

But if the christians became the majority then America would have become stupid. The middlle has to be found to be effective as thats what America is about. It needs to find comprise in this whole thing and not come across as so divided.

:)

[FFed]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
All I did know is at NHRA events they have a prayer on sunday before the finals which I thought was pretty cool as I dont get to see it often.

It's cool when it's your god they are praying too. How about if they did a prayer to a different god or goddess and not one to your god. Maybe sacrifice a chicken or two. Would you still think it was cool?

I am very offended when I have to sit through someone elses prayers. Keep your prayers to yourself.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by FFed


Since we are a world community

I listen all the time to prayers to other gods and ideas

I simply sit politely and smile weakly like any other skeptic.

:)

[Nex]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Dont forget Im in Canada and there is no prayer, in fact our govt actually asked ministers in the army to not reference God so much. (I never heard where that one went) They were not wildly going amok as may you may think theres no fundys here. Its just another example of govt slow erroding of our freedoms.
I haven't forgotten you're in Canada. Have you forgotten this thread is about American Constitutional law? We're going to have quite a bit of confusion between us because of our legal and cultural differences. (yes, I'm one of those Americans that actually realize Canada has its own culture :p )
As for "no fundies in Canada" you should look again. I spend some time debating on ChristianForums.com, and there most certainly ARE fundies in Canada. Scary ones, too...

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But I do worry about a government impossed religion for you and us. Im glad its unconstitutional I was not sure. But some form of pc fake could sneak by because no ones watching that. With that in mind I can see why you would be concerned about a fundy movement. What I see is on one side your saying dont let things slip. But I see the fundys saying that they are experiencing slips and they are trying to hold on to what they got.
I really don't see where the government is oppressing religion in the USA, however. The "slips" the fundamentalist movement refer to are usually strawmen, such as "prayer not being allowed" or other such arguments built on nothing but fear and emotion.
And the PC fakers are on both sides of the equation. I invite you to do some research on Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/), a religious lobbyist group that uses the PC terms of "family values" and "protecting children" to push the fundamentalist ideals through in Congress.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
When either side feels threatened they are going to go overboard defending themselves. That perhaps is what the fundys are up to. I would need a site to see exactly what they are on about to know or a hint to which ones you mean. Falwell, Robertson?
Yes-- Falwell, Robertson, and even Bush Sr.

1987 interview with George H. W. Bush
Reporter:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

George Bush (Senior):
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I'm sorry, I don't seem to have any sites bookmarked anymore. I'm pretty sure some moderate Google searching will turn some up. I'll start the hunt when I'm done with this post and see if I can get some for you.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Let me put it another way the trend here and there as of late is to pander to the whining force so its no surprise that the christians have seen the game plan and are in or they will become bowled over. I have heard preachers say it in that many words.
What "game plan?" I'm sorry, but I can't make much sense of this paragraph. Bowled over by what? Adhering to Constitutional Law?

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
The media loving a good scrap gets in there and stirs things. What has ever been solved when both sides are hysterical? nothing calmer heads need to prevail but with the circus sideshows events take place nowadays how is it possible to get good discussion or the actual facts or truth. I agree its very frusterating but it can only start at the individual levels.
This is absolutely true, unfortunately the political climate in the USA is not reasonable or logical, but emotional and reactionary. On both sides.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Going back to the under God throwing the balance of power. It is a response to a imbalance of power that alot are referring to. Part of it is the marriage which is a cornerstone of christianity. Let me give you an insight to show how the threat is seen.
Marriage is not a cornerstone of Christianity. Jesus, God, and the Bible are the cornerstones to Christianity. Marriage may have a big role in the religion, but it is not a fundamental belief. You can take marriage out of Christianity and still have Christianity; you cannot take Jesus out of Christianity and still have Christianity. Marriage is not a cornerstone to that particular belief system.

Putting God into the pledge and on our money was not a response to any imbalance of power-- it was an irrational emotional reaction to "godless commies" during the McCarthy Red Scare in the 1950's.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
In Canada the justice of peaces were given to April this year to resign if they were not going to marry gay couples. Now they are hired by the govt so I feel that is fair to ask them to do as the government has decided (marry gay couples) But why resign? Whats wrong with a transfer to another area? Govt does that all the time whys this any different.
Unfortunately, I can't address this. I'm not Canadian, am totally ignorant of Canadian law in this matter, and really, it ain't my bizness. :D If this upsets you, write your local elected representative and see if s/he can answer it for you.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
[...]

Now, Pastor R is in America and sees whats happening here and hes worried. He sees how others have won so goes with the same gameplan to protect himself. It may not be that he wants religion in govt but more to push off this threat.
Pastor R should have the smarts to realize that Canada and the USA are two different nations with two different sets of laws about church and state, and that his denomination is not under any threat except in his own mind.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I have heard many American preachers speak to the people to get off their duffs and defend themselves because they feel attacked. You say they are trying to take a inch to get a mile. The media wont tell the truth they only want headlines. I really am at a loss unless both sides lay aside differences and actually talk it will never solve.
You're right, we need to talk reasonably and rationally as adults. The problem is, if one has a serious amount of emotion invested in their side, they are naturally prone to losing their temper because they will take the argument personally.
I find this, in my experience, to be especially a problem of the fundamentalist Christians. High emotional investment in their beliefs is fine and doesn't bother me, but the minute I bring up a point that hurts their side, it hurts them personally.
I am trying to be fair here, but this is my experience. I'm one of the "rude" individuals who will bring this subject up, because I want to know what people actually think on subjects like this. I believe it very important to get other viewpoints and opinions, in order to keep me from getting closed-minded.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
You say that the point to follow God is in ones heart and mind and its not the discussion. But thats what is being threatened by forcing a church to follow govt orders and marry gay couples for instance.
But this is not a Constitutional issue, it is a Canadian one. This thread is about Constitutional Law in the USA.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Hopefully the Constitution can make this all clear but it needs to look at both sides in relation
The Constitution doesn't need to "look at sides." The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Having the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance shows preference towards monotheism, and more specifically Christianity.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
As for pc Im just pointing out that while everyones arguing about that inch something like pc can sneak in and take the mile.
Something like religion can do that too.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
And yes I agree pc or more accurate manners have gone the dodo birds way and I think society is at a loss for it. One place it remains is in air traffic control and pilots. They address each other formally and say pleasentries. They are also a real calm bunch for it because it forces one to consider their thoughts before saying them.
I should hope, with such a stressful job as air traffic control and/or piloting, that they're polite. I'd hate to be on a plane being flown by a pissed off pilot...

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Im glad to hear about prayer being allowed , it does seem to be challanged most often in schools and thats all I hear from the media so I have the impression its not allowed.
Some people think it's not, and some people with ulterior motives dishonestly claim it's not, but prayer in schools and at public events is very much allowed. It cannot be mandatory, which makes the difference.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Bagging about America is a pass time for some Americans and foreigners. But I am a fan of America because of the fairness it strives for. This is a big issue, everyones watching some would love to see the christians become minority then America will no longer be apart from the rest of the world. (and then America would no longer be special or something to strive for, cause even if they dont admit it other countries use America as a goal.)
Uh... thanks? (this is the first time I have heard a non-American say something really nice about the USA since the Iraq war started...)

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But if the christians became the majority then America would have become stupid.
The Christians already are the majority in America. At last census, they were at 74%. (I think, I can't find the link)

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this was back in the days when people were more religious. Nowadays, I think people could care less, while I doubt very much that it will change things if you removed the "under God" part. I kind of like it the way it is, otherwise it seems too abreviated, like something is "missing." I personally don't see the religious right taking over this country, not unless they want to start a bloody revolution or something. I just don't see it happening, thank God! ;)

That it seems to be missing something is because you are not used to hearing it the way it was ORIGINALLY written..you would soon get used to it....as to whether people could care less...I think you mean could not care less---otherwise I agree they could and they should care a lot less but they do not...they care way too much..they desperately want to keep Under God in the pledge--it means alot to them...why? it can only be a deeply religiously held belief if it were no big deal you would not have people holding vigils and organizing huge rallies to keep GOD in the pledge..the very fact that they care so much proves it should not be there..because they are insisting that the GOVERNMENT help maintain THEIR RELIGIOUS view over others...constitutionally the governemnt is suposed to be a nonplayer on this field...take no side whatsoever, either for or against in matters of individual conscience like this...but for the self-righteous types, that is never enough..they have to use teh muscle of the government to foist their view as the CORRECT or preferred view...and that is wrong..just as wonr as if the government said we are one nation that holds there are no gods...neutrality is apparently a very tough concept for people to grasp...but in a nation as diverse as ours NEUTRALITY is the correct position, the just position and the moral position...the religious idea that needs government to help it is weak---the governement that needs religion to help it--is weak...FREEDOM is the ultimate in strength...

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
neutrality is apparently a very tough concept for people to grasp

This point is well made, but unfortunately buried in a larger post, so allow me to restate it for those who didn't read the whole thing.

It is indeed difficult for many to grasp the concept of neutrality. You will often hear "you are either for us or against us" and "if you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Both of these statements have been used to assert the fallacy of neutrality as regards one cause or another, including both sides of the "Under God" question. That a large majority of Americans can not or will not acknowledge that the Establishment clause prescribes neutrality in such matters only makes the problem that much worse, particularly when compounded with our history of ignoring that neutrality when it's convenient. Anyone professing that neutrality be restored is labelled un-American by the simple conclusion, s/he is against us.

[Iacchus]

And yet what is freedom of religion, except the freedom to worship "God" in whatever means we see fit? ... And yes, even in the lack of belief. And, since God is a very generic term (although most would assume it implies the Judeo-Christian God; why not, it's the predominant God of this country?), it doesn't seem to be out of line with the intent the forefathers had when they founded this country. Given the fact that most were religiously disposed -- or, so it would seem. ;) In fact to me, there seems to be something very intrinsic about it. So I think perhaps we all should look upon it as a vestige from the past and forget about it? It's not worth fighting about. I think we owe our founding fathers at least that much.

Now, if somebody wants to instigate a certain set values in this country, based upon their interpretation of that God, then I think we have a problem.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Iacchus
..... it doesn't seem to be out of line with the intent the forefathers had when they founded this country. Given the fact that most were religiously disposed -- or, so it would seem. ;) In fact to me, there seems to be something very intrinsic about it. ...


And yet the founders did not include God in the Foudning document of our government...let me restate that --given the tendency of the time to pour GOd over everything it is more accurately stated that they EXCLUDED God from the Constitution...very intentionally and to the consternation of the fundies of the time...and yet they did it...they did not say In God we trust--that came later...they left the God thing up to the individual....so this whole"intrinsic" argument is baloney--it is a re-writing of history that is being done by the lying, deceitful so-called God-lovers that has left such an impression on an ignorant nation...AND I might add the history here is irrelevant to the moral question--it would not matter a bit if the founders had put God in there and on everything else--as I pointed out earlier--they were not infallible authorities---they got a lot of things wrong-slavery, Natives, women---but it is remarkable given the "socio-economic" context of their time that they did found a secular government....and too bad that so many are out to ruin it...

[Iacchus]

So, anybody have a chance to read the Declaration of Independence?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ~ Declaration of IndependenceIndeed, put up or shut up!

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Whats the big deal with america and freedom then if they had just happily relocated. I have been told that it was to escape england the king the church whatever thats all Im pointing out. Your American History is a bit incomplete. They Pilgrims had already escaped the England. They were living in, I believe, Denmark at the time. They came to America and then set about setting us a repressive religious colony. Which was apparently the tradition. Look at the formation of Rhode Island for a bit of religious intolerance in American history.

Iacchus
I personally don't see the religious right taking over this country, not unless they want to start a bloody revolution or something. I just don't see it happening, thank God! That is exactly what some of the religious right wants to do.

Indeed, put up or shut up! The Declaration of Independence is NOT a founding US government document.

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai

Iacchus

That is exactly what some of the religious right wants to do.I agree.


The Declaration of Independence is NOT a founding US government document.

Ossai It was enough to start a war wasn't it?

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It was enough to start a war wasn't it?

How could declaring independence NOT have started a war, given the time period and circumstances?

Moreover, how does that have anything to do with god?

[Ossai]

Iacchus
The Declaration of Independence is NOT a founding US government document.
It was enough to start a war wasn't it? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this one. Apparently you do not know US History. The Declaration of Independence did not start nor was it the basis of the Revolutionary war. It was exactly what it says it is, a declaration. What caused the creation of the document (one of the biggies – taxation without representation) is what ultimately caused the war, not the document itself.

The US Constitution, which is the basis of the US government, eventually grew out of the war but was not the direct result. Remember a little thing called the Articles of Confederation?

One other thing
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
Jefferson penned the Declaration and you note that says ‘Creator’ and not ‘God’ or ‘YHWH’ or ‘Jehova’. Jefferson, and a surprising number of out founding fathers were deists, not Christians. Go read some of Jefferson’s letters (a large number are available online) or the Jefferson Bible (may be available online, haven’t checked).

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

How could declaring independence NOT have started a war, given the time period and circumstances?

Moreover, how does that have anything to do with god? Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

[Fun2BFree]

THe quoting of the Declaration of Independence makes the point even stronger--because it does mention a Creator -(not God, by the way, but that is a quibble)--and yet when they finally got around to founding the country known as the United States of America--they did not mention the Creator...WHY did they leave it out in the later document?? you think they just sort of forgot about God and the Creator???

...furthermore--if one reads Jefferson's famous Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom which Madison guided into law in Virginia it is remarkable : I quote from the introduction:

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions....

Look at all that God crap they had in there and yet when it came time for these same guys to write the law of the land in the US Constitution -they left God out entirely--completely---even to the point where it says the oaths of office involve swearing OR AFFIRMING--so a nonbeliever would not even have to say the words "I swear" --they could just affirm it...that choice is written right into the Constitution...a reading of that document and a knowledge of the times and contemporaneous documents clearly leaves one with the impression that they did not want God an official part of the government in any way...or that they suddenly just forgot about God...I see no other rational explanation for the absence of God in the US Constitution...

A link to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai

Iacchus

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this one. Apparently you do not know US History. The Declaration of Independence did not start nor was it the basis of the Revolutionary war. It was exactly what it says it is, a declaration. What caused the creation of the document (one of the biggies – taxation without representation) is what ultimately caused the war, not the document itself.And why don't we just throw it out, with all the rest of US History?


Jefferson penned the Declaration and you note that says ‘Creator’ and not ‘God’ or ‘YHWH’ or ‘Jehova’. Jefferson, and a surprising number of out founding fathers were deists, not Christians. Go read some of Jefferson’s letters (a large number are available online) or the Jefferson Bible (may be available online, haven’t checked).

Ossai I interchange the words "God" and "Creator" all the time, so what's the big deal? It's one and the same as far as I'm concerned. You folks are really walking on shaky ground here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Look at all that God crap they had in there and yet when it came time for these same guys to write the law of the land in the US Constitution -they left God out entirely--completely---even to the point where it says the oaths of office involve swearing OR AFFIRMING--so a nonbeliever would not even have to say the words "I swear" --they could just affirm it...that choice is written right into the Constitution...a reading of that document and a knowledge of the times and contemporaneous documents clearly leaves one with the impression that they did not want God an official part of the government in any way...or that they suddenly just forgot about God...I see no other rational explanation for the absence of God in the US Constitution... This country was founded upon the freedom of religion, whether you like it or not. ;) Unfortunately what you want is freedom from religion which, is not possible to even mention without mentioning religion in the same breath.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Whats the big deal with america and freedom then if they had just happily relocated. I have been told that it was to escape england the king the church whatever thats all Im pointing out.
A LIMEY EXPLAINS

The basic plan went like this:

(1) Conquer half the world
(2) Send the religious nuts to America
(3) Send the convicts to Australia
(4) Send the racists to South Africa
(5) Send the boring people to Canada
(6) Grant 'em all independence.

I think it's worked out quite well --- for us. But if you now find yourselves up to the neck in fundies, yes, it's our fault.

[Fun2BFree]

No-- freedon of religion has to include freedom from religion or it is not freedom...freedom of opinion includes the freedom to hold no opinion whatsoever...or would you outlaw undecideds? The first amendment is rather short worded on the subject so go read the Virginia statute for a better understanding of what Jefferson and Madison were saying freedom of religion means:

all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion

That looks like it includes freedom from religion to me...

What we want is the same thing Jefferson and Madison wanted...no government involvement in matters of individual conscience...what we want is for the governement to follow the example set by that incredible document the US CONSTITUTION which does not mention God at all--whether you like it or not---which apparently you do not since you conveniently ignore this fact--This is typical of the deceitful history- re-writing -God- is -gonna -be- a -part -of- this- government -whether- you- like- it- or- not types... hijacking the government and by necessity trying to hijack history as well--

what we ask is not that the government to say NO to God--we are asking it to say NOTHING about it whatsoever---just like it did with the US CONSTITUTION--what was wrong with that? Should the Constitution be amended to include a mention of God? There are those who have advocated this throughout our history and they are wrong--wrong historically and wrong morally. Because destruction of liberty is wrong.

as Jefferson wrote:

to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion...destroys all religious liberty, because...being judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own

Those who favor the government taking sides on this issue and keeping God in the official proclamations of government are almost entirely those whose views square with the belief in God...what a remarkable coincidence!

[Ossai]

Iacchus

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this one. Apparently you do not know US History. The Declaration of Independence did not start nor was it the basis of the Revolutionary war. It was exactly what it says it is, a declaration. What caused the creation of the document (one of the biggies – taxation without representation) is what ultimately caused the war, not the document itself.
And why don't we just throw it out, with all the rest of US History? Apparently your reading skills aren’t up to snuff. Try reading what I actually wrote. The Declaration of Independence is not the basis of our government. It was written for a very specific reason during a very specific time and it has all the hallmarks of the cultural biases of that time.

I interchange the words "God" and "Creator" all the time, so what's big deal? It's one and the same as far as I'm concerned. You folks are really walking on shaky ground here. Because to you they apparently mean the same thing. Use them interchangeably among the Raeiliens (sp?). The terms are obviously not used interchangeably deists.

Ossai

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, anybody have a chance to read the Declaration of Independence?


Indeed, put up or shut up!


First, the Declaration of Independence does not carry the force of law. It was written well before it was certain that independance would come to the colonies, long before the United States of America existed as a sovereign nation. The Constitution on the other hand is the ultimate law in this country, and the founding fathers of this country felt it supremely important not to include God in it. Moreover, it's no coincidence that among the Bill of Rights, the requirement that the government shall neither establish nor interfere with religion comes first.

Second, the God of the Declaration of Independence is the deist God ("Nature's God" in the declaration). This is hardly the glowing endorsement of Christianity fundies would have you believe.

For a better and more thorough analysis, see America Declares Independence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471264822/qid=1101756457/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-4968743-9107919). It covers this very topic better than I could ever hope to.