Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm glad. Having someone like you with us would most certainly be detrimental.
Oh please...the Church was no better or worse than when I was Christian... 🙄
The Church is still the same with or without me.....and didn't Jesus say don't leave any sheep behind....oh wait...you're gonna say I'm a wolf 😈
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh please...the Church was no better or worse than when I was Christian... 🙄The Church is still the same with or without me.....and didn't Jesus say don't leave any sheep behind....oh wait...you're gonna say I'm a wolf 😈
(Biblical allusions for 500, Alex.)
Originally posted by StrangeloveI love how you ignore this, Fece 😉
Hm. Let's consider the phrase "wall of separation." A theoretical solid and opaque object between the church and the state. I believe the current supporters of the separation of church and state are advocating the exact same thing.Some perversion you got there yawn
Re: In God We Trust
Originally posted by Strangelove
What does it mean?In 1956, an act of the United States Congress effectively supplanted the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" for "In God We Trust." This was largely a move to cast the United States in a light opposite that of Communism, which was largely associated with atheism (adding "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was also part of this movement). Not only was that not really true, but Communism is no longer a threat to any sort of religion or political regime. So why keep it?
Originally posted by StrangeloveThe Federal Government isn't endorsing a particular Religion in reference to the word "God". "God" means many things to people and doesn't denote any Religion. I would protest the use of Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Jove, Mohammad, Moses, etc. The Dark Ages was a long time ago and I haven't read news on any recent Inquisitions or Crusades.
Keeping "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States of America is still casting us in a light opposite that of others. Except now we're the bad guys. Keeping such a federal endorsement of religion emboldens the radical evangelicals and helps in part to keep the United States behind in social and technological developments (in addition to being a violation of the Constitution). There was once a time when religion controlled the government. They were called the Dark Ages.
Originally posted by StrangeloveThese are delicate issues to say the least. I have no problem with civil unions for gays but, as a traditional dude, I prefer marriage to be set only for a man and woman. Stem cell research is a very murky subject. I have no problem with experiments on embryos that can't be used for fertilization and would be discarded anyway. I'm against the use of VIABLE embryos.
The radical religious right prevent us from legalizing gay marriage, which is a human rights issue and has nothing to do with religion. The RRR prevents stem cell research, because using frozen embryos that are going to be discarded anyway to cure diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and spinal injuries is somehow 'destroying life.'
Originally posted by StrangeloveI agreed with your statement above. I think the USA is a noble country for the most part and I enjoy the mix of cultures, Religion and races. Again, the word God doesn't bother me since the USA was founded on Judea/Christian philosophy. I take it as a homage to the Founding Fathers and their vision. If anybody has a rebuttal, question or simply wants to tell me how wrong I am then please PM me. I only browse the GDF and won't see your posts. BTW, good topic Strangelove. This will promote good discussion. 😎
However, "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin for "Out of many, one"😉 is a uniting motto as opposed to a dividing one. Originally referring to the original thirteen colonies becoming one nation, it evolved as America became a nation of immigrants. No matter what or how many different cultures enter our borders, no matter what hardships we all face, we are [b]one nation and we stand united.But no. We continue to have a motto on our money and in our lives that continues to send a message that is categorically un-American. [/B]
Re: Re: In God We Trust
Originally posted by Badabinga) China is really Communist in name only these days. They have made many economic reforms recently and really can't be considered a Communist government anymore.
Hello Strangelove, how's everything going? I will agree and disagree on some points. Communist China is building up an economic and military machine that will surpass the USA in 1-2 decades so there is still a Communist "threat".
I don't have a problem with God on money or in the Pledge because the USA was founded on Judea/Christian philosophy and not Religion. Also, polls show 75%-85% of the US population believe in a "God" and in a Democracy the majority rules.Majority rule with minority rights. Which means that even though people of a monotheistic faith make up a sizeable majority in this country, it doesn't not mean that the rest of us have to be represented by something we don't believe in.
The Federal Government isn't endorsing a particular Religion in reference to the word "God". "God" means many things to people and doesn't denote any Religion. I would protest the use of Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Jove, Mohammad, Moses, etc. The Dark Ages was a long time ago and I haven't read news on any recent Inquisitions or Crusades.It excludes polytheistic faiths (e.g. Hinduism), nontheistic faiths (e.g. Buddhism), as well as those who simply don't believe in a religion. Plus there the fact that Jews would never put the name of the Lord and God on something as common as money (Theodore Roosevelt made this argument once). And again, I reference the principle of majority rule with minority rights.
These are delicate issues to say the least. I have no problem with civil unions for gays but, as a traditional dude, I prefer marriage to be set only for a man and woman. Stem cell research is a very murky subject. I have no problem with experiments on embryos that can't be used for fertilization and would be discarded anyway. I'm against the use of VIABLE embryos.a) Gay marriage is a must because without it, there is no equality, and that is another principle that America supposedly stands for.
I agreed with your statement above. I think the USA is a noble country for the most part and I enjoy the mix of cultures, Religion and races. Again, the word God doesn't bother me since the USA was founded on Judea/Christian philosophy. I take it as a homage to the Founding Fathers and their vision.Well if you read some of the quotes that (I forget who) posted, you will see that making a Judeo/Christian nation was most definitely not what the Founding Fathers were going for.
BTW, good topic Strangelove. This will promote good discussion. 😎Thank you 🙂
Hm. Let's consider the phrase "wall of separation." A theoretical solid and opaque object between the church and the state. I believe the current supporters of the separation of church and state are advocating the exact same thing.Some perversion you got there
In fact, the current idea of the separation of church and state is, in fact, a perversion of the founders' intent. And do you know why this is?
Well, I'm sure you know why the pilgrims originally came over to America: to escape religious persecution. Thus, one of their main goals in founding a new nation was to allow for religious freedom for everyone, and one of the goals of this was to prevent the Church from ruling the government. Sounds simple, right? The letter from Jefferson to the Baptists reinforces this--government was to be kept separate from religion so that the Baptists would have religious rights, not privileges. However, the Founding Fathers obviously did not want a nation devoid of religion.
I must ask you: if the idea of the separation of church and state was meant to be how it is today, why were church services held in the Capitol? Why were the Ten Commandments erected outside of various public institutions? Why were 20,000 copies of the Bible imported by the government when there was a Bible shortage due to the Revolutionary War?
Originally posted by FeceMan
However, the Founding Fathers obviously did not want a nation devoid of religion.
Don't speak of such intentions when they cannot be factual. Several founding fathers were atheists and many others likely thought that they were the only religion and wished to see other branches marginalized. They certainly didn't agree with each others religions.
Still only a few specific branches of Christianity were represented, so its no wonder that Bibles could be imported by the government. Religious diversity was much narrower and in a different context.
Unfortunately, today's America is different and things change in 200 years. There are now other religions in the US besides Christianity and its becoming increasingly offensive to other people.
As an atheist, I don't care if people are religious, thats not my concern. However, when government starts USING religion, thats every bit an infringement on the separation of church and state.
Applying 240 year old conceptions of church-state relations isn't productive because they simply aren't applicable.
Originally posted by Alliance
Applying 240 year old conceptions of church-state relations isn't productive because they simply aren't applicable.
But then one ought to stop quoting the "wall of separation" if one takes that viewpoint. Maybe that conception isn't applicable. And if one takes that viewpoint, one needs not to talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers in creating the First Amendment. Maybe that's no longer applicable.
Originally posted by Alliance
I'd argue that the religious dimensions of America have changed, while the deisire for free speech, press, assembly, and petition have not. (beyond acutually being extended to ALL Americans)
Sure, there are many more religions present in the US today, but that doesn't mean the "dimensions" have changed. What do you mean by that?
Originally posted by FeceManBecause of a little thing called the Free Exercise clause. Many members of Congress are religious, and holding church services is a convenience. It's not state sponsored religion.
I must ask you: if the idea of the separation of church and state was meant to be how it is today, why were church services held in the Capitol? Why were the Ten Commandments erected outside of various public institutions? Why were 20,000 copies of the Bible imported by the government when there was a Bible shortage due to the Revolutionary War?
As for the 10 Commandments, if you recall the case of the courthouse in Alabama where a sculpture of the Commandments was installed by a judge. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and when the judge refused to have it removed, he was fired. There was another case where it was allowed due to the fact that it was kept alongside other famous historical concepts of law, like The Code of Hammurabi.
And again, whether or not the government sponsors the religion has no bearing on the people themselves. And during and after the Revolutionary War, there were lots of pious men and women living in the country. Neither you nor I have any control over that. However, it does nothing to advance your argument.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Because of a little thing called the Free Exercise clause. Many members of Congress are religious, and holding church services is a convenience. It's not state sponsored religion.
As for the 10 Commandments, if you recall the case of the courthouse in Alabama where a sculpture of the Commandments was installed by a judge. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and when the judge refused to have it removed, he was fired. There was another case where it was allowed due to the fact that it was kept alongside other famous historical concepts of law, like The Code of Hammurabi.
However, it does nothing to advance your argument.