posted on October 23, 2003 02:30:31 PM new
I am often confronted on my belief that the US started out being a nation that believed in God. I am often called many names, including being a right-winged bigot, extremist, etc. I don't feel I am, but if you see me differently than I see myself, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
It is also my belief that our founding fathers did not mean for God and state to be taken that they should not/could no co-exist, but rather that our government could not establish a religion/church for the 'state'.
I do not wish to debate this anymore today, as I've spent too much time on it already. I must go get this dog I am babysitting some food. She's looking so sad and I am feeling guilty. But here is what I use to support my beliefs.
I hope all the links work.
---------------
In the
Declaration of Independance - these statements are made...
1) ...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God .....
2) ...that they are endowed by their Creator...
3) ...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.
4) ...and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of devine Providence, ....
Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of...
Where it speaks of separation - Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
To me that says religion cannot be a requirement, but does not say a religious person cannot serve.
ADMENDMENT 1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
[Bill of Rights]
The legal interpretation of the separation of church and state raises perplexing legal issues because the Free Exercise Clause sometimes conflicts with the Establishment Clause. If the government taxes church property, for example, does the tax violate the churchfs right to gfree exerciseh of its religion? If, on the other hand, the state exempts churches from property taxes, does the exemption constitute an unconstitutional gestablishmenth of religion. In 1971 the Supreme Court upheld property tax exemptions for religious groups in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, but the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses still defies simple resolution by the Supreme Court.
-----------------------------------------
And as I said, on page two [the link above] it also says: First, the historical record is far from clear about what they meant by many constitutional phrases. Second, in many important cases today, it is impossible to know what the framers intended because the modern world was unknown to them. They never conceived of television. How, then, could they have had an intent about whether rules regulating cable television violate the First Amendment? Third, whose intent should we look to? The framers did not agree on all the issues. Indeed, their disagreements led them to write the Constitution in words that have many possible meanings. Moreover, if the key is intent, then perhaps we should look instead at the intent of those who ratified the Constitution, for it was they who chose to put it into operation. But how can anyone determine the single intent of hundreds of people who chanced to come together in state ratifying conventions and did not leave records? Fourth, referring to original intent makes sense only if the framers themselves intended that later generations do so. But there is no evidence that they wished future citizens to do so. In addition, the Constitution does not say how its meaning should be interpreted. Fifth, the framers might have intended for later generations to interpret the constitutional text broadly, in light of the novel problems that would undoubtedly arise in later eras. It is this last approach that has often won. Regardless of theory, there can be no doubt that the meaning of the Constitution often changes with the times.
---------------------------
Our first US Coins - With IN GOD WE TRUST on them http://www.2020site.org/coins/eagle.html On this page you'll have to click on the right side to view the coins first made in the US. From 1792-1890 ....And they do say.....In God We Trust.
US Coins - IN GOD WE TRUST was first minted in 1864 on the Two Cent Piece. http://www.pcgs.com/coinguidetext_static/design7.chtmlDuring the Civil War, agitation arose for the addition of a timely motto to our nation's coinage. Such ideas as GOD OUR TRUST and GOD AND COUNTRY were proposed, but finally adopted was IN GOD WE TRUST, taken from a stanza of the Star Spangled Banner which noted: "And let this be our motto: In God is our trust." The term first appeared on circulating coinage with the two-cent piece of 1864. Two years later, in 1866, IN GOD WE TRUST was added to the reverse of the quarter, half dollar, silver dollar, and large denomination gold coins.
-------------------------
Star Spangled Banner History - Our National Anthem http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm065.html In 1814, Francis Scott Key[/url] wrote new words for a well-known drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven," to celebrate America's recent victory over the British. However, only in 1931, following a twenty-year effort during which more than forty bills and joint resolutions were introduced in Congress, was a law finally signed proclaiming "The Star Spangled Banner" to be the national anthem of the United States. And http://www.law.ou.edu/ssb.html
Also taken from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35035 This article shows that America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of GOD and state, as in fact, all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions. You can view them on this link.
posted on October 23, 2003 02:48:53 PM newABSOLUTELY AGREE
Along with the Pledge of Allegiance. ONE NATION UNDER GOD
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on October 23, 2003 03:00:48 PM new
Yes Linda!
I totally agree with your post.
I believe in EVERYONE's right to whatever belief they hold
The OFFICIAL National Anthem, the last lyric:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, [b]may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.[/b]
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Man, checked out the 50 states, seems just about every state mentions God, or Creator, mine? LOL sounds almost like a galatic alien:
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 23, 2003 03:03:50 PM new
I often wonder if it's Americans themselves wanting to change this God thing, or is it people that immigrate to the U.S. that have different belief systems. Anyone know?
posted on October 23, 2003 03:04:07 PM new
I acknowledge and respect your religious beliefs and the 'fact' that your founding fathers (and mine) believed in the same god.(Opinions of conquered indigenous inhabitants suppressed), and that we are both still Christo-Centric Nations.
But Separation of State, Judiciary, Church; keeps checks and removes the temptation for a man or woman to attempt to serve two master.
A religious reader, for example may take a stance in our heavenly interests and not in our worldly interests.
Eg.
What would prevent a religious leader from mandating that 'He who works on the Sabbath shall be punished.'?
posted on October 23, 2003 06:59:04 PM new
Come on guys. It's all empty talk. Meaningless. Every government every country - god is always on their side.
Here's what the German soldiers wore into battle in WWII - for all it helped.
posted on October 23, 2003 08:12:17 PM new
As my father was fond of saying "In God We Trust...all others pay cash!
To require a group of children to salute a flag while pledging allegiance to a god is not right. It is not necessary in order to maintain ones national identity and for that matter to be loyal to ones country to take an oath on any deity that one may or may not believe in and according to some beliefs may not exist. There may be a Church of England however there is no Church of the United States. This does not stop anyone from believing what they believe and it is not my intent to influence those who do believe to change their belief only to stop force feeding their deity to those who are not believers.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 23, 2003 10:12:52 PM new
Yes, bear, and the Pledge of Allegiance, thank you.
------------
That's coming up before the USSC and a decision will soon be handed down. I hope everyone who supports keeping UNDER GOD in this Pledge will email the USSC and voice your position.
No one is forced to say UNDER GOD, nor to say the Pledge. But the agend of the left continues on.
--------------
In addition to the above, I also forgot to mention Moses, who is described as one of the 'great law givers' on the information site of the USSC building itself. He, and other 'great law givers' are on the outside of the East entrance of our USSC building.
And on the inside of our USSC directly above the bench where our USSC justices sit, are two figures depicting Majesty of Justice and Power of Justice. And in between them are the Ten Commandments. And we've all heard about how the left has worked to get those removed from everywhere possible.
But my main point to those on the left was to show that while I have read here, time and time again, our nations founders intended for their to be a separation of church [God] and state....our history shows differently. It is quite clear that the reference to God has been with us in our government institutions since soon after we declared our independance from England. And remains there today as our Congress opens it's sessions with prayer.
posted on October 24, 2003 02:52:13 AM new
"It is quite clear that the reference to God has been with us in our government institutions since soon after we declared our independance from England."
Yes and did you get even a little hint of my point that it meaningless? That in fact it is insulting for the creeps that have sordid and secular lives to wrap the cloak of piety around their public face?
That the King they rebelled against claimed to rule by the grace of God with as much basis as they jumped to claim too?
Who do these people think they are to hijack the ten commandmants to decorate the blood stained - greed filled halls of government?
You guys are all so stupid you think marble halls with symbols of justice and plaques of religeous principals mean something without any actual EXERCISE of justice and piety.
Whore, steal and kill, but profess Judeo-Christian heritage and all is OK.
They saw you coming people.
Do you think any of the Germans that wore that belt buckle I showed you stopped and said - "Hey, wow, maybe God really wasn't with us in this one?" when they lost? That maybe their leaders told a little fib?
posted on October 24, 2003 04:46:50 AM new
If it is "meaningless" why does it bother you gravid?
Afterall if it actually has no meaning for you, then it can't harm you in the least and therefore it shouldn't be an issue with you and others who feel the same way.
posted on October 24, 2003 10:33:20 AM new
Replay - it must be geographical - I graduated the same time you did and when I was in school we recited the "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible".... version, then followed it up with the Lords Prayer... Of course being the precocious little brat that I was even back in third and fourth grade I refused, was chided among students and even had my mother called in to speak with the teacher.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 24, 2003 07:16:03 PM new
Yes - It was a public school. My private school days didn't hit for a few more years... thats a whole nother story
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 24, 2003 08:28:16 PM newI have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Thomas Jefferson http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff137066.html
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." Benjamin Franklin
You righties sure do like to stretch the truth. Would you like links to a lot more quotes like this from the likes of John Adams, Maddison, Paine, Ethan Allen and more?
posted on October 24, 2003 09:43:27 PM newWHAT!!!!
Then Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson are INFIDELS in the eyes of the christian religious right?????????
Must Be!
I offer my proof.
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
"Third, whose intent should we look to? The framers did not agree on all the issues. Indeed, their disagreements led them to write the Constitution in words that have many possible meanings."
And we remain in the same position today. We do not agree on all the issues, nor what the 'intent' of words written long ago imply.
posted on October 25, 2003 03:03:58 AM new
"words that have many possible meanings."
eg. Bush promises more jobs to you and talks about freeing up trade barriers with us.
Who's the man of steel sighting up to shaft?
I can not see him easily honouring both declared causes.
So when the religious right achieves its desire and the church has greater powers over the State and Judiciary;
will it be less a crime to smite an Infidel or Muslim American, or Hindu American, or Jewish American, or a Homosexual American or perhaps even a Female American; or would they 'enjoy' limited contractual capacity, as women once did (along with lunatics and drunkards and juveniles) Or will they simply be considered un-American or not American?
What would prevent a religious leader from mandating that 'He who works on the Sabbath shall be punished.'?
I would be very interested to hear your opinion on these questions.
Or perhaps they will be shipped to the 53rd officially un-American State (Guantanamo Bay); where they will not be subjected to overt official American moral, ethical, religious and legal principles.
You could then have another FBI (Federal Bureau of Inquisitions).
posted on October 25, 2003 05:03:33 AM new
austbounty - It has never been my intent nor desire that the 'church' obtain greater powers over the State and Judiciary. Our government didn't start out that way and I would not support that changing.
My 'intent' is to support those American's that believe in a [their] "God" or "Higher Power" who feel their right to practice their religious freedoms are being taken away from them.
I, personally, also support those who's choice it is to be agnostics or atheists. I support those from religions other than Christian to practice their religion too. I believe we can live side by side with one another.
My point in this thread was to show those who have previously stated our government was formed to keep **everything** [state and God] separate, when it has not been that way since the beginning of our nations history.
And yes, you do see my huge concern about a religion who professes to be a peaceful religion, when the actions of their *clerics* call for killing those who believe otherwise. When I see those clerics voicing their objections to this 'jihad' etc., then I will believe otherwise.
posted on October 25, 2003 05:26:40 AM new
The Pledge issue before the USSC has nothing to do with being a "christian" nation, nor anything to do with what the founders thought.
The religious right is always producing this red herring when the issue is the separation clause.
If you want to say "under god", you may do so in any forum except under the direction of a governmental forum.
Too many people do not grasp that a public school teacher is an arm of the government and a public school is a government isnstitution.
There is also the red herring that the religious are somehow being denied their rights when the government does not join them, support them, or in fact lead them in their religious practice. The separation clause explicitly does not permit the government to do these things.
If you want religious indoctrination in your schools, go to a private school.
[i]In the
Declaration of Independance - these statements are made[/i]...
Well, first, the DOI is not a document from which we derive any law, nor any interpretation of law.
]i]1) ...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God .....[/i]
This statement is in fact sacreligious to the christian faith. There are no "laws of nature" but only god's laws in christianity. Jefferson was covering all the bases.
2) ...that they are endowed by their Creator...
Again, Jefferson covers all the bases. Take close note that he did not say "the" creator, he said "their" creator, which can mean any and all gods, or in fact no god. hardly a christian position.
3) ...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.
Hardly a unique christian position.
4) ...and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of devine Providence, ....
Again, hardly a unique christian perspective.
I ask if you believe those are NOT references to God, then who do you believe they are they referencing?
If you have read to any degree about Jefferson and his contemporaries, you would find that these statements about "god" are being taken completely out of context. And surely you would know that the "god" Jefferson references would not be recognized by any christian faith.
Just as these founders rejected being a colony, divne rights of kings, and much else of the oild world, they also rejected much of the christian doctrine.
Had they meant that this new nation would be christian, they would have expressly embedded christianity into the framework of the government. Instead, they did the unheard of, they put a clause into our constitution that separates church and state.
Note too, that the clause -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof--- does not mention nor exempt any religion. If this was a "christian nation", why not merely exclude all other religions and explicitly incorporate christianity into the government mix? Why was there no christian branch of government created when this christian nation was founded ?
Upon examination, it becomes very clear that the founders did not found a christian nation, and it is doubtful that even their references to a god resembles anything that christians would recognize.
Just as Jefferson and the others were embarking on a bold experiment in self government, they were also making bold statements about religion. Religion was not to be the be-all end-all institution as it was in true theocracies. Religion was to be only a personal and individual property, which means that all religions could be practiced under this new government, including no religious practice, and the government shall have nothing to do with the matters of personal conscience.
Saying that we are a christian nation is in fact debasing our heritage.
posted on October 25, 2003 05:34:44 AM new
reamond - I'm SO glad you're back, truly. Even if only on occassion.
We obviously have parted company on this issue many times in the past.
Your agrument is very well stated and supports those who see this issue in a different light.
But there are more than half of those in our country who take my position on this issue and agree with it. I believe right after 9-11 a poll showed that 86% of American believe in a "God".
We all will support our own positions with our votes.
posted on October 25, 2003 05:57:37 AM newBut there are more than half of those in our country who take my position on this issue and agree with it. I believe right after 9-11 a poll showed that 86% of American believe in a "God".
The percentage doesn't matter. Under a constitutional republic with a separation clause, the majority simply can not get their way on this issue. It is no different than if the majority supported a government regulated/owned press, the position simply does not comport with our constitution.
You must ask yourself this: if their is no substance to the separation doctrine, what will you do when your beliefs are in the minority in this country, or state, or locality, and that majority attempts to indoctrinate that religion through the government using your tax dollars and public institutions? Do you want our system to denigrate to the proposition that you must be a LDS to live in Utah ? Or Congregationalist to live in Vermont ?
posted on October 25, 2003 05:59:09 AM newBut there are more than half of those in our country who take my position on this issue and agree with it. I believe right after 9-11 a poll showed that 86% of American believe in a "God".
But what makes you think even a majority of the the 86% support your version God?
The religious righties are aways pushing to force their version of God onto and into the government. Prayer in school has always been a big bone of contention. How would you like the Moslems or even the Santorians to share in that right. I'll bet most of the religious right means that their version of prayer to be the only one allowed.
posted on October 25, 2003 06:09:20 AM new
reamond - You must ask yourself this: and you must ask yourself this.
Why did our Congress vote to allow IN GOD WE TRUST on our coinage in the mid 1800's IF it was not allowed under our Constitution. Did our Congress not hold this so-called 'separation of church and state' belief?
posted on October 25, 2003 06:32:38 AM newWhy did our Congress vote to allow IN GOD WE TRUST on our coinage in the mid 1800's IF it was not allowed under our Constitution. Did our Congress not hold this so-called 'separation of church and state' belief?
There was an increased religious sentiment during the Civil war...just as "one nation under god was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's to counter "godless commies".
But here is what I use to support my beliefs.
