|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2007 13:18:56 GMT -5
that statement is not a religious one. Exactly, which is why it is better to use than "in god we trust" E whatever says nothing potentially offensive to any religion.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 2, 2007 0:26:59 GMT -5
Ah, so we're back to the idea of potential offense to anyone as a justification. I love the wheel shape of this argument.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 2, 2007 8:41:51 GMT -5
So, you believe it wouldn't offend "any true American" right? So why not just use that? Wouldn't it be more appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 2, 2007 13:26:07 GMT -5
But that isn't whats on millions of coins. On millions of coins in America is the recognition of God's existence by the makers of those coins, in your mind the entire U.S government. So taking that off, and putting on something that is supposedly not offensive to any religion is to all of us 'religious wackos' a condescending move by the 'objective atheists' to make us all feel happy in our ignorance. You don't believe in God, so you think that the government should not recognize him. You don't believe in religions, so you think we should become a religion less state, that allows religions to occur. The problem with all of that, is simply that it only pleases you (atheists) who don't recognize God anyway. Do you see it yet? The paradox of your neutrality? In an attempt to please all of us idiots, you make yourself out to be the ones who want to take America. The coins wont change, and if they do that would be a violation against every Christian in the country. The U.S. isn't the place to do that yet, but in these coming years of socialist infiltration and blatant hate of Christians, it will happen sooner or later and thus will be the destruction of the America that the founding fathers created.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2007 17:49:20 GMT -5
But that isn't whats on millions of coins. On millions of coins in America is the recognition of God's existence by the makers of those coins, in your mind the entire U.S government. Well apparently you can't make up your mind. First you said it was the American people, and then switched it to Congress. Now your saying that it is the coin makers themselves... So taking that off, and putting on something that is supposedly not offensive to any religion is to all of us 'religious wackos' a condescending move by the 'objective atheists' to make us all feel happy in our ignorance. And how do you think the non-Christians feel? Not just the Atheists, but the Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Animists, etc. It seems to me that it is more important to you to please the Christians than anyone else. As a side note, since when are we suppost to bow down to the 'religious wackos'? Would you? Religious wackos are the ones who burn people at the stakes. Hang people for being "witches", and send suicide bombers on their ways. Yet you think we should please all of them?? Please realize that taking religion out of the gov't is not only in the interest of the Atheists, but any other non-Christian-God recognizing religion as well. The coins wont change, and if they do that would be a violation against every Christian in the country. The U.S. isn't the place to do that yet, but in these coming years of socialist infiltration and blatant hate of Christians, it will happen sooner or later and thus will be the destruction of the America that the founding fathers created. And again, you show your personal bias towards Christians. You fail to realize that your religion infested in the gov't not only offends Atheists, but all others who have their own seperate beliefs. In the intrest of standing for our claims, such as "separation of Church and State", religion should be aboloshed in matters of the government. Also, once again you ignore that this country was not founded on Christian grouns. We were built on the foundation of Life, Liberty, and equal rights to happiness. Religion was suppost to play no part in the gov't, as the British had done that, and we did not want to become them. It is important too to point out that no recognition of any religion on the money, in the pledge, or in the government offends no one. You would still be able to practice your religion, with no government interference. It is your right, given to you by those who established our country. It is not your right however, to allow your religion to play a part in government or politics.
|
|
|
Post by radioear on Apr 2, 2007 21:43:18 GMT -5
What do you think about having the line "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence? Separation of Church and State violation? What do you think? The line 'One Nation Under God' is fine in the pledge of allegiance since there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. I caught this in the thread as I was reading and again, the founding fathers never said anything about NOT having a state church... in fact there were several among the eastern coast states at the time. If you read the constitution carefully, you will find the congress can pass no law respecting religion or the free exercise there of. Unless it is against a state constitution, a state CAN have a state church.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2007 0:00:49 GMT -5
a state CAN have a state church. Great, so you and Voltage can make Indiana's state religion Christianity, but please keep it out of the federal gov't.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 3, 2007 1:53:22 GMT -5
What do you think about having the line "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence? Separation of Church and State violation? What do you think? The line 'One Nation Under God' is fine in the pledge of allegiance since there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. I caught this in the thread as I was reading and again, the founding fathers never said anything about NOT having a state church... in fact there were several among the eastern coast states at the time. If you read the constitution carefully, you will find the congress can pass no law respecting religion or the free exercise there of. Unless it is against a state constitution, a state CAN have a state church. In context of the "separation of Church and State" argument, "State" generally refers to the central government; not actual member states of the Union.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on Apr 3, 2007 13:23:30 GMT -5
Perhaps that is true today. But in the context of the Constitution, it was indeed the individual states that held the power and not the federal government. The Constitution intended to defend the citizens and the states against a terrible Federal government, which has, unfortunately, arrived to remove the personal liberties of the individual and remove the powers of the states. As far as religion, the Federal government was to dictate nothing. Nada. Zip. Its power was limited. The states could do whatever. The states held all the power, which is why the nation was called the Unites States of America. Notice that it was not called the Socialist Republic of America, nor was it called the Federal Nation of America. The states determined such things as state religion. Generally, because the Christianity that built this nation was from driven from persecution and bloody wars, the church was very much against such things as forced religion. But there was never any intention for the nation to be anti-religion. The growth of the Federal government is necessary in order for socialist totalitarianism to squelch our freedoms and snap us in line into happy little socialist pets. You think you are rebelling against God and religion. You are actually rejecting freedom and personal liberty.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2007 13:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 4, 2007 18:13:37 GMT -5
First: it is possible to see how placing these sayings on the coins could begin the slippery road down to the same place those religious refugees came from in the first place. Its not an obvious one, and its not a garuanteed one either, but our country could head down it, resulting in an established government of the state (in this context, meaning of the government, not individual states), and the persecution of those who do not follow it.
It may seem like a stretch to you, and I can understand that, so I'll explain my logic here. By having these sorts of sayings in areas established by the government, I have no doubt many people are convinced that our government was founded Christian. These could be people who never learned, or cared enough about our history as a nation to understand that this is not necessarily the case. With only those assumptions, these people, if they vote, may vote for people or things that further the establishment of some denomination of Christianity as the national religion. I think you can imagine where this is going.
Besides that, replacing the phrase on the coin is only a temporary "offense" to Christians, while leaving "In God we trust" is a continuous "offense" as long as there are non-Christians in the country. And we're not going away.
|
|
|
Post by radioear on Apr 4, 2007 22:24:22 GMT -5
The line 'One Nation Under God' is fine in the pledge of allegiance since there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. I caught this in the thread as I was reading and again, the founding fathers never said anything about NOT having a state church... in fact there were several among the eastern coast states at the time. If you read the constitution carefully, you will find the congress can pass no law respecting religion or the free exercise there of. Unless it is against a state constitution, a state CAN have a state church. In context of the "separation of Church and State" argument, "State" generally refers to the central government; not actual member states of the Union. No, never. in the constitution the state refers to the people, never to the central government. Read the constitution, and you will know what's in it. It has not changed since the days of the founding fathers.
|
|
|
Post by radioear on Apr 4, 2007 22:35:54 GMT -5
a state CAN have a state church. Great, so you and Voltage can make Indiana's state religion Christianity, but please keep it out of the federal gov't. I will also tell you that there is no reason for the US Government not to have a central church as well... in fact, the worry was the government interfering with the church not the church interfering with the government. But at this point I know even some of my conservative friends my argue with me ;D Wow look at the new emotion con
|
|
|
Post by radioear on Apr 4, 2007 22:48:19 GMT -5
I have to ask, You do know the founding fathers of the US were Christian. So the US was Christian first. Why do I have to lay down my beliefs so YOU are not offended? Or for that matter anyone els (religion) not Christian? The founders of this country prayed to Christ before every session for two hours in the house chambers which now is the chamber of the Supreme Court.They actually had church service many times with George Washington leading the sermon. There are Christian symbols in the rotunda. This is a Christian Nation.... so, why do I have to lay down my beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on Apr 4, 2007 23:04:46 GMT -5
Ummm.... The organization of the US Government comes from 2 sources. The first was England. The Senate is comparable to the house of Lords and the House of Representatives is comparable to the House of Commons. But the clean separation of powers among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are really a work of art. It is so good, in fact, that this concept is what must be destroyed in order to break the country. The work by committee and many procedures are from Calvin and the Reformed Church. Sorry to correct the lie which you have been taught. But don't take my word for it. Look it up. Of course, you should try to find a book published more than 25 years ago, prior to the persecution of Christianity in America.
|
|