Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
And exactly how is this is in opposition to anything that I have posted in this thread thus far? It seems that you think you have proven me wrong by proving me right.
edit: the use of the word Creator BTW was not religious nor to support any religion but to usurp the King's authority, which in those days was by tradition and law believed to be derived from "Divine Right." The phrase, "All men are created equal" was quite probably the most treasonous, most blasphemous, most heretical phrase possible to both the King of England and the Anglican Church at the time, because it refuted both the King's right to rule and the Church's authority which gave him that "right."
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
One: It's optional and If I wish to express the phrase "in god we trust" (our nations motto) then who are you to stop me from doing so? Aren't you trying to squelch my right to free speech? Two; government can acknowledge religion but it's cannot dictate what religion you are supposed to have. That's what separation of church and state is. The church is not running our government and for you to say that a senator, congressman, or president cannot have a belief then you sir are trying to crush his right to religious freedom. And just because he has a belief does not mean that there is any violation of church and state.
I think you need a deep history lesson and not just the shallow cliffs notes version.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
You don't see a difference between the colors red and blue (something not dealt with in the constitution) and religion (something dealt with in the constitution)?
I think you're the one with the screws loose.People who care about the environment can't drive cars?
There is no way to live without having ANY impact at all on the environment. And yet environmentalists don't all commit suicide, so they're hypocrites, right? :roll: In most parts of the US a car is for all intents and purposes a necessity. There is nothing hypocritical about an environmentalist driving a car.I think you're starting to edge out JS80 as the right-wing equivalent of dmcowen. :thumbsdown:
How have I proven you right? You said the DoI makes no mention of the Christian God. I then provided you a link to show that the original DoI didn't mention the Christian God but other members of the committee added those words into the DoI. All you've proven is that Jefferson was against the indoctrination of God in the founding documents not that the founding documents are not laced with religious undertones.
Edit:
So, what's the point of saying that the newly founded country is protected by Divine Providence if there aren't any religious undertones? You think they merely added that in so that the King of England would understand that God is now protecting the US instead of his Divine Right?
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
All the founding fathers (including Jefferson) said in order to be moral person you needed some form (any form) of a religeous background. Washington (i believe it was him) felt the bible was a good source of inspiration of what was right and what was wrong. A government can acknowledge a god but cannot dictate what god to believe in. It' must respect that you will belieave in a differant or no god at all.
Jefferson said that (not verbatim) it should not bother you if your neighbor believes in a dozen gods or no god at all. It's not hurting you.
It's also acknowledged in one of our oldest national documents:
Jefferson said that (not verbatim) it should not bother you if your neighbor believes in a dozen gods or no god at all. It's not hurting you.
It's also acknowledged in one of our oldest national documents:
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm sorry for you that you've been brainwashed into reading historical documents from a strictly modern perspecitive.
However, I'll try this one more time, with clear language and elaboration.
- The DoI makes no mention of the Christian God.
- The DoI was, from the perspective of the ruling religions of the time, as blasphemous and heretical as any document possibly could be.
- Words like "Nature," "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence," as used in the context of the DoI, are all Deist in origin.
- Deism is in no way connected to the Christian religions.
- Deism, Theism, Agnositicism, Atheism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, etc. are all not even actual religions per se, but system of belief that may (or may not) incorporate religious ideologies.
- Organized religions are institutions of authority that are traditionally established around systems of belief that incorporate religious ideologies.
- The King of England derived his power to rule from the religious authority of "Divine Right" granted him from the Anglican Church.
- The Founding Fathers were thumbing their noses not just to the King, but the Anglican Church that granted the King his authority as well.
- The phrase "In God We Trust" does not in any way date back to this country's founding or the Founding Fathers.
- I think the Indiana "In God We Trust" plate shouldn't just have a matching fee, but (ideally) should be done away with.
- I think that "In God We Trust" should not even be on our money.
- I think the people trying to argue on behalf of those last 2 would be far more successful if they would educate themselves better in history and less in modern internet-derived teenage-angst-based pseudo-atheistic nonsense.
edit to your edit:
No... they were telling the king that God (whatever god that may be) had revoked his right to rule and given it to the people (where it had, in fact, resided all along anyway), along with a very long list of reasons why.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Sure did.
From the Treasury's website:
"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War."
brandonb's claim was that "In God We Trust" was meant to be a tribute to Union soldiers because it was a common battle cry. Although the push to add the motto to American currency happened around the time of the Civil War, the Treasury says in no uncertain terms the real reason the motto was desired and it was not for the reason brandonb claimed.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm sorry, who won the war? You think that's Confederate bills in your wallet right now or something? And you realize that there was not national currency prior to the Civil War, right? (although the rebellion did issue "Continentals" during the Revolutionary war). And have you ever read the lyrics to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
What are you trying to prove here? Besides the fact that you're 9 years old and I'm wasting my time arguing with morons?
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
One: "In God We Trust," per the Treasury's own web page, was put on our money because of a large demand to officially recognize the Christian God.
The majority of the population is Christian -- that there is no doubt. However, that does not give you or anyone else the right to lift your God or any other God to a point of recognition by the government higher than any other religion.
Imagine if in 100 years this country was 75% Jewish and the majority voted for a Jewish slogan in Hebrew to be the national motto and a license plate for the NRA cost $40 to have but a an "optional" plate with the Jewish slogan was free? I'd imagine (assuming you're Christian) you would be opposed to that. Next, imagine you questioned the majority's decision and they claimed you were attempting to quash their free speech or to move out of the country if you didn't like it.
It's only fair that all "optional" or "specialty" plates either carry a fee or none at all. Wouldn't that also be a fair way to generate tax revenue? You can either have a plain, government issued license plate or something else, religious or otherwise, for an extra fee.
Two: you're correct. Governments can recognize religions all they want. That's why some religious holidays are also national holidays (that's also open to debate another time). However, when the government gives one religion any kind of advantage over another, it is crossing the line.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
By offering the "God" license plates optionally AND free of charge while any other plates come with a fee is "respecting an establishment of religion." However, do not mistake this as prohibition of religion as stated in the next clause of the amendment, your right to freely exercise whatever religion you choose.
Placing a fee on the optional plate just like all others does not prohibit your right to be a Christian any more than it prohibits someone from supporting Ducks Unlimited. It merely levels the playing field to negate the position or perception of impropriety by the government in favor of Christianity or any other religion.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,590
- 986
- 126
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
lol
What point are you trying to make? That the desire for God to be officially recognized around the time of the Civil War was a direct result of the Union's victory? That if the Confederacy had won that desire would not have existed? That only after unification the country wanted to adopt a Christian motto on its currency?
Sure, I've read the lyrics. Here they are:
"Chorus:
Glory, Glory Hallelujah, Glory, Glory Hallelujah,
Glory, Glory Hallelujah, His truth is marching on.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where grapes of wrath are stored;
he hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword,
His truth is marching on. (Chorus)
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have built Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps,
His day is marching on. (Chorus)
He has founded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His Judgement Seat'
Oh! Be swift, my soul, to answer Him, be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on. (Chorus)
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on. (Chorus) "
Could you explain how this poem supports your argument (whatever argument it is you're trying to make)?
Again, what point are you trying to make? It seems like you're just trying to pick a fight, like a little bully on the playground trying to intimidate others with nonsensical quips and insults when, in reality, everyone just finds him pathetic.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Funny, 'cause I thought that's what you were doing. Just like gluten with me, you proved brandonb "wrong" by proving him right, that the religious fervor of the time was motivated by the war, and were one hell of a prick about it at the same time, using derogatory and insulting language, claiming he got the idea by being spoon-fed from right-wing radio talk show hosts, etc.
He makes a minor, but correct point.
No need for a rukus to come about because of it, but no doubt the heavily christian sects of the US will brand this as the doing of the "secular-progressive" movement.
No need for a rukus to come about because of it, but no doubt the heavily christian sects of the US will brand this as the doing of the "secular-progressive" movement.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Enlighten me then. Show me and everyone else how I unknowingly proved brandonb right.
Please find on the Treasury web page (or anywhere else) where "In God We Trust" was promoted as a motto for American currency as a tribute to Union soldiers, as brandonb suggested.
Here are his posts again in case you need to reread them:
And my response:
Money is changing hands/departments for the $25 contribution. Plus there's the tax and accounting responsibilities. So hence there is a fee to cover those costs (administrative).
Since there is no such donation or administration needed with these plates it isn't charged.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
And vice versa if you look at the ruckus.
As the issue is really neither, and idiocy of the ideological extremists is getting to the point where moderates are being rabidly attacked for not being fully 100% on one side or another, I am outta here.
childof9yearsold, you got PM.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter