NationStates Jolt Archive

“We have staked the future of all our political institutions, 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…” - James Madison

WHAT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE?

First Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment has two clauses concerning religion: "Congress shall make no law...

1) "respecting an establishment of religion" (the establishment clause)

2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (the free exercise clause)

The establishment clause was intended to prohibit Congress from “respecting” or favoring, “an establishment of religion” which is a church or denomination, as was the case in Great Britain which respected or favored the Anglican church, by making it the state church.

“respecting” is used in it’s sense of “giving special treatment” or “giving deference”.

“an establishment of religion” The entire phrase represents a noun, “a legal entity of religion”; which would have been in that day, a specific church or denomination; Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists…

Just as Wallmart, K-Mart, & Target, are “establishments of retail commerce”.

If the amendment read, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of retail commerce'…we would know that Congress couldn’t pass a law where K-Mart was proclaimed as the Official Department Store of the United States of America.

The original intent of the founders should be understood then in the following way:

“Congress shall make no law favoring any church or denomination of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

How would Congress make a law respecting (favoring) an establishment of religion?

Both Houses of Congress have to write and agree on a bill, favoring a certain “religious establishment”, and the President would have to sign it, thus creating a law enacting a national church.. Unless Congress makes a law, favoring a certain religious establishment over others, then the establishment clause was not and cannot be violated, according to the first amendment. When Judge Roy Moore placed the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, did congress make a law favoring one denomination? No. The Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Federal Supreme Court, and etched on it’s doors!

Modern Courts Have Re-Interpreted First Amendment

The first amendment is now being used to accomplish the exact opposite of what the founders intended. It is now read with the following understanding:

“Congress (or any government of state, county, city or government entity, such as a national park, or school etc.) shall make no law (or take any action) respecting an establishment of religion, (with respect to establishing or endorsing, any religious view, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (citizens can worship privately but never at any government sponsored event)

The tragedy is that those who hold this view are trying to say that the above paraphrase was the intent of the founding fathers. It was not.

Where is the separation of church and state? It’s not in the Constitution…?

The phrase is not in the constitution. It came from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, who wrote him about their worry that religious liberty might one day be usurped by government. In his letter back to them, Jefferson assured them that this would never happen because the First Amendment provided a wall of separation between church and state prohibiting the government from meddling with the church. In Jefferson’s mind, the wall of separation protected the church from government. In the mind of today’s activist liberal judge, the wall is to keep religious expression at home or in church, while the country, the schools, the institutions, the laws, are all allowed to let the nation fall into moral depravity.

Consider the words, “In God We Trust” appears on our national currency and on the dais of the Speaker of the House in Congress. Somewhat “establishing”, don’t you think?

Why has there been a Senate Chaplain and a House Chaplain on the Congressional payroll since 1789?

The Senate and House Chaplain positions were started, and placed on the government payroll, by those who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, including the so called, “establishment” clause of the first amendment. They are paid to pray to God in Congress, give spiritual counsel, and teach bible studies. Does this sound like the founding fathers wanted church separated from government? Evidently, the founding fathers had a different understanding of the “establishment clause” then our modern judges, who have taken the law into their own hands.

House and Senate definitions of “an establishment of religion” (1853-1854)

“The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.” What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country - - - (which was an) endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. They intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people - - - - they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.” - Senate Judiciary Committee

“What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these - - - Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation
… It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests…In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic , and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.” - House Judiciary Committee

Quotes From Founding Fathers on the meaning of “respecting an establishment of religion?”

George Mason’s who is called “the father of the Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the constitution) used the following draft wording for the establishment clause of the First Amendment, “… that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others”

James Madison who is called, the “Chief Architect of the Constitution”: proposed the following wording for the establishment clause of the First Amendment, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established,”

Court Rulings Promoting Christian Expression In Government

Runkel V. Winemiller, Supreme Court Of Maryland, 1799.
“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion.”

Updegraph V. The Commonwealth, Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania, 1824.
“Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . Thus this wise legislature [Congress] framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and Christian people.”

Lindenmuller V. The People, Supreme Court Of New York, 1860.
“The Christian religion was engrafted upon the law and entitled to protection as the basis of our morals and the strength of our government.”

Church Of The Holy Trinity V. United States, U.S Supreme Court, 1892.
This is a religious nation. . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Modern Supreme Court Rulings give a new interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment

The Supreme Court Case Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, paved the way for a radically new interpretation of the First Amendment, and the “establishment clause”. This case involved a New Jersey school district that allowed re-imbursement of schools for transportation of students who went to parochial schools. The decision was 5-4 upholding the plan. But in so doing, the Court applied the “Due Process Clause” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. This changed forever the way the First Amendment was applied.

Engel v. Vitale 1962 put an end to school sponsored prayer because the Supreme Court said prayers at school violated “the establishment clause” as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abington v. Schempp 1963 Took the bible out of public schools, because the Court said that it violated “the establishment clause” as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment and The Establishment Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed just after the civil war, and was intended to make the rebellious states conform with federal law giving all citizens “due process” and “equal protection under the law” regardless of local or state laws. The Supreme court in Everson, applied this idea for the first time, to the First Amendment. They reasoned that even though the first Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, using the Fourteenth Amendment, we are going to apply this to the States as well. The result is that the First Amendment is completely turned upside down.

Founding Father Quotes From History

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Article 3; Northwest Ordinance 1787 (religion, morality, and knowledge were considered an integral part of schools and education by the founding fathers)

“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” - George Washington in his Farewell Address; 1796

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

“We have staked the future of all our political institutions, 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…” - James Madison

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies". - Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805 Inaugural Address

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. - President John Quincy Adams; July 4, 1821

From Abraham Lincoln's "Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day," March 30, 1863:

"Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:

And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord:

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people; We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined,, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln.”

Warnings Of Judicial Branch Usurping Too Much Power

“to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” - Thomas Jefferson

“If the policy of the government…is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” - Abraham Lincoln

“They have no power, no authority, no jurisdiction to tell the state of Alabama that we cannot acknowledge God as the source of our law," - Chief Justice Roy S. Moore

The Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, but a liberal activist Judicial branch has relegated those powers to itself, rather than to the states and the people. This can no longer be tolerated in this country if we want to contiune to be the country that our founding fathers wanted us to be.

(edit: sorry for the long post, and corrected some of my html errors in the original)

So, where was this cut-and-pasted from, hmm?

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?
well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

that being said, the court's power is getting scary.

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?
well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

so youre saying athiests arent human?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?
well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

that's a laugh

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.
its not about "paying hommage to God." It is the fact that no where in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"

Alabama should be able to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Supreme Court, "Under God" should be in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" cannot be taken off our money. Thats what this is about, not paying "hommage to God."

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?
well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...

So, where did you take this from?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.
its not about "paying hommage to God." It is the fact that no where in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"

Alabama should be able to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Supreme Court, "Under God" should be in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" cannot be taken off our money. Thats what this is about, not paying "hommage to God."

so either you are taking the lord's name in vain, and thats blasphemy, or else you are paying allegiance to god, which in my book is hommage. which version do you prefer?

well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

that's a laugh
okay, why has their been a Senate and House Chaplain on the Congressional payroll since 1789?

Is that a laugh?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone
i meant the beginning of this thread, where he quotes tj and the gang.

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone

and of that 94%, not all of it is christian

so either you are taking the lord's name in vain, and thats blasphemy, or else you are paying allegiance to god, which in my book is hommage. which version do you prefer?
either, you are an athiest and shouldn't care

or

there is no seperation of church and state in the US constitution so it is the government's authority to pay hommage to Him/Her

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.
its not about "paying hommage to God." It is the fact that no where in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"

Alabama should be able to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Supreme Court, "Under God" should be in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" cannot be taken off our money. Thats what this is about, not paying "hommage to God."

That's what it's about, huh? Alright, you say it's in the general spirit of religion, you certainly ought to recognize that having those symbols would only represent the Judeo-Christian god, which is not representative of general religion. Out of respect for all those other religions, then, why should we only be respecting (yup, that's what it is) the Judeo-Christian god? Hmm...

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone
i meant the beginning of this thread, where he quotes tj and the gang.

tj and his gang? it should be noted thomas jeffersonwas an atheist, but it seems that atheist has now become synominous(sp?) with not wanting to be around any mention of god at all and being deeply offended when anyone starts to talk about religion and feels it neccesary to make it be known that it offends them :roll:

so either you are taking the lord's name in vain, and thats blasphemy, or else you are paying allegiance to god, which in my book is hommage. which version do you prefer?
either, you are an athiest and shouldn't care

or

there is no seperation of church and state in the US constitution so it is the government's authority to pay hommage to Him/Her

im a christain, so i care if my country is being blasphemous on my tax dollar. if they are catering to a specific god, then i count that as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I figure the phrases containing the word "God" is just there to piss off atheists. Have you ever heard a Muslim or Hindu complain about it? Neither have I. Maybe because the term "God" is so generic that anyone with a religion doesn't find it offensive.

The ones making such a big deal about this are just trying to get their fifteen minutes of fame. I say that us folk who don't really give a crap about the issue just let them have their fun. I mean, face it. It is highly unlikely that the government will bend to their will. Why? The World Factbook states that the U.S. is 56% Protestant, 28% Catholic, and 2% Jewish. That adds up to about almost 90% of Americans who believe in some form of Supreme Being. I'm not saying that the 90% would wholeheartedly support a movement to keep the word "God", but probably a good percentage would be upset if it was taken out.

And wouldn't it be questionable, if not outright illogical, to reissue new coins and bills just so that four words can be omitted? Get used to it. Who cares if it was just added during the Cold War era as a counter to atheist Commies? Is it just me, or does no one actually wince at the sound of hearing "God" during the Pledge of Allegiance? Pheh, I'd even go as far to say that some don't even take the words into heart when reciting it.

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone
i meant the beginning of this thread, where he quotes tj and the gang.

tj and his gang? it should be noted thomas jeffersonwas an atheist, but it seems that atheist has now become synominous(sp?) with not wanting to be around any mention of god at all and being deeply offended when anyone starts to talk about religion and feels it neccesary to make it be known that it offends them :roll:
he was a diest, he believed in god like a big watchmaker. but back in the day everyone had to evoke god, it was part of the language. what gets them ticked is when laws are made and justified using the bible. when everyone talks about needing to do right by god. you would be pissed if this country was run by, say, islamic law or talmudic laws.

im a christain, so i care if my country is being blasphemous on my tax dollar. if they are catering to a specific god, then i count that as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Where has the US Govt ever careated or established a legal entity of religion for this country?

Little words on money or said in a pledge do are a far cry from an establishment of a National organized religion like the Anglican Church was in GB.

New Auburnland, you haven't addressed either of my posts. Why is this?

im a christain, so i care if my country is being blasphemous on my tax dollar. if they are catering to a specific god, then i count that as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Where has the US Govt ever careated or established a legal entity of religion for this country?

Little words on money or said in a pledge do are a far cry from an establishment of a National organized religion like the Anglican Church was in GB.

iever said it was to the same extent. im saying if you are using a generic god, then you cant use the argument that taking him out of govt creates moral degridation since that god doesnt represent any morals. if you are refering to one specific god, then its an endorsment of a religious view, and thats against the first amendment

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone
i meant the beginning of this thread, where he quotes tj and the gang.

tj and his gang? it should be noted thomas jeffersonwas an atheist, but it seems that atheist has now become synominous(sp?) with not wanting to be around any mention of god at all and being deeply offended when anyone starts to talk about religion and feels it neccesary to make it be known that it offends them :roll:
he was a diest, he believed in god like a big watchmaker. but back in the day everyone had to evoke god, it was part of the language. what gets them ticked is when laws are made and justified using the bible. when everyone talks about needing to do right by god. you would be pissed if this country was run by, say, islamic law or talmudic laws.
no i wouldnt, because it makes sense heres a thought. stop obsesing(sp?) about shit you cant control, and you'll feel alot better. and that last time i looked at a dollar it didnt say "under jehovah, god of abraham we trust"

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.
its not about "paying hommage to God." It is the fact that no where in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"

Alabama should be able to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Supreme Court, "Under God" should be in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" cannot be taken off our money. Thats what this is about, not paying "hommage to God."

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

And what part of posting the Ten Commandments isn't state endorsement of Christianity? How would you feel if, instead of a Christian display, it were Hindu, Buddhist, or Shinto sayings on the wall of a court presided by a judge of those origins?

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone
i meant the beginning of this thread, where he quotes tj and the gang.

tj and his gang? it should be noted thomas jeffersonwas an atheist, but it seems that atheist has now become synominous(sp?) with not wanting to be around any mention of god at all and being deeply offended when anyone starts to talk about religion and feels it neccesary to make it be known that it offends them :roll:
he was a diest, he believed in god like a big watchmaker. but back in the day everyone had to evoke god, it was part of the language. what gets them ticked is when laws are made and justified using the bible. when everyone talks about needing to do right by god. you would be pissed if this country was run by, say, islamic law or talmudic laws.
no i wouldnt, because it makes sense heres a thought. stop obsesing(sp?) about shit you cant control, and you'll feel alot better. and that last time i looked at a dollar it didnt say "under jehovah, god of abraham we trust"
why the personal attack...also, refer to above

New Auburnland, you haven't addressed either of my posts. Why is this?
what posts???

(let me look for your posts right quick)

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...
1. I was using the gay/lesbian marriage rights refrence to show the loss of our nations spirituality.
2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.
3. Religion is a good thing. It does not matter if it is Christianity, Judiasm, or Islam, they all have the same values. The 10 commandments and the piliars of Islam represent the same ideals.

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

I'm not really sure about this one...But are there any other religions (I use that term loosely) other than atheism or agnosticism that refuses to believe in a higher power?

Buddhism does not deny the existence of such a being. Hinduism doesn't either (pssh...in fact they've got three, with Brahmin being the Supreme God. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that...). Islam, Christianity, and Judaism sure as hell don't deny the existence of God. I guess by the same logical reasoning that the word "God" is used in a generic sense, perhaps it could also be a term for the Supreme God in pagan religions?

The article at the beginning of this thread is contradictory.

I quote:

“The original intent of the founders should be understood then in the following way:

Congress shall make no law favoring any church or denomination of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

Note that all the discussion surrounds God, supposedly the only omnipotent being. All monotheistic religions are favoured by mentions of this one God. What if I believe in the ancient Greek or Roman gods? Or the Hindu gods? This is clearly a bias against polytheistic religions; this is counter to the intent of the founding fathers.

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...
1. I was using the gay/lesbian marriage rights refrence to show the loss of our nations spirituality.
this will ruin the thread if you go down this path

2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.

and the taliban was all about the higher authority. religion sure protects the little guy without fail, let me tell you. or, ask a jew in spain during the inquisition

3. Religion is a good thing. It does not matter if it is Christianity, Judiasm, or Islam, they all have the same values. The 10 commandments and the piliars of Islam represent the same ideals.
and this is why athiests get offended. if you dont believe in god, you cant be a good person. religion obviously makes you smarter, healthier, more energetic, a better lover, and an all around good guy. athiests like to drown puppies and steal babies' candy

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

I'm not really sure about this one...But are there any other religions (I use that term loosely) other than atheism or agnosticism that refuses to believe in a higher power?

Buddhism does not deny the existence of such a being. Hinduism doesn't either (pssh...in fact they've got three, with Brahmin being the Supreme God. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that...). Islam, Christianity, and Judaism sure as hell don't deny the existence of God. I guess by the same logical reasoning that the word "God" is used in a generic sense, perhaps it could also be a term for the Supreme God in pagan religions?

taoism, not that it should matter

Note that all the discussion surrounds God, supposedly the only omnipotent being. All monotheistic religions are favoured by mentions of this one God. What if I believe in the ancient Greek or Roman gods? Or the Hindu gods? This is clearly a bias against polytheistic religions; this is counter to the intent of the founding fathers.

As I have posted before, most pagan religions have a "head cheese" you could refer to as the Supreme God. Zeus for the Greeks, Jupiter for the Romans, and Brahmin (Or Brahma...I get confused) for the Hindus. So technically, they would be the "God" that the phrase can allude to.

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...
1. I was using the gay/lesbian marriage rights refrence to show the loss of our nations spirituality.

I know what you were referencing, and it's still a ridiculous exaggeration. Marriage has been opened to homosexual couples, which is hardly throwing open that door to anyone who wants a marriage license. The outcry of such as speculation has been shot down before, and now citing it as if it's happened is even more absurd. You can't even pretend that's a creative argument. Also, you still haven't shown how this utterly destroys religion in America. It's nowhere even near a cornerstone of any major religion.

2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.

Yes, those are oppressive governments, and their people are generally not happy, which is why they need a military to oppress them. Now, if you put laws in place which keep people happy...hmm, I didn't need religion to reach that conclusion.

3. Religion is a good thing. It does not matter if it is Christianity, Judiasm, or Islam, they all have the same values. The 10 commandments and the piliars of Islam represent the same ideals.

When someone puts up a Pillars of Islam monument and no one protests (and in the US today, you know they would do more than just that), then you can cite that as an example. Also, it's painfully obvious that you're ignoring many, many, many other religions.

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...
1. I was using the gay/lesbian marriage rights refrence to show the loss of our nations spirituality.
this will ruin the thread if you go down this path

2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.

and the taliban was all about the higher authority. religion sure protects the little guy without fail, let me tell you. or, ask a jew in spain during the inquisition

3. Religion is a good thing. It does not matter if it is Christianity, Judiasm, or Islam, they all have the same values. The 10 commandments and the piliars of Islam represent the same ideals.
and this is why athiests get offended. if you dont believe in god, you cant be a good person. religion obviously makes you smarter, healthier, more energetic, a better lover, and an all around good guy. athiests like to drown puppies and steal babies' candy
1. I did not intend for this thread to go down this path.
2. I believe that religion has a place in government, but should we should not have Cannon or Islamic law. That why i do not like fundamentalist governments.
3. The values taught in organized religion are good for humanity, I never said that a person cannot learn those same values without being religious.

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

I'm not really sure about this one...But are there any other religions (I use that term loosely) other than atheism or agnosticism that refuses to believe in a higher power?

Buddhism does not deny the existence of such a being. Hinduism doesn't either (pssh...in fact they've got three, with Brahmin being the Supreme God. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that...). Islam, Christianity, and Judaism sure as hell don't deny the existence of God. I guess by the same logical reasoning that the word "God" is used in a generic sense, perhaps it could also be a term for the Supreme God in pagan religions?

budhuism isnt so much about believing in a god that achieves all things so much as it is trying to reach peace with yourself, reaching nirvana. confuscism is a religion of sorts, and nobody thinks confuscious was god. taoism is belief in the tao, trying to find the way, the truth, the light. but the light isnt god. but the point isnt wether there is one unifying god everybody could pray to, its whether the us should be going around endorsing religion or religiosity in tyhe first place.

1. I did not intend for this thread to go down this path.
2. I believe that religion has a place in government, but should we should not have Cannon or Islamic law. That why i do not like fundamentalist governments.
3. The values taught in organized religion are good for humanity, I never said that a person cannot learn those same values without being religious.
2. maybe this is just a semantical argument, but whats the difference between saving a place for religion in government and full out endorsing it?

3. religion can also be a negative thing. it should be a personal thing, not a public one.

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

I'm not really sure about this one...But are there any other religions (I use that term loosely) other than atheism or agnosticism that refuses to believe in a higher power?

Buddhism does not deny the existence of such a being. Hinduism doesn't either (pssh...in fact they've got three, with Brahmin being the Supreme God. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that...). Islam, Christianity, and Judaism sure as hell don't deny the existence of God. I guess by the same logical reasoning that the word "God" is used in a generic sense, perhaps it could also be a term for the Supreme God in pagan religions?

Atheism and agnosticism are exactly what I refer to. I think atheism is a religion, it's an established way of looking at the origins of the universe, ourselves, our past, and our future, just as any other religion. I'm not so sure about agnosticism as a religion, but it is certainly religious philosophy.

2. maybe this is just a semantical argument, but whats the difference between saving a place for religion in government and full out endorsing it?
Some place in government = UK, full out endorsing it = Iran
3. religion can also be a negative thing. it should be a personal thing, not a public one.
I disagree. If religion is taught, practiced, and expressed in ways that show the values those religions teach, there is no way religion can be a negative thing. Religion should be a personal thing. No government should tell its citizens it has to be in a certian faith or relgion. I do feel that our elected officials should retain the morals and valus taught to them by their respective faith.

Freedomstein, I always thought of Taoism as not a paganistic religion, but something along the lines of a path to self-discovery. I don't really know how to explain my idea of it, so please bear with me :lol:. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's not something like atheism where you firmly believe that there is no god, period.

Anyway, I did a quick search on Daoist deities and came up with this link:
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-3/chapter_viii_the_daoist_religion.htm

Apparently, there is some conflict as to who the top deity is. According to the website (this is one website, mind you. I'm not going to look at it as my bible to Taoism, but rather give a short summary of the passage), at first, Lao Tzu was top dog among the gods. But later on "towards the end of the Northern and Southern Dynasties a Daoist priest named Tao Hongjing wrote a book called Zhenling Weiye Tu in which he divided Daoist deities into seven levels. The highest level contained three deities. In the center was one called Yuanshi Tiandao. On his left was Gaoshang Daojun and on his right was Yuanhuang Daojun. Laozi (Lao Tzu), or Taishang Laojun, was placed below on the fourth level."

As I've said before, my opinion of atheism is that it seems to be only centered around the idea that there is no God, or any intervention from above. Please, if there are any atheists out there, I'd love to know your stance on what your belief means to you. It's hard trying to understand a concept I've been taught to refute all my life.

"To anyone?" Your exaggeration is laughable, and the idea that in that single action all religion is being undermined has me in hysterics. Finally, as for "the moral backbone of this nation" - wow, a government which has laws which look out for its citizens. What a concept! Surely religion must be responsible, rather than knowing how to maintain order...
1. I was using the gay/lesbian marriage rights refrence to show the loss of our nations spirituality.
2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.
3. Religion is a good thing. It does not matter if it is Christianity, Judiasm, or Islam, they all have the same values. The 10 commandments and the piliars of Islam represent the same ideals.

1- Gay/Lesbian marriage goes against religion, not spirituality, which is a personal relationship with God.

2- True, a lot of governments do not look after their citizens- Iraq, Iran, colonial England, Hitler's Germany, Spain during the Inquisition, the US during the Salem witch hunts. Belief in a higher authority can be a dangerous thing as well.

3- Yes, religion is essentially good, and when it boils down to it, all religions share an interest in goodwill toward others, which I believe is what we need, whether it is based in religion or not. You can be moral without religion, out of pure love of your fellow man.

1. I did not intend for this thread to go down this path.
2. I believe that religion has a place in government, but should we should not have Cannon or Islamic law. That why i do not like fundamentalist governments.
3. The values taught in organized religion are good for humanity, I never said that a person cannot learn those same values without being religious.
2. maybe this is just a semantical argument, but whats the difference between saving a place for religion in government and full out endorsing it?

3. religion can also be a negative thing. it should be a personal thing, not a public one.
Why should it be a private thing? If it is, about what are we allowed to express our opinions? Do you not have freedom of expresion?
If I object to vegi's can I get them to shut up, or do I accept we differ in our opinions and respect them for thiers? There appears to be alot of intollerance towards religous belief in the US. Live and let live, and recognise the truth, which is US law is derived from a Christian stand point and from Christian law. It may have since evolved but it's roots should be recognised. Denial is not a foundation for good debate.

2. maybe this is just a semantical argument, but whats the difference between saving a place for religion in government and full out endorsing it?
Some place in government = UK, full out endorsing it = Iran

yeah, but the uk doesnt have a constitution its violating when it endorses god

3. religion can also be a negative thing. it should be a personal thing, not a public one.
I disagree. If religion is taught, practiced, and expressed in ways that show the values those religions teach, there is no way religion can be a negative thing. Religion should be a personal thing. No government should tell its citizens it has to be in a certian faith or relgion. I do feel that our elected officials should retain the morals and valus taught to them by their respective faith. see, now you are saying some religions are better than others. there are true chriistains and ones who are mistaken. when religion and civic duty are mixed, bad, bad things happen. but i agree, nobody should stop people from expressing their religion. its when people are forced to use money that expresses faith or take a pledge or provide space for a shrine that religious freedom enfringes on others.

Note that all the discussion surrounds God, supposedly the only omnipotent being. All monotheistic religions are favoured by mentions of this one God. What if I believe in the ancient Greek or Roman gods? Or the Hindu gods? This is clearly a bias against polytheistic religions; this is counter to the intent of the founding fathers.

As I have posted before, most pagan religions have a "head cheese" you could refer to as the Supreme God. Zeus for the Greeks, Jupiter for the Romans, and Brahmin (Or Brahma...I get confused) for the Hindus. So technically, they would be the "God" that the phrase can allude to.

Each Greek god has his/her own special corner of the world that he/she controls. There are problems with Zeus being a supreme and omnipotent being:

1) Power was parcelled out amongst the gods. At one point, Zeus was in danger of being overthrown as the ruler of Mount Olympus because the other gods had power and didn't approve of his rulership.

2) Zeus was not always in power, although he easily would have been if he were all powerful. Zeus was born and taken care of by nurses.

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Zeus.html

3) Zeus could be hurt. He was hurt in his battle against Typhon.

http://www.areopagus.net/grkbeasts.htm

What kind of supreme power can be hurt?

So again, I conclude that mentioning God in the pledge of allegiance and on money is a contradiction of the original intentions of the founding fathers of the US.

yeah, but the uk doesnt have a constitution its violating when it endorses god
To violate the constitution, the Govt would have to either establish or prohibit the free exercise of a religion. Having "God" in our Pledge or on or money does neither.

yeah, but the uk doesnt have a constitution its violating when it endorses god
To violate the constitution, the Govt would have to either establish or prohibit the free exercise of a religion. Having "God" in our Pledge or on or money does neither.
I have to agree with him. Reading the words of the US constitution there appears to be nothing against the state favouring a religion as long as the law does not. And stopping people from observing any kind of religous observance at state organised events would appear to be bordering on being unconstitutional. But then again it is all so imprecise it can be distorted either way, by who ever has the most clout at the time. I think it needs to be redrafted! :?

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!

yeah, but the uk doesnt have a constitution its violating when it endorses god
To violate the constitution, the Govt would have to either establish or prohibit the free exercise of a religion. Having "God" in our Pledge or on or money does neither.
I have to agree with him. Reading the words of the US constitution there appears to be nothing against the state favouring a religion as long as the law does not. And stopping people from observing any kind of religous observance at state organised events would appear to be bordering on being unconstitutional. But then again it is all so imprecise it can be distorted either way, by who ever has the most clout at the time. I think it needs to be redrafted! :?

Ahh but there you are both mistaken:

NA: The key is Religious neutrality. Period. "Under (big G) God" is an acknowledgement of the Christian God. They could have followed the Declaration and left it generic with "under the creator."

Kirtondom: You are not being denied your right to worship. You are not being denied the ability to have events. However, using tax payer money and even sponsoring events violates the Constitution's Relgious Neutrality. Unless of course the state sponser all Relgions which many if no most Christians will find this not appropriate.

There is no need to rewrite anything. The founding fathers understood what religion did in Europe. The approach of a non goverment sponsered Relgion avoided many many problems.

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!
No go on! the rest of the world would love you to spend a large fornute on such an irellivence.

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!

No offense taken. I did read that and I disagreed entirely with their definition of supreme. I was going on the assumption that a supreme being is unchallenged in terms of power. Being the "head god" just isn't supreme enough for me :p

However, I've never heard of Zeus or any other god in a polytheistic system referred to as "God," with a capital G (is there anyone who does?). When someone says God, I think of The God. The One and Only. Like a One God in Islam or Christianity (cool... someone already mentioned it above). That's why I assumed the invincibility. Ah, this is starting to feel like a math class. I have to be careful to define everything I say :p

I suggest we replace "In God we trust" with "In God, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Buddha, the Dalai Lama,... we trust." We should be able to read the dollar value of those bank notes with a microscope :)

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!
No go on! the rest of the world would love you to spend a large fornute on such an irellivence.

Is it me, or do notes not change every few years anyway?

Just a mention.

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!
No go on! the rest of the world would love you to spend a large fornute on such an irellivence.

Is it me, or do notes not change every few years anyway?

Just a mention.
But you would be talking about a recall of all notes world wide,rather than a gradual replacement with freshly minted notes.

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!
No go on! the rest of the world would love you to spend a large fornute on such an irellivence.

Is it me, or do notes not change every few years anyway?

Just a mention.
But you would be talking about a recall of all notes world wide,rather than a gradual replacement with freshly minted notes.

I'm not, other people might be. I'm just making the point that you wouldn't necessarily have to recall every $20 bill in order to design a new $20 bill. New notes carry the new design, old ones don't. After a year or so, the old note ceases to become legal tender, but you can still change them at banks and suchlike. It's not hard, and doesn't require that you recall every note in existance.

dudes, just chill out. :roll:

Cow, I don't want to put you down or offend you in any way, but did you read through the first link you gave? Even the author of the article states that Zeus is a "supreme god [who] surpasses all others in spirit, wisdom, and justice, and prevails upon good men by persuasion, intimidating the evil by punishment." In the other article, Zeus is even mentioned as the "king of the gods".

By "Supreme God", I didn't really mean that any of the three I mentioned were invincible. I was just stating that they were considered the Supreme God of their respective religions in the sense that they were the head God amongst the others. In that respect, "In God We Trust" wouldn't really offend them.

And please, will someone back me up on the issue over reprinting money? It would just be insane to tell everyone to hand in their twenty just to change a few words on the bills!
No go on! the rest of the world would love you to spend a large fornute on such an irellivence.

Is it me, or do notes not change every few years anyway?

Just a mention.
But you would be talking about a recall of all notes world wide,rather than a gradual replacement with freshly minted notes.

I'm not, other people might be. I'm just making the point that you wouldn't necessarily have to recall every $20 bill in order to design a new $20 bill. New notes carry the new design, old ones don't. After a year or so, the old note ceases to become legal tender, but you can still change them at banks and suchlike. It's not hard, and doesn't require that you recall every note in existance.

I'm not calling for a recall of all notes, either, and I've not heard anyone do so. I think you may be exaggerating again, NA. It's simply a matter of not printing the words on future legal tender (not that this isn't also about the pledge, of course).

ban religion now.

2. Alot of governments do not look after their citizens (North Korea), where is the religion in their government? Ibelieve that as long as our law makers feel they are accountable to not just their constituants, but to a "higher authority" they will do what is in the public's best intrest, not just what is in their individual intrests.


You obviously don't know many of our lawmakers. They pretty much all do what is in their individual interests and ignore the public. This is *especially* true of the ones who run on a "I'm religious so vote for me" ticket.

you know what i'm sick of? people treatng jefferson like he was a prophet. his words aint scripture. and if they are, my roommate should be working a plantation right now. im not going to respond point by point, but there was a time where it was almost required that one believe in god to be a part of society. by having tax payers indirectly pay for something they dont believe in, they are forced to support a religion. by paying hommage to God, you are forcing down peoples throats something they might not believe in. its state sponsored symbols of religion, pure and simple. whether or not jefferson or any other white protestant male was in favor or opposed really shouldnt matter.

tone it down a bit and people wont think you're nothing but a screeching liberal
okay, how about this: people 200 years ago didnt know everything, so stop quoting them like you are quoting scripture?

sorry, about 94% percent of the people in america are religious. also, i didnt quote anyone

I love the way you pull that figure out of your arse and expect everyone to believe it.


http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm



Total No Religion Specified 14.1%

ban religion now.

Everyone! Listen to Ramatis! This guy's onto something! :lol:

lit's simple really. I don't see why people are such idiots that they confuse one another.
people have the right to worship whatever they believe in. but religion shouldn't have a place in government. what is so confusing about this?
well, religion has had a place in government for over 200 year now. people are forgetting that it is the moral backbone of this country. religion (not a particular one, just the general morals represented by religion) are what has made this country what it is today. Now we are handing out marriage licenses to anyone, completly disregarding what values organized religion brings to humanity.

Is it now? If it defines this country, then are you suggestinging that Christianity endorsed slavery?

Morality is defined at the moment.

The Founding Fathers thought Relgion was a good thing for your own purposes. Having the Goverment ran by Relgion?????

Europe's Relgious wars kind of showed that Goverment by Religion is a really BAD thing.

As to marriage licenses? Since when is that a by-product of Religion? People have been pairing up for families loooong before the concept of Christianity.

“We have staked the future of all our political institutions, 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…” - James Madison
"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.'
o Actually, this statement appears nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separation of church and state." ---Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Now that the false accusation toward James Madison has been discredited, I'll let you guys continue tearing down the arguments in the original post of this thread

this whole thread is pointless mainly since it was started with a senseless rant that had no merit to start with. The seperation of church (and as for the whole endersing as to seperation i have to point out that there is no fucking difference if the goverment has anything that refers to a religion positivly its endorsing it, and if it has anything refering negatively its restricting religious freedoms. got it. good.) and state is one of the most important parts of the american goverment and today is held. there are only two things in life today were church and state isnt seperated and thats in "in god we trust" but for fucks sake i think we all can live with that you have to have something really large and prickly stuck up your ass to be annoyed by that. hell when was the last time your read a dallor bill. I know i dont trust in any form of a god but that doesnt stop me from spending ten bucks. The only major problem i see is in the pledge and the whole "under god" thing but wait we arent held at gun point everyday and forced to say it. wow what a concept you dont have to say the pledge. fuck no way. ya really its not required. damn i always thought it was like income tax and that kind of shit. I mean come on you have to be one impressionable smuck to be converted by the god damn pledge. If your gonna complain about something whine about the church nocking on your door at least that can only be solved with a no trespassing sign and a shotgun.

Ok, for the record. From the Treaty of Tripoli, signed 1797
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."

Does that clear things up at all?

By taking one phrase out of the entire article, and leaving it without any historical context, it certainly seems to be solid evidence that the US wasn't founded upon Christianity and its principles. However, let's look at the entire article and provide some historical context. First, the entire Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws of Musselman and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Now, in the whole of the statement, we can see that the intent was to distinguish America from historical strains of European Christianity which were infamous by this point for actions taken against Muslims through the centuries. During the Barbary Powers Conflict, The Muslim Barbary Powers(Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis) were attacking ships from what they called Christian nations (Denmark, England, France, Spain and the United States). President Washington had dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations, with various treaties negotiated and ransoms paid for the release of American sailors held captive, and to protect American merchant ships.

The treaty was one of several in which each country recognized the others' religion in order to prevent further escalation. The Article simply attempts to seperate America from Europe in it's stance towards the Barbary Powers. It's also worth noting that it is unreasonable to suggest that President Adams, who was President when the treaty was ratified in 1797, would have agreed to a treaty that was meant to reject the Christian foundation of this nation (America). Consider this statement Adams made to Thomas Jefferson regarding the Barbary Powers conflict:

"The general priciples on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." (1)

And also this statement from Noah Webster, a prominent American at the time, who also was the writer of the first American dictionary, which supports the distinguishment intended by the treaty:

"The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it." (2)



(1) John Adams, Works, Vol. 10, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

(2) Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie&Peck, 1832), p.339

ban religion now.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146190 Read that thread.

you do realize that the constitution has only 8 articles.

I agree, there is no harm whatsoever in 'paying hommage to God', that's what religion is. But what isn't religious about the mention of God? Of course there can be God without religion (pure spirituality), but what about those whose religion states that they don't trust in God, do not believe they are under God?

I'm not really sure about this one...But are there any other religions (I use that term loosely) other than atheism or agnosticism that refuses to believe in a higher power?

Buddhism does not deny the existence of such a being.
Animism- don't know if that's the real name- but whatever, satanism- they might believe in God, but they're certainly not under him nor do they trust him- many modern satanists don't even believe in God or Satan. (Bad choice in name, no doubt- I think it's probably for the shock value- such a good idea, yet such a bad name)
As for Buddhism, not denying the existence of God is certainly not the same as a buddhist pledging his nation under God. I, being agnostic, don't deny the existence of a God. But since I don't believe in the existence of God, then I don't model my life as being under him, and I damn sure don't trust in him- I don't even believe in him!

you do realize that the constitution has only 8 articles.
You do realize that's from the Treaty of Tripoli
oh wait...obviously you dont...

ya sorry about that i didnt realize he was referring to Tripoli i see that now my mistake.