Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
--George Washington

He said "Religious Principle", not "Judeo/Christian Religious Principle". Most of the Founding Fathers were Diests, not Christians, and Deism is far more evident in their wriitings.

0 Replies

I gotta agree with Ti on this.

There were lots of superstitious people here on this continent when the aborigines were being slaughtered and we were confiscating their property.

In fact, there have been lots of superstitious people running around throughout the history of the planet...and on many, many occasions, they have attempted to purify it by slaughtering anyone with differing superstitions.

We know lots more about the things that were unknowns back then...the prime causes of their superstitions. One would think that in a more enlightened day...the superstitions would have abated more than they have.

But there are still plenty of frightened people...and the superstitions still exist.

Now, many of the superstitious...who no longer find it so easy to slaughter those who disagree with their superstitions...use more subtle methods to indulge their petulance.

So people like Fox and Ti say they would not be offended by children reciting "...one nation under no gods..." in our schools if the "majority" decided they want it. They would say they would not be offended by children reciting "...one nation under Jesus Christ..."

And it appears they would say they would not be offended by kids reciting "...one nation, primarily white..." or "...one nation, with many more Christians than Jews or Islamics..."

It appears they would both say they see no insult in any of that stuff...because nobody is required to say the oath of allegiance to this country.

It appears they would both say that those kinds of remarks are not insensitive...and although they are unnecessary, since they harm nobody and since the majority wants them, they should be allowed.

Very few things I've ever heard in this forum have ever truly repulsed me; but the unthinking, unfeeling utterances of Fox and Ti on this issue are much, much more than repulsive. They are degrading, corrupting, and inhumane.

As I said, though, this Republic has withstood the kind of garbage Fox and Ti would spew about...and it will withstand the crap a pathetic few still spewing.

0 Replies

Hi Tico,

Ticomaya wrote:

The foundation of this country is firmly rooted in the Judeo/Christian faith, your disbelief notwithstanding.

This in incorrect.

Thanks in part to school children coloring turkeys on Thanksgiving, many people confuse the foundation of the US with the original colonists. But there is a big difference.

Many of the original colonists (Pilgrims) were Puritans, and they had a brutally strict vision for how things should be done, often following decenters into the woods to kill them or place them in stockades and whip them for disobeying the theocracy they were building.

Fortunately, many people who had no such desire to live under Calvinist rule escaped the original Massachuestts Bay Colonies (home of the Salem Witch Trials), and sparked a tradition of tolerance, and disdain for theocracies, which, over a hundred years later, was used to found the US in the form of a constitution.

0 Replies

Frank, please do not presuppose to think you have any idea what I would think or say, because you do such a poor job of it when you make an attempt.

And whatever you do, do not judge me on my relative level of "sensitivity," because you doing so is rank hypocrisy. You truly don't think of yourself as a caring and sensitive person, do you? The fact of your insensitivity is of no concern of mine, I just consider it one of your character traits, but you shouldn't lecture me about being "sensitive" to others.

Hi Rosborne. Are you claiming the religious beliefs of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, or those that "escaped" these communities and founded their own settlements, are NOT "Judeo/Christian" in their genesis?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Frank, please do not presuppose to think you have any idea what I would think or say, because you do such a poor job of it when you make an attempt.

No...I suspect I do a damn good job of it.

In any case, since you mentioned that you agree with Fox's responses to my questions and since I can use that to make my judgements....and since Fox's responses reek...I have plenty to use for basing my guesses...and I think they are right on the mark.

Quote:

And whatever you do, do not judge me on my relative level of "sensitivity," because you doing so is rank hypocrisy.

Don't tell me what to do.

Quote:

You truly don't think of yourself as a caring and sensitive person, do you? The fact of your insensitivity is of no concern of mine, I just consider it one of your character traits, but you shouldn't lecture me about being "sensitive" to others.

I've made my point.

Delighted to see it is effecting you the way it is.

0 Replies

You do a crappy job of it, particularly evidenced by the fact that you erroneously believe I "agree with Foxy's responses." Was the fact that I stated I would have answered differently lost on you? Were you not paying attention to the entirety of what I said?

Frank wrote:

Don't tell me what to do.

Okay, fair enough. Go ahead and judge me on my level of "sensitivity," ... you hypocrite.

Quote:

I've made my point.

You had a point that was made?

Quote:

Delighted to see it is effecting you the way it is.

"Effecting" me? You're delighted to see that I've identified you as an insensitive and uncaring person who is casting stones at the perceived insensitivities of others? Sure, Frank ... whatever floats your boat. I'm happy you're happy ... I suppose.

0 Replies

binny wrote

Quote:

If you've done any reading on it, you'd know that a popular sentiment among the founding fathers was that the common man was pretty dumb and that he needs religion to provide an easy-to-understand presentation of morality.

Notice he used the words "national morality". Herd mentality.

And you address a comment toward me, but ignore the points I addressed toward you. If this is an attempt to give the impression that you have dealt with me and are awaiting other challenges, you should know that you are in the company of some pretty smart people that can recognize this at a glance

I didn't ignore your points Binny. I've simply already addressed them numerous times in this thread. (I have a minor in American History by the way.) I can put up PAGES of quotes from the founding father expressing very strong sentiment that they all expected religion and religious principles to be very prevalent in both government and society. And they were also well unified and determined that the federal government would have no power or duty to impose on any person what he or she MUST believe or impose any consequences on any person for what he or she did believe. They did not require the colonies to adopt the same principle and it was some time after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that all of those came around to the same point of view.

And that is why Ros's observation was correct. Washington spoke of religious principles, not Christian principles, or Jewish principles, or Buddhist principles or Islamic principles. The Deists were larely not areligious or unreligious or anti-religious. And while it is difficult to put any religious belief into a strict "this is the way it is" the Deism they practiced was in no way devoid of religion but was more of a George Burns "Oh God" type of faith: God put it all here in good condition and it is our responsibility to make it work.

I think no rational persons are offended by a historic slogan on coinage that favors no religion and can be anything anybody wants them to be. God help us if it comes down to the American people being so politically correct that we can't exhibit or say or express ANYTHING if ANYBODY is uncomfortable or doesn't like it or wants something else.

To date, neither Frank nor anybody else has managed to show how the presence of a slogan on a coin (or a phrase in the Pledge for that matter) in any way violates anybody's rights.

I get "it doesn't need to be there." Shall we compile a list of things that are there but 'don't need to be there?" I would imagine that would take a very long time and would leave the country a very bleak place. There is no constitutional right for society to structure itself in the way most pleasing to any one person.

I get 'a child might feel uncomfortable'. If we are not allowed to expose that child to anything in the classroom that makes him/her uncomfortable, we would have to throw out virtually every subject now taught in school. I think it much more valuable for the teacher to explain the history behind things and help to achieve understanding for all points of view whether or not such points of view are accepted as the answer on the test. And i think it is important to teach the concept of group decisions made democratically when everybody can't agree. Would the class prefer to go to the museum or to the zoo for their spring field trip? 15 want to go to the zoo. 5 want to go to the museum. A choice must be made between one or the other. How is that democratically decided? (There are some in this thread who have implied that a majority vote to decide the matter was facist and/or would revert us to a mindset of slavery and subjection. There are others who would say that all the children should go to the museum and see dead stuffed animals because five are offended at animals kept in captivity in a zoo). There is no constitutional right to not be offended or uncomfortable.

I get "there must be strict separation of church and state." You won't be able to support that one by the Constitution and must revert to the opinions of a few mostly anti-religious modern judges who, in my opinion, have set some unfortunate national precedents. The founders saw no separation between church and state but rather expected that those in government would be religious and would express it. They were adament that the Federal government would not favor or mandate any particular religious belief. That is specifically what Jefferson was saying with his reference of a "wall". In his other writings he was quite clear he did not expect there to be no religious expressions whatsoever in government. And the founder were equally as concerned that people would not be denied the right to excercise their religious belief.

Frank clearly indicates he holds me in complete contempt because of what I believe. I don't hold him in contempt because he believes something different, but I get very weary of the ridiculousness of extreme political correctness that has taken over this country and I get very weary of the small minded intolerance that seeks to impose the will of the few on the many in matters not involving rights, but matters involving purely preference.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Hi Rosborne. Are you claiming the religious beliefs of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, or those that "escaped" these communities and founded their own settlements, are NOT "Judeo/Christian" in their genesis?

Hi Tico,

While it's true that the religious beliefs of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, are Judeo/Christian, the foundation of the United States comes more from a mindset which resisted specific religious ideology in favor of ideology of tolerance (something not associated with Pilgrims, Puritans or Calvinists) and a separation of church and state.

In my view, the "foundation" of the United States does not come from the ethic of any particular group which landed here, it comes from the intent of the documents which describe the vision of the Founding Fathers (mostly Deists): The Constitution.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Hi Rosborne. Are you claiming the religious beliefs of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, or those that "escaped" these communities and founded their own settlements, are NOT "Judeo/Christian" in their genesis?

Hi Tico,

While it's true that the religious beliefs of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, are Judeo/Christian, the foundation of the United States comes more from a mindset which resisted specific religious ideology in favor of ideology of tolerance (something not associated with Pilgrims, Puritans or Calvinists) and a separation of church and state.

I agree with you.

rosborne979 wrote:

In my view, the "foundation" of the United States does not come from the ethic of any particular group which landed here, it comes from the intent of the documents which describe the vision of the Founding Fathers (mostly Deists): The Constitution.

Okay. I'm thinking of "foundation" more along the lines of the beliefs deeply and fervently held by those who started this country so many years ago ... not limited to the FF. These beliefs and traditions (these "superstitions" as Frank would describe them, Rolling Eyes

) were handed down, generation to generation. This is the foundation I'm describing, not the words put down in the "founding" documents. The wise FF did not articulate a particular religion. They were very interested in maintaining religious tolerance. But the "sheep", as Frank would apparently like to describe our forefathers, had religion, and it was Christian.

0 Replies

I/m not at all convinced that diesm (The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.) could be construed as a christian theology.
But, what the hell do I know, I'm an atheist.

0 Replies

I suppose it isn't, anymore than atheism is. But, that wasn't my point, as I'm sure you're aware.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You do a crappy job of it, particularly evidenced by the fact that you erroneously believe I "agree with Foxy's responses." Was the fact that I stated I would have answered differently lost on you? Were you not paying attention to the entirety of what I said?

Oh, I was paying attention to what your wrote. Were you, is the question?

Here is what you wrote:

Quote:

I agree with Foxfyre's responses to your 4 questions, in that they are the way things ought to be. I'm a Christian, but would not be insulted by "In God We Don't Trust." I wouldn't agree with it, and I would not want it on the coinage, but I wouldn't be "offended." My skin is too thick for that. I would have responded differently, however ... simply because I'm aware that there are many hypersensitive people out there who can be offended at the least little thing.

So...in typical conservative mealy-mouthed try-to-have-it-both-ways...you did agree with what Fox's responses. Rather emphatically, in fact. And you did, as you mentioned, add the silly little bit that you "would have responded differently."

Sure...you would have used different words.

You agreed with her answers...I said you agreed with her answers...and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

What a typical American conservative!

Quote:

Frank wrote:
Don't tell me what to do.

Okay, fair enough. Go ahead and judge me on my level of "sensitivity," ... you hypocrite.

I have...and I will. Thank you.

Quote:

Quote:
I've made my point.

You had a point that was made?

Yep. That is why your panties are all twisted up here.

Quote:

Quote:
Delighted to see it is effecting you the way it is.

"Effecting" me? You're delighted to see that I've identified you as an insensitive and uncaring person who is casting stones at the perceived insensitivities of others? Sure, Frank ... whatever floats your boat. I'm happy you're happy ... I suppose.

Yep. That is why your panties are all twisted up here.

Wow...Ti, I never knew you were such a delight to argue with. I should have engaged you sooner. You are a bundle of laughs. :wink:

0 Replies

And Deism, as believed by most of the founders, did not claim that God abandoned the universe after creation. The Deists were very big on natural relgiion--the universe exists; fit into it; use your God-given abilities to make it work. The Deists were very strong on morality and understood that the morality they favored arose out of religious beliefs. There was a component of Deism in the 18th Century that advocated the notion that once God created the universe, he does not interfere with the natural laws he put into place. That notion caught on with some, but not with the majority.

0 Replies

Here's the foundation of Judeo/Christian ethics so many coercive conservatives love to flaunt. It's now.......let's see........2005 already. Surely we're not bound to do it all as the early Christians did it, just because they were here first.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/religion/relig3.html

Quote:

The early American leaders to whom he refers were people who burned "witches," hanged Quakers, slaughtered Native Americans, held Africans in bondage and taxed the populace to support religion.

Quote:

In colonial Massachusetts and Connecticut, reports William Warren Sweet in The Story of Religions in America, preachers' political influence was such that no one could be admitted to church membership without their consent, and voting in those colonies "was limited to church members." Sweet also describes a morals squad: "The tithing man ... was a township official who assisted the constable in watching over the morals of the community. There was one such official for every ten families, who ... was on the lookout for Sabbath breaking, tippling, gaming, and idleness."

I agree with Binnyboy:

Quote:

"under God" was added as a weapon against atheists and atheism. Government policy has allowed itself to be used by christians as a weapon against atheists.

Quote:

Then atheist students must either
1) Profess a belief in a god
or
2) Expose the fact that they do not believe in a god.

The phrase should read, "One Nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." At the moment it reads: "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all who trust God, those who don't need not apply."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/national/06pledge.html?oref=login

To argue that the phrase "under God" in the pledge doesn't discriminate and exclude many citizens of the U.S. is ludicrous. It may be that some don't mind excluding those who don't believe, but that still doesn't make it non-exclusionary. As this citizen who is excluded, I don't appreciate it. And if the shoe were on the other foot, you bet these same guys who are screaming about how it's ok would be making a big stink.

But here, I'll make a trade. I'll pretend to say "under God" when I recite the pledge, and y'all leave the good-for-nothin, liberal, pinko snob professors in the universities alone. If that's not a fair deal, then revise your arguments please.

0 Replies

Actually I think we need those liberal, pinko, snob professors in the university. I've had a few of those myself. I just think you need a few more of those what you would say are intolerant, narrow minded, superstitious, Facist conservative professors to balance out things. That's all that would be necessary to achieve 'diversity of thought' on American public university campuses.

0 Replies

You knew I was a delight to argue with ... we've danced this dance before. Perhaps you've forgotten. That was before the election. I understand you've been traumatized.

Here's what I said:

Tico wrote:

I agree with Foxfyre's responses to your 4 questions, in that they are the way things ought to be. I'm a Christian, but would not be insulted by "In God We Don't Trust." I wouldn't agree with it, and I would not want it on the coinage, but I wouldn't be "offended." My skin is too thick for that. I would have responded differently, however ... simply because I'm aware that there are many hypersensitive people out there who can be offended at the least little thing.

So you ignored the meaning of the words I used and are now trying to mold them to fit whatever the hell your agenda is. I clearly qualified my agreement with Foxy's response as being "THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE," not the reality of the way things are. That is not the way it is, as I very clearly articulated in the sentence which I bolded and enlarged above. I would have responded differently, because I think differently.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And that is why Ros's observation was correct. Washington spoke of religious principles, not Christian principles, or Jewish principles, or Buddhist principles or Islamic principles. The Deists were larely not areligious or unreligious or anti-religious. And while it is difficult to put any religious belief into a strict "this is the way it is" the Deism they practiced was in no way devoid of religion but was more of a George Burns "Oh God" type of faith: God put it all here in good condition and it is our responsibility to make it work.

None the less Fox, I think the Deists were onto something even bigger than they realized when they tried to separate church and state. They may not have recognized that religion in general is offensive to some, even though they recognized that "specific" religions could easily offend people.

The logic of their argument naturally extended to protect the freedom of non-religious as well as specific-religious people, even if they didn't know it at the time.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think no rational persons are offended by a historic slogan on coinage that favors no religion and can be anything anybody wants them to be. God help us if it comes down to the American people being so politically correct that we can't exhibit or say or express ANYTHING if ANYBODY is uncomfortable or doesn't like it or wants something else.

The point is not what anyone expresses, private citizens are free to say what they want, it's what government expresses, government is not free to say whatever it wants.

I'm not a big believer in political correctness, but I am a big believer in the separation of church and state, and that people who hold political office must put the laws of the land above even their own religion when it comes to how they express those religions as a public official. Public officials are still people, and they are always going to use their own beliefs to make decisions, but they system they represent can not take sides when it comes to religion, even the very concept of God.

Foxfyre wrote:

To date, neither Frank nor anybody else has managed to show how the presence of a slogan on a coin (or a phrase in the Pledge for that matter) in any way violates anybody's rights.

It violates people's right by the definition of the law. Of course, this is my definition of the first amendment, only the Supreme Court can validat or invalidate my opinion on this.

Foxfyre wrote:

I get "it doesn't need to be there."

No. It "shouldn't" be there. Not "doesn't need to be"... "shouldn't". It's presence is unconstitutional and violates the intend of the law, and the rights of people to a government which is required to establish no religion, or religion in general (in my opinion, see above).

The words on our money and in our pledge were placed there intentionally to express religion as a foundation of belief of the state which produces the money and which asks kids to repeat the pledge. The intent of those words (the reasons they were placed there) is clearly unconstitutional, and the very fact that you defend them as "historic tradition" means that they have accomplished their goal.

They are not a true reflection of the vision of our Nation, they are tradition only because they were placed there. They are a self fulfilling prophesy, changing our true history to one in which "in God we Trust" and "one nation, Under God" are now accepted by the subconscious to strongly that we defend them even above our logic and reason for supporting out laws. They have accomplished their purpose extremely well.

0 Replies

Ros, please explain the specific definition of law that makes 'In God we Trust" a violation of your rights. And please explain what specific right, guaranteed by the Constitution, is violated.

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually I think we need those liberal, pinko, snob professors in the university. I've had a few of those myself. I just think you need a few more of those what you would say are intolerant, narrow minded, superstitious, Facist conservative professors to balance out things. That's all that would be necessary to achieve 'diversity of thought' on American public university campuses.

Oh, good.......a reasonable statement at last. I agree, Fox. So all that needs to be done to make the pledge inclusive of all it's citizens is to remove the added phrase, "under God" and we'll be sittin pretty. You don't want your conservative profs left out and I don't want to be left out, so we'll be even. Maybe Newdow will be successful this time. Without Scalia and with Reinquist ill.........it should be interesting.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Okay. I'm thinking of "foundation" more along the lines of the beliefs deeply and fervently held by those who started this country so many years ago ... not limited to the FF.

Correct. We are using different definitions of "founding".

Since no single view can reflect all of the people who were around when our nation was created, I'm not inclined to use a "general" belief as my measure of foundation. The documents seem much more definintive.

Another point here (as I mentioned in my previous post to Fox), is that the intent of the framers may have exceeded their own beliefs. While it's clear to me that non-religion should receive the same protections as specific religions, I'm not sure the framers realized that the logic of their "separation of church and state" would need to be extended this far.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know