scary little changes

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

We have been down this road before I believe, but would you mind enumerating which in particular laws attributed to God that you have in mind here?

No problem in doing that. Abortion, first and foremost.

Quote:

It is called respect for others beliefs. i.e. if you believe that women should wear a burqa, wear one, but do not require others to do so.

When did you start having problems saying God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Always? If you don't like that part, skip it. Mind you, we have been down this road and I told you what I could live with and I won't go back on that. But also remember, I said I don't want it taken out but could live with the compromise we had come up with.

Quote:

Certain things? How about sharing the banner space amongst different Dieties on different bill and coin denominations, and for us atheists and agnostics we could have "We Trust No Gods".

How often do you even recognize this is on money? Do you at all? Like I said before, I do not believe there are any other deities. There is one True Living God, so why would I want to allow in Buddha We Trust, etc.? If you don't trust God, then don't. No one is forcing you to. Come up with a compromise I can live with like the Pledge of Allegiance and I will accept it. Until then, I don't want it changed.

Quote:

I'll give you this. With the current loonies in charge, things are headed that direction.

To be honest with you, Mesquite. I'm not sure it's the ones in charge right now that will be involved in the one world government. That is something I just don't know. I just know it's going to happen.

Mesquite, you are going to get what you want. God will be taken off money. He will be taken off buildings. You are going to get what you want. Mine and others efforts won't stop it. Hopefully, they may slow the process down, but it will happen.

0 Replies

Mzpoe wrote:

I And if it is so important why do they always show presidents in church, or why doesn't anyone running for political office ever stand up and say "hey I'm an atheist and proud of it"?

Because they wouldn't have a chance in a United States so full of religious freaks and nut cases.

0 Replies

The Hypocrisy of people who insist that America is a "Christian" nation bothers me to no end.

When Jesus was here he:

- said "blessed are the peacemakers".
- urged forgiveness.
- taught you would be judged for how you treated foreigners, those in prison and the poor.
- told people to love their neighbor.
- taught to "turn the other cheek".
- loved his enemies.

When the Christians today aren't working to prevent forgiveness, championing war, supporting torture and ending programs for the poor... what do they do?

... they complain about what is written on money.

Real Christians wouldn't upset me. They would care about immigrants. They would advocate for those in prison and they would protect the poor. America would be a better place if they were truly based on the Biblical principals that todays religious hypocrites so adamantly oppose (like love and forgiveness).

Jesus was far too condemning and opposing the type of religious hypocrisy showed by today;s "Christians" to worry about what was written on money.

Where are the people who really believe and follow the teachings of Jesus?

0 Replies

luxrica,

I take it you are not a Christian by what you have posted? If I am in error, sorry.

But, if you aren't a Christian, let me ask you a question. Why is it that you and others that are not Christian seem to think you know more what a Christian is supposed to be than someone actually living Christianity?

It seems to me that many think Christian means doormat and fool. Well, it doesn't. I promote forgiveness. I don't champion war. I support the troops. I never said I agree with war. I definitely do not support torture or ending programs for the poor.

I care about the poor. I care about the people of the world. I'm not sure what you mean about advocating for those in prison. I will tell you this. If someone is convicted of a major crime and are sentenced to prison, as far as I am concerned, they gave up their rights by chosing to act as they did.

So, if you think I'm being a hypocrite because I don't want God taken off money, I think you are wrong. I am standing up for my beliefs.

So, again I ask, if you are not Christian that is, what makes you someone who should be able to say what a Christian should be if you do not believe in Christianity?

0 Replies

(First, I am sorry about the identity change, my wife is starting to join and I didn't know she was logged in.)

When I say Christian, I mean Christ-like.

This means that if Christ tried to set up an Earthly government, than Christians should be trying to establish a Christian government. But, if Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" than Christians should be working for a heavenly kingdom.

If Christ supported responding to wrongs with violence and war, than Christians should support capital punishment, harsh sentences and a brutal "terror".

If Christ talked about loving your enemy, forgiving those who wrong you... if Christ prevented the punishment of a woman whose crime was punishable by death.. than Christians should support peace, celebrate amnesty and advocate grace.

I have a hard time seeing the Jesus in the Bible being concerned about what is written on money.

I left Christianity in large part because of this hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Oh hey, hi there ebrown's wife!! Nice to see you around, you're more than welcome by association (plus ebrown's said good things about you). (And you have an adorable baby -- get him to update the avatar pic though, willya? ;-) )

Momma Angel, the "rational" part I am talking about is your claims that America was meant to be or should be a Christian nation. But you offered an actual argument that can be rebutted (and oh can it ;-)) rather than falling back on the "I believe" stuff.

"I believe" has no place in a rational argument unless it is supported in some way.

Now, on to the rebuttal.

I bet people here can get much more detailed cites of why this is wrong:

Quote:

The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs.

but I'll give you my quick reaction -- no, a very real reason to separate church from state is that so the state couldn't put limitations on how, when, and where people worshipped. People can be Christian, yes. They can also be Muslim, Buddhist, Jains, and Pagans. That is how it should be.

0 Replies

Sozobe,

They CAN be Muslim, Buddhist, Jains, and Pagans. No one is saying they can't. The principles of the Bible can work for anyone. You don't have to be a Christian to adhere to the principles.

If we based the foundation of our government on the Beatitudes, would that be so wrong? I don't think so.

Like I said to Mesquite, it will happen. Worshipping God will become a crime someday.

0 Replies

So you would have no objection to the five pillars of Islam being printed on our money?

Why or why not?

0 Replies

Of course I would. Like I said, I believe there is one True God and I don't believe the god of Islam is the One True God.

0 Replies

By the way, are you already giving up on whether the passage you bolded is in fact rational? Do you have a rebuttal to my (brief) rebuttal? Do you agree that there is a real reason OTHER than the guy you quoted stated as to whether the founding fathers decided that separation of church and state would be a good idea?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Our country was founded on principles yes. The principles of the Bible. That is what I believe. I believe those principles are for all mankind and not just Americans.

Please justify your assertion that this country was founded on "the principles of the Bible." Which specific principles? Certainly not the 10 commandments and all of the other laws given concurrently to Moses. Where in the Bible does it talk about a republican form of government, democracy, constitutional law, balance of power between executive, legislative and judicial branches, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, or the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights?

Quote:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [No mention of defending God or Biblical principles.]
...
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. [No mention of God or Biblical principles]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [The Constitution and Laws of the US are supreme, not God or Biblical Law]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Amendment I
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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
US Constitution

Momma Angel wrote:

I can agree with separation of church and state to a certain degree. I cannot agree to it when it conflicts with the laws of God. So, we have in place a system where we can lobby to change laws the way we think they should be. However these laws end up being is how it is. I don't have to agree with them but I do have to abide by them.
...
I just would like to see more of the laws God laid out in the Bible followed.

Jesus believed in separation of church and state. So what makes you think that it conflicts with the laws of God? What laws of God would you like to see enacted? Please note that God never made a law against abortion, but he did give Moses a rite for inducing abortion in wives suspected of infidelity and required his followers to routinely slaughter infants and children (as well as their parents) in order to steal their neighbors' land. Surely you would object to God's inhumane laws of the Old Testament ever being resurrected!

Quote:

I don't think there can ever be 100% separation of church and state. Everyone votes their conscience, their ethics, their morals, their religious beliefs, etc. How can you have complete separation of church and state if even one person votes because of their religious beliefs? You can't expect those with religious beliefs to cast them aside.

Sure there can, everyone has the right to vote their conscience, they just don't have the right to use the government to impose their religious beliefs on others. For instance, it is wrong to make school children recite a religious prayer or an oath that falsely states that this country is "under" a specific deity.

Quote:

And, as far as someday it being illegal to worship God? Yes, it will happen. There will be a one world government and a one world religion. I believe that with all my heart. And that one world religion is not going to be based on Christianity. That is my belief and I in no way expect anyone to accept it as their own.

I do not see this happening in my lifetime, if ever, human nature being what it is. As long as we are under a constitutional government and the Bill of Rights is in force, it will never be illegal to worship God. You might want to consider supporting the ACLU, which works very hard to uphold the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

And several of us don't believe that there is ANY god.

Why does your belief trump ours?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Of course I would. Like I said, I believe there is one True God and I don't believe the god of Islam is the One True God.

Then you don't know much about religion. Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions. Allah and God are one and the same.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that you and the Jews worship the same God?

0 Replies

(Yep, and "Allah" is in fact just the Arabic word for "God," and it's long annoyed me that everything else will be translated and then "Allah" is left in there. You never see "and then I drive my [Arabic word for 'car'] to the grocery store..." Just encourages the false sense of separateness.)

0 Replies

Sozobe,

No, my beliefs don't trump yours. You are perfectly free to practice a religion or not.

And no, I am sorry. Allah and God are not the same God.

Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior. If they believed in the same God, they would believe Jesus was and is the Son of God and Savior.

0 Replies

Am I free, if I became president, to put the five pillars of Islam on money?

Why or why not?

0 Replies

Is that something you want to do, soz?

Ok..... go ahead.

0 Replies

Sozobe,

Like I said, the god of Islam is not the one True God. So, no, I don't want a false god on money.

0 Replies

gee, MA, i typed a long reply, but i lost it when it asked me to log on!

so this won't be as well put. i don't doubt the founding fathers were Christian, but i believe they intended a separation of church & state.

here are excerpts from a 1785 speech by Madison, arguing against establishing Christianity in Virginia:

Quote:

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

and here's Jefferson's comments about his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison helped to get adopted in 1786:

Quote:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Sozobe,

Like I said, the god of Islam is not the one True God. So, no, I don't want a false god on money

Statements like that drive me friggin' crazy.

0 Replies

scary little changes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know