then maybe we're all in agreement, i'm more of a vodka guy though
I'm not into arguing while drinking. On the other hand, I've just got started, so if you want to take a good swipe at my post's, give it a go. I'm game.
Let's highlight the real facts...there is No separation of church and state ANYWHERE in the constitution. Yet, it clearly states that we should not ban any religion. Yet, that's what we are doing. Why is this so complicated? God, I feel like walking outside, approaching my car, popping the trunk, and repeatedly hitting my head with a tire iron.
Banning religion? Are we really? Please point me in the direction of news articles about how we're closing down churches, burning holy books, taking all the religious programming off the air, because I've somehow missed all of that. Which is funny, because I follow the news and I'd have expected that to be quite a story.
The intent of the constitutional convention was QUITE clear. God is not mentioned at all in the original document (unless you want to be a stickler and count "in the year of our lord"), and the only reference to religion is the declaration that no religious test is required to hold office. This was not an oversight ... all but two of the state constitutions of the day made Christianity (and sometimes only protestant Christianity) the official religion. The framers of our constitution deliberately chose not to do this, and did so with very little debate on the issue.
The supposed extreme religiosity that modern-day conservatives attempt to attribute to the founders is overstated to say the least. When Franklin moved that the convention open their sessions with a prayer, his proposal was ignored and never brought up again. Many proposals were made to inject Christianity into the constitution, and all were soundly rejected.
Yes, the first amendment clearly states that we should not ban any religion, and it also clearly states that we should not establish one. Perhaps that is why I can't seem to find those news stories ... because no one is trying to ban any religion, only to prevent the state from promoting any one over all of the others, or over no religion at all.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I know I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses the Koran in its government.
I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses any holy book in its gov't, including the Bible.
I think he should be able to choose on what he wants to be sworn in regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you feel. The US claims to be a democracy so I guess you also get to elect your Senators, right? The people obviously think he can do the job, so I don't think putting a hand on a book will change any of that.
I also have a question for Americans, what exactly is "un-American?"
Easy buddy. By "they" I'm sure you are refering to the small contingent of conservatives on this board, which I proudly consider myself. This should be one issue where both left and right agree.
I don't even think they should use a religious doctrine when swearing in a government representitive. They should use a copy of the constitution. That is what they are swearing to uphold.
I'm thinking we have some reallly left leaning conservatives on this board....kidding of course...do agree with your post 100%.
If any real ruling on this type of thing is going to come about, it should come in the form of a Constitutional Ammendment. Purple Hawk is correct. The idea that "seperation of church and state" is enforced by the Bill of Rights is a myth. There is nothing in U.S. law that specifically says "there will be complete seperation of church and state". It is a common interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one. This is a Christian country, whether you or I like it or not. Take a look at a dollar bill if you think otherwise. I personally think there should be seperation of church and state, but I'm not going to use the Constitution to make an argument that we already have this. We don't.
If any real ruling on this type of thing is going to come about, it should come in the form of a Constitutional Ammendment. Purple Hawk is correct. The idea that "seperation of church and state" is enforced by the Bill of Rights is a myth. There is nothing in U.S. law that specifically says "there will be complete seperation of church and state". It is a common interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one. This is a Christian country, whether you or I like it or not. Take a look at a dollar bill if you think otherwise. I personally think there should be seperation of church and state, but I'm not going to use the Constitution to make an argument that we already have this. We don't.
The god line didn't become a permanent staple on our currency until the 1950s.
The "seperation of church and state" is not a myth. It may be debatable, but it's most certainly not a myth; at least Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase) didn't think so.
We are not a "Christian" country. We are a country where the majority religion is Christian. There's a big difference.
If any real ruling on this type of thing is going to come about, it should come in the form of a Constitutional Ammendment. Purple Hawk is correct. The idea that "seperation of church and state" is enforced by the Bill of Rights is a myth. There is nothing in U.S. law that specifically says "there will be complete seperation of church and state". It is a common interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one. This is a Christian country, whether you or I like it or not. Take a look at a dollar bill if you think otherwise. I personally think there should be seperation of church and state, but I'm not going to use the Constitution to make an argument that we already have this. We don't.
I've examined my dollar bill closely, and I can't find Jesus anywhere.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I love how in this thread the original text of the constitution is so sacred and unmovable. But when it comes to gun laws, is where the constitution can be changed and manipulated.
The god line didn't become a permanent staple on our currency until the 1950s.
The "seperation of church and state" is not a myth. It may be debatable, but it's most certainly not a myth; at least Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase) didn't think so.
We are not a "Christian" country. We are a country where the majority religion is Christian. There's a big difference.
The country was founded by Christians, and it is run by almost all Christians. Our holiday schedule is built around Christian holidays. I believe every single president has been Christian (or at least pretended to be!). All our so-called "values" and standards mostly stem from Christian beliefs (which is why we can have violence on tv, but not nudity for example).
You can say the government isn't officially Christian, but that is the reality. On paper, it's not, but in reality, it is. Some of the Christians in the government are more sympathetic to people of other religions (thank Jesus ), but we're kidding ourselves if we don't accept that we live in a Christian country.
I love how in this thread the original text of the constitution is so sacred and unmovable. But when it comes to gun laws, is where the constitution can be changed and manipulated.
This is a great point that can and should be applied to many arguments. If you believe that one thing shouldn't be banned simply because it's unconstitutional, then you should be consistent and apply that rule to everything. I hope nobody does that, because it's obvious the Constitution is full of problems.
I love how in this thread the original text of the constitution is so sacred and unmovable. But when it comes to gun laws, is where the constitution can be changed and manipulated.
Psst ... miller ... the gun thread is over there ---->>
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I was just referring to the "In God We Trust" part. The God mentioned there is the Christian god, who is also who Jesus claimed to be.
Christians don't have a copyright on the word "God." Allah is a god. So is Zeus. We could sit here for days naming gods. There is nothing on the dollar bill that has any specific connection with Christianity.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Christians don't have a copyright on the word "God." Allah is a god. So is Zeus. We could sit here for days naming gods. There is nothing on the dollar bill that has any specific connection with Christianity.
I know God can mean many things, but that has nothing to do with looking at reality. The phrase used on money is referring to the Christian god. Yes, technically God could mean any number of gods, but on American money, the God that's being referred to is obviously the Christian god.
I know God can mean many things, but that has nothing to do with looking at reality. The phrase used on money is referring to the Christian god. Yes, technically God could mean any number of gods, but on American money, the God that's being referred to is obviously the Christian god.
How is that obvious? Is that wacky eyeball on the pyramid thingie a Christian symbol? Or maybe the eagle is the official bird of the Christian church?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
How is that obvious? Is that wacky eyeball on the pyramid thingie a Christian symbol? Or maybe the eagle is the official bird of the Christian church?
It is obvious when you read about the history of this phrase being put on U.S. money, that it is referring to the Christian god. It was placed on money during the Civil War to encourage everyone feel united as Christians as opposed to being divided in opposition to or in favor of the formation of a federal government....or being divided as slave owners as opposed to factory owners if you like.
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.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
What is the point of having 5 gods watch over Congress?
Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. And don't bother pointing out that Muslims call their God "Allah". It's the same God even if they call it by another name
Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. And don't bother pointing out that Muslims call their God "Allah". It's the same God even if they call it by another name
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.
That is an excellent clarification to bring up in this thread! And thank goodness that text is in there.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I like the fact that he swore in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran. That's a class act.
I don't find any problem with it. If someone doesn't want to swear on anything, he doesn't have to.
Although, it just goes to show the beliefs they hold. If they don't believe in the Bible, what do they believe? If they believe in the Koran, do they believe in all of it?
It's sort of like the flag-burning issue, to me. Okay, burn the flag that's fine by me. But, then I know how you really feel about this country and I know to discount everything else you say.
If someone chooses something other than the Bible to swear upon, big effing deal. But, then I know that they don't believe in the Christian faith and that affects their judgment.
Remember: freedom of religion also means that I can vote for people who share my religious beliefs and I don't have to vote for people who don't share my religious beliefs.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
i thought jews called him yahweh? not sure, but jehovah is the original name used for god in the bible isnt it? so christians should be calling him that too.
Jehovah is the incorrect translation of "Yahweh." It is translated into english "I am, who am."
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I like the fact that he swore in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran. That's a class act.
I don't find any problem with it. If someone doesn't want to swear on anything, he doesn't have to.
Although, it just goes to show the beliefs they hold. If they don't believe in the Bible, what do they believe? If they believe in the Koran, do they believe in all of it?
It's sort of like the flag-burning issue, to me. Okay, burn the flag that's fine by me. But, then I know how you really feel about this country and I know to discount everything else you say.
If someone chooses something other than the Bible to swear upon, big effing deal. But, then I know that they don't believe in the Christian faith and that affects their judgment.
Remember: freedom of religion also means that I can vote for people who share my religious beliefs and I don't have to vote for people who don't share my religious beliefs.
man... you were so close to a rational post there... and then you blew it.
CW, I totally agree with you on this one, though I am athiest.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I like the fact that he swore in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran. That's a class act.
I don't find any problem with it. If someone doesn't want to swear on anything, he doesn't have to.
Although, it just goes to show the beliefs they hold. If they don't believe in the Bible, what do they believe? If they believe in the Koran, do they believe in all of it?
It's sort of like the flag-burning issue, to me. Okay, burn the flag that's fine by me. But, then I know how you really feel about this country and I know to discount everything else you say.
If someone chooses something other than the Bible to swear upon, big effing deal. But, then I know that they don't believe in the Christian faith and that affects their judgment.
Remember: freedom of religion also means that I can vote for people who share my religious beliefs and I don't have to vote for people who don't share my religious beliefs.
Ultimately all belief lies in believing in one's self.
Comments
I'm not into arguing while drinking. On the other hand, I've just got started, so if you want to take a good swipe at my post's, give it a go. I'm game.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The intent of the constitutional convention was QUITE clear. God is not mentioned at all in the original document (unless you want to be a stickler and count "in the year of our lord"), and the only reference to religion is the declaration that no religious test is required to hold office. This was not an oversight ... all but two of the state constitutions of the day made Christianity (and sometimes only protestant Christianity) the official religion. The framers of our constitution deliberately chose not to do this, and did so with very little debate on the issue.
The supposed extreme religiosity that modern-day conservatives attempt to attribute to the founders is overstated to say the least. When Franklin moved that the convention open their sessions with a prayer, his proposal was ignored and never brought up again. Many proposals were made to inject Christianity into the constitution, and all were soundly rejected.
Yes, the first amendment clearly states that we should not ban any religion, and it also clearly states that we should not establish one. Perhaps that is why I can't seem to find those news stories ... because no one is trying to ban any religion, only to prevent the state from promoting any one over all of the others, or over no religion at all.
Haven't been to a lot of countries, I guess?
I wouldn't want to wake up under a country that uses any holy book in its gov't, including the Bible.
I think he should be able to choose on what he wants to be sworn in regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you feel. The US claims to be a democracy so I guess you also get to elect your Senators, right? The people obviously think he can do the job, so I don't think putting a hand on a book will change any of that.
I also have a question for Americans, what exactly is "un-American?"
naděje umírá poslední
I'm thinking we have some reallly left leaning conservatives on this board....kidding of course...do agree with your post 100%.
The "seperation of church and state" is not a myth. It may be debatable, but it's most certainly not a myth; at least Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase) didn't think so.
We are not a "Christian" country. We are a country where the majority religion is Christian. There's a big difference.
The country was founded by Christians, and it is run by almost all Christians. Our holiday schedule is built around Christian holidays. I believe every single president has been Christian (or at least pretended to be!). All our so-called "values" and standards mostly stem from Christian beliefs (which is why we can have violence on tv, but not nudity for example).
You can say the government isn't officially Christian, but that is the reality. On paper, it's not, but in reality, it is. Some of the Christians in the government are more sympathetic to people of other religions (thank Jesus
haha you're going to hell then.
I was just referring to the "In God We Trust" part. The God mentioned there is the Christian god, who is also who Jesus claimed to be.
This is a great point that can and should be applied to many arguments. If you believe that one thing shouldn't be banned simply because it's unconstitutional, then you should be consistent and apply that rule to everything. I hope nobody does that, because it's obvious the Constitution is full of problems.
I know God can mean many things, but that has nothing to do with looking at reality. The phrase used on money is referring to the Christian god. Yes, technically God could mean any number of gods, but on American money, the God that's being referred to is obviously the Christian god.
It is obvious when you read about the history of this phrase being put on U.S. money, that it is referring to the Christian god. It was placed on money during the Civil War to encourage everyone feel united as Christians as opposed to being divided in opposition to or in favor of the formation of a federal government....or being divided as slave owners as opposed to factory owners if you like.
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.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. And don't bother pointing out that Muslims call their God "Allah". It's the same God even if they call it by another name
also dont jews call god Jehovah?
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
"I bowl. Drive around. The occasional acid flashback."
thanks a lot, you just blew my speakers!
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
That is an excellent clarification to bring up in this thread! And thank goodness that text is in there.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I don't find any problem with it. If someone doesn't want to swear on anything, he doesn't have to.
Although, it just goes to show the beliefs they hold. If they don't believe in the Bible, what do they believe? If they believe in the Koran, do they believe in all of it?
It's sort of like the flag-burning issue, to me. Okay, burn the flag that's fine by me. But, then I know how you really feel about this country and I know to discount everything else you say.
If someone chooses something other than the Bible to swear upon, big effing deal. But, then I know that they don't believe in the Christian faith and that affects their judgment.
Remember: freedom of religion also means that I can vote for people who share my religious beliefs and I don't have to vote for people who don't share my religious beliefs.
-Enoch Powell
Jehovah is the incorrect translation of "Yahweh." It is translated into english "I am, who am."
-Enoch Powell
man... you were so close to a rational post there... and then you blew it.
-Enoch Powell
Why do . . . ah screw it. You're not worth it.
Neither are you
-Enoch Powell
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.