• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God in the government

Should God be mentioned in our government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 36.1%
  • No

    Votes: 51 61.4%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • Total voters
    83
independent_thinker2002 said:
It means I wonder what they might get wrong. At one time a black man's vote was only worth 3/5 of a white man's vote.

At one time they didn't vote at all, I fail to see the relevance in your statement. What has "what they might get wrong" have to do with the color of one justices skin?:confused:

I think you're walking a thin line here sir, you had better get your ***** together, and quick.:shock:
 
Deegan said:
At one time they didn't vote at all, I fail to see the relevance in your statement. What has "what they might get wrong" have to do with the color of one justices skin?:confused:

I think you're walking a thin line here sir, you had better get your ***** together, and quick.:shock:

I am not talking about Clarence Thomas. I am talking about the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857. Or Plessy v. Fergeson. I was referring to the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US constitution.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I am not talking about Clarence Thomas. I am talking about the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857. Or Plessy v. Fergeson. I was referring to the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US constitution.

Oh....you're talking about a case from 1857, now it all makes sense.:roll:
 
Deegan said:
Yes we will, my money is on the new SCOTUS coming down in my favor, where is yours;) ?

The new SCOTUS. We'll see.

Very often some of the Republican-nominated Justices make decisions that many Republicans don't like. But they will keep trying to stack the Court in their favor when in power, I'm sure.
 
RightatNYU said:
Initially, I made the mistake of assuming that you were being straightforward in your claims about the source, so I didn't bother to look into them too deeply. Now, I'm looking and looking and I'm failing to see what you're talking about. Where exactly does that site say that "Christian Slavery" killed 60 million people? Because if it doesn't say that, then not only are you being disingenuous, but your argument is irrelevant.

Slavery: Christindom

From your own source. LOL Scroll up from the point of your link.

RightatNYU said:
Really. So are you claiming that in no scenario ever, anyone did anything stupid and then blamed it on something that had nothing to do with it? Because that was the original point. I can see that we got away from it, what with your constant attacks on miniatue because your overarching arguments are lacking, as always.

Your origonal point was that Christianity is never, ever, guilty of doing anything bad. It is most amsuing to watch you try and justify this.

RightatNYU said:
I kill someone because my parents raised me to believe that if someone offends my family honor, they should die.

You would blame me.

I kill someone because my parents raised me to believe that if someone offends Christianity, they should die.

You would blame Christianity.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I blame the killer and the code that inspired the kill both. As I clearly stated, was there some word I used you failed to decode?
 
RightatNYU said:
Wait, is it just me, or did you just reply AGAIN to my first post.

It's almost as if you didn't bother to read the case cited in the SECOND post, the response to your response.

Or almost as if you're regressing into your old habit of ignoring things that aren't convenient to your argument and nitpicking. :lol:


You cited the same case in both posts. Both were cites of dicta, and even that dicta did not contain anything relating to athiesm.

Not my fault your sources do not contain what you claim the contain.

Dicta is not law.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It means I wonder what they might get wrong. At one time a black man's vote was only worth 3/5 of a white man's vote.


Ummm, no. Blacks couldn't vote then. Blacks were counted as 3/5th of a human being in the census for purposes of congressional representation, but they didn't get to vote at all.
 
Is anyone else other than I as worried about the fact that 5/9th of the USSC is now Roman Catholic?
 
Vandeervecken said:
Ummm, no. Blacks couldn't vote then. Blacks were counted as 3/5th of a human being in the census for purposes of congressional representation, but they didn't get to vote at all.

Yes, I misspoke. I stand corrected. Thank-you.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Is anyone else other than I as worried about the fact that 5/9th of the USSC is now Roman Catholic?

No, actually, I'm down right giddy at the thought of it.:lol:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. You've posted enough crap on thread arguing that because some stupid court ruled something, then atheism is a religion. You read what you said and come back with a consistent message.

Like I said, if you can find where I ever said anything different, lets see it.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Slavery: Christindom

From your own source. LOL Scroll up from the point of your link.

WHERE in that source does it say that those slaves died as a result of Christianity?? Like I said, it doesn't. Grasping at straws much?


Your origonal point was that Christianity is never, ever, guilty of doing anything bad. It is most amsuing to watch you try and justify this.

Really? I'd love to see where I said that.

Unless of course, you're just full of it.:lol:



I blame the killer and the code that inspired the kill both. As I clearly stated, was there some word I used you failed to decode?

So then, you would agree that Stalin, Mao, and all the other mass murderers through history and their codes are "more guilty" than Christianity because they killed more people, right?
 
Vandeervecken said:
You cited the same case in both posts. Both were cites of dicta, and even that dicta did not contain anything relating to athiesm.

Not my fault your sources do not contain what you claim the contain.

Dicta is not law.

Uh, no.

I cited ESA v. Rylander in the second post, not a dicta. Why don't you go back and read it, and then come back to the discussion.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Is anyone else other than I as worried about the fact that 5/9th of the USSC is now Roman Catholic?

Any more terrified than anyone else would have been for the ~150 years that the court was 9/9 White Protestant Males? No.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Is anyone else other than I as worried about the fact that 5/9th of the USSC is now Roman Catholic?

To tell the truth, what religion they are matters not, as long as they place their nation and their duty as number one and NOT their religion or god.
I feel that down thru the ages, our politicians have been generally good at this..

Seems as if most are atheists (or their supporters) on this forum, in that the mere mention of God upsets them..

Since day one "god" has been in our government and will continue to be as long as the atheists stay in the minority overall....
There has never been "separation of church and state"..
 
earthworm said:
To tell the truth, what religion they are matters not, as long as they place their nation and their duty as number one and NOT their religion or god.
I feel that down thru the ages, our politicians have been generally good at this..

Seems as if most are atheists (or their supporters) on this forum, in that the mere mention of God upsets them..

Since day one "god" has been in our government and will continue to be as long as the atheists stay in the minority overall....
There has never been "separation of church and state"..

Yes, that is true, but they will show you were Jefferson wrote this(separation of church and state), only when you show them where Adams wrote something else(“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”).........they will tell you that does not count, and was not in our fine documents. It's the classic hypocrisy that liberals are known for, but will never admit, even when faced with their own words as proof.:doh
 
So its 59 percent that disagree with the foundation of the USA and our claim to liberty. Brainwashed by Rockefeller interests!

Only 30 pecent seem to understand why America was different,



George Washington
In his Inaugural Speech, April 30, 1789,

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...."

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
 
Deegan said:
Yes, that is true, but they will show you were Jefferson wrote this(separation of church and state), only when you show them where Adams wrote something else(“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”).........they will tell you that does not count, and was not in our fine documents. It's the classic hypocrisy that liberals are known for, but will never admit, even when faced with their own words as proof.:doh

It is important that any quotes you post be in context. The above response from Adams and Hancock was a response to a threat from the king of England. Here is what Adams said about our Constitution, in context:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
-- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)
 
tryreading said:
It is important that any quotes you post be in context. The above response from Adams and Hancock was a response to a threat from the king of England. Here is what Adams said about our Constitution, in context:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
-- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

The Founders were indeed wise to construct a secular Constitution and system of government that would not be vulnerable to dictates of popes, kings, or charismatic religious leaders. But to say that this is 'in context' and thus no religious morality is written into it would be a misnomer. For John Adams also said:

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)
 
tryreading said:
It is important that any quotes you post be in context. The above response from Adams and Hancock was a response to a threat from the king of England. Here is what Adams said about our Constitution, in context:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
-- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Yes it is, that is why I find it odd that my quote lies no where in your post?:confused:

Now how are we to examine the "context" when you refuse to include my quote in it?:roll:

There is an important distinction here that you fail to acknowledge, that is the defense of the constitution from a National Church, not from God in government. I just watched the Senate get under way this very morn, and I can assure you they still open with a prayer, from the Senate Chaplain I might add. This is a great tradition, an important tradition, and one that has served us all well. I only ask that if it is not broke, don't fix it, leave well enough alone, and don't change the face of this great country.
 
Deegan said:
Yes it is, that is why I find it odd that my quote lies no where in your post?:confused:

Now how are we to examine the "context" when you refuse to include my quote in it?:roll:

There is an important distinction here that you fail to acknowledge, that is the defense of the constitution from a National Church, not from God in government. I just watched the Senate get under way this very morn, and I can assure you they still open with a prayer, from the Senate Chaplain I might add. This is a great tradition, an important tradition, and one that has served us all well. I only ask that if it is not broke, don't fix it, leave well enough alone, and don't change the face of this great country.

There is no reason for me to include a quote that is irrelevant. Your quote was a heated response to a threat before the Revolutionary War. My quote concerned the Constitution directly, which concerns religion and government separation, which is what earthworm was talking about, and you refered to. I like to keep the conversation linear.
 
Should God be mentioned in our government?

Well certainly freedom of religious expressions means that God certainly shouldn't be banned from the government.
 
tryreading said:
There is no reason for me to include a quote that is irrelevant. Your quote was a heated response to a threat before the Revolutionary War. My quote concerned the Constitution directly, which concerns religion and government separation, which is what earthworm was talking about, and you refered to. I like to keep the conversation linear.

You are still avoiding, or skirting the issue, "God in government"

No one is arguing the need to separate "religion" and government, such as a National church. The need to include God is a different matter entirely, and one that is decided as far as I know. As I said, the mention of God should and does remain a constant today, as it did when the country was created. From the morning prayer conducted by the Senate Chaplain, to the mention of God on our currency, it is a large part of the government, and has not been a problem for hundreds of years, basically a non issue IMHO.

As for my original comment, and subsequential quote, it pertained to what was not in the constitution, and "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. Thus it's confusing as to why you would refer to the constitution when quoting this?:confused:
 
AlbqOwl said:
The Founders were indeed wise to construct a secular Constitution and system of government that would not be vulnerable to dictates of popes, kings, or charismatic religious leaders.

...
...
...
Just wanted to enjoy that sentence for a while.


AlbqOwl said:
But to say that this is 'in context' and thus no religious morality is written into it would be a misnomer. For John Adams also said:

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

Morality and religious morality were written into the Constitution, in that these things were part of the makeup of some of the Founding Fathers, rules ingrained in their intellect. But I believe they wanted separation. There are many examples of the chief authors confirming the First Amendment was written to erect a complete, or 'perfect' as Madison said, wall of separation.

Many of these people were religious, as your quotes show, but they had seen the disastrous effects from intermixing religion and government. So they wanted people to be free to worship as they pleased, but for that worship not to mix with civil law. An exception was Hamilton, but he actually wanted to form our government like the British government we had just broken from, so he was confused anyway.

Also, if property should be as sacred as God's laws, as Adams says, that's giving law the ultimate power, isn't it? But as far as the coveting, that is no part of our law.

I'm sure you've seen this quote before, on what Adams thought of a particular religion. He saw the good of religion, and the bad:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
( John Adams, "On the Abuses of Grief," letter to Thomas Jefferson, in Jefferson's Works, Vol. VII, p. 35
 
Deegan said:
You are still avoiding, or skirting the issue, "God in government"

No one is arguing the need to separate "religion" and government, such as a National church. The need to include God is a different matter entirely, and one that is decided as far as I know. As I said, the mention of God should and does remain a constant today, as it did when the country was created. From the morning prayer conducted by the Senate Chaplain, to the mention of God on our currency, it is a large part of the government, and has not been a problem for hundreds of years, basically a non issue IMHO.

As for my original comment, and subsequential quote, it pertained to what was not in the constitution, and "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. Thus it's confusing as to why you would refer to the constitution when quoting this?:confused:

The question of this poll is loaded. God is and always will be in the Government through the people there who are religious. And that's where religion should be, in the mind, except Orin Hatch can display his Bible if he wants to, while sitting in session, or Joe Lieberman his Torah.

The chaplain idea was fought hard, by people like James Madison. But it was put to a vote, and he lost. This was a mistake by Congress. Franklin proposed that the Continental Congress, while going through very contentious weeks of argument about state representation, get someone to pray before they sat, but the motion died without a vote. He only suggested it because of the strife, long after the Congress had been in session. But they didn't vote on it, and Franklin wrote that only about four people had any interest in the idea. It had no place there.

God on our currency was mandated in the 1900's by Congress. The 1900's. The law passed in the Civil War era allowed it to be on currency, but did not mandate it.

The chief Founding Fathers often spoke of the dangers of intermixing religion and Government, and the term 'Separation' was used by some of them. It is a critical indicator of what they were trying to do through the Constitution. It shows their intent. James Madison hoped for a 'perfect separation,' for instance. You know what Jefferson thought:

Jefferson's Letters
TO MAJOR JOHN CARTWRIGHT.
MONTICELLO, June 5, 1824

I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to show when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us...

What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!
 
Back
Top Bottom