- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Robodoon said:They are partner documents.
And Jesus Christ is Referenced in the Consititution; Mr Rockefeller
Robodoon said:If you deny God's place in government, then you deny everything Americas founding fathers were fighting for, and claim with your own mouths that you do not understand and deserve to be slaves.
IN FACT, you are claiming SLAVERY! yee haw :2wave:
tryreading said:Why won't you answer SA's question?
Robodoon said:sorry I missed it, I jumped to the end, show me the question you want answered
Robodoon said:sorry I missed it, I jumped to the end, show me the question you want answered
Robodoon said:If you deny God's place in government, then you deny everything Americas founding fathers were fighting for, and claim with your own mouths that you do not understand and deserve to be slaves.
IN FACT, you are claiming SLAVERY! yee haw :2wave:
conserv.pat15 said:Do you think God should be mentioned in our government?..... for example, "under God" in the Pledge, or Nativity scenes, or displaying the Ten Commandments at a courthouse... ect. ect.
AmericanPatriot29 said:Definitely. It is what devides us from a regime like Soviet Russia. All of the most brutal regimes outlaw God. With checks and balances it is more then ok. Secondly it is not referring to a specific denomination and this is a Christian country and we have a Christian heritage. It needs to stay at all costs.
conserv.pat15 said:Do you think God should be mentioned in our government?..... for example, "under God" in the Pledge, or Nativity scenes, or displaying the Ten Commandments at a courthouse... ect. ect.
star2589 said:the examples you gave are pretty harmless. i have no problem with them.
tryreading said:What differentiates us from regimes such as Russia is our revolutionary Document which makes our government neutral regarding religion.
Christian because the majority of Americans are Christian, or because you say so?
independent_thinker2002 said:Exactly how has it served us all well?
AmericanPatriot29 said:Definitely. It is what devides us from a regime like Soviet Russia. All of the most brutal regimes outlaw God. With checks and balances it is more then ok. Secondly it is not referring to a specific denomination and this is a Christian country and we have a Christian heritage. It needs to stay at all costs.
earthworm said:The business of government is a most serious undertaking, even to the extent of being sacred.
Some people, even most people must be constantly reminded of this. Thus the prayers, oaths, and minutes of silence..
IMO, we may have the world's best government, one which other nations would do well to emulate - and some do, no doubt, others are simply envious...
That is not to say that reform is not necessary, it is.......
But, "what works" must NOT be changed.
Why do atheists have such a fear of God ?
AlbqOwl said:Of course they are harmless. They infringe on nobody's rights and are coercive in no way. Nobody is required to say them, believe them, or pay them any attention whatsoever.
What they do is represent our religious heritage and history as all our other heritage and history is represented in various ways in our government buildings and symbols. Our religious heritage and history is who we are as a people as much as anything else, and to omit it would not only be dishonest, but ludicrous.
SouthernDemocrat said:Of course God can be mentioned in government. However, we were not founded as a theocracy. Our Founding Fathers, many of whom were Christians and many of whom were deists or agnostic, knew the danger in allowing the government to promote, endorse, and compel religious beliefs. Therefore, they established a government where church and state were separated. Most of those who represent us our men and women of faith. However, no one can use the government as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel his or her religious beliefs. It’s really that simple and without a separation of church and state, you cannot have freedom of religion.
AlbqOwl said:What the Founders did do, and what they clearly intended, is that the Federal government would have absolutely no say in what any person believed, professed, or practiced re his/her religious faith.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Then 175 years later, Congress mucked it up by forcing the lie "under God" into a stupid pledge of allegience.
The other side to that though is that the Constitution and our government is not there to acknowledge are cultural and historical religious heritage.AlbqOwl said:I really don't see how the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (which most of us don't consider 'stupid') affects in any way or has any bearing whatsoever on my previous comments. Nothing changed when these words were included in the Pledge any more than any other changes that have been made in the Pledge over the years. Acknowledgement of our cultural and historical religious heritage in no way changes, alters, or violates the Constitution.
SouthernDemocrat said:The other side to that though is that the Constitution and our government is not there to acknowledge are cultural and historical religious heritage.
So there you have it, and that is why even with what is by all counts a predominately conservative Federal Judiciary that we have today, civil libertarians consistently win on this issue.
One, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs. Two, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote or compel adherence to our religious heritage.
That has been the consistent position of the federal judiciary and I suspect that unless the constitution is amended on this matter, it always will be.
My point though is that it is a very fine line between acknowledge and endorse.AlbqOwl said:I did not use the words 'promote or compel'. I specifically used the word 'acknowledge'. The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the design of our flag, our National Anthem, federal holidays commemorating various historical or cultural events, the symbolic artwork on almost all government buildings including the Supreme Court building are all recognition of our national heritage, cultural, and/or history. It is appropriate that a government of the people, by the people, for the people should acknowledge such.
To leave religious heritage, culture, and/or history out of the mix would be not only ludicrous but dishonest.
SouthernDemocrat said:Might point though is that it is a very fine line between acknowledge and endorse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?