• 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.

In God We Divide?

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Congress mandating that 'In God We Trust' be printed on American currency is illegal, because Congress has made a law respecting an establishment of religion. That's my point, and I'm sticking to it.

The majority of Americans can state they believe in God all they want. But our government can't.

There are Greek and Roman Gods, and pagan symbols, on a lot of the currency printed before last century.

No misnomer. Any religion intermixed in our government intermixes our government with religion to the same degree. For instance, the 501(c) status we're talking about is available to churches that are charitable if those churches agree their leader cannot stump for a political candidate while in the pulpit. The church gets a very desirable break, but only while it cooperates with the government, which gives the government some control over the church itself.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

We've each heard the other's argument and simply disagree on the interpretation of the facts at hand.

You’re trying to argue this to an absolute degree when not even the right to life can not be argued to an absolute degree.

The final stroke of the extreme you seek is to tear down the entire capitol city itself. The fact that that will never happen, alone, shows that your conclusion is not an attainable goal.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

We've each heard the other's argument and simply disagree on the interpretation of the facts at hand.

You’re trying to argue this to an absolute degree when not even the right to life can not be argued to an absolute degree.

The final stroke of the extreme you seek is to tear down the entire capitol city itself. The fact that that will never happen, alone, shows that your conclusion is not an attainable goal.

I just want whoever is making the 'In God We Trust,' and 'Under God,' and Judge Roy Moore monument installations to stop, and at least the more recent (from 1789 on - okay, from 1850 on) religious laws reversed. Roy Moore was stopped, and rightly so, because he was going to have his Ten Commandments monolith in his court house and to hell with anybody who saw it as wrong. Besides breaking the law, he was a control freak, and I think people who want American law to support their religion all fit into that category.

Where would you stop the intermixing? Prayer in public school, Intelligent Design, 'Under God,' providing churches with huge sums of taxpayer money? The Constitution has two broad warnings about any religion/government partership, and they are the law, included for good reason.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
The final stroke of the extreme you seek is to tear down the entire capitol city itself. The fact that that will never happen, alone, shows that your conclusion is not an attainable goal.

Naw, if Ashcroft can cover a naked statue with draperies, we can hang curtains over the worst of the violations.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Alright, you guys suck at arguing your own side, so I'll do it for you:

In light of this conversation I logged on to Coast to Coast AM and went back to an interview of David Ovason.

A membership is required to hear the interview and verify my quotation of it below, so if that disqualifies his words as evidence in an online discussion then I accept that.

Here's a link to the page the interview can be found on:
COAST TO COAST AM WITH GEORGE NOORY: SHOWS

Regarding the initial impulse for the experiment in democracy which America is:
Most of the people involved in the design of the Great Seal were in fact Masons; A Christian symbol underpinning most of their beliefs. I mean George Washington himself was one of the most famous Masons, and was certainly a Christian.

Regarding the 4 mottos found on the dollar David Ovason had this to say:

If you look at the 4 mottos on the dollar bill you will find that there is an intentional progression from pagan mottos, to an entirely Christian motto. I’ll run through them quickly.

Annuit Coeptis (1) is from a pagan book and it’s a prayer to a pagan god. So “he favors our undertaking” is a pagan prayer as the pyramid itself is a pagan symbol.

Novus Ordo Seclorum (2), A new order of the ages”, was pagan in origin but was very very rapidly Christianized to make it refer to ‘the new order of the ages as a result of the birth of Christ'.

E PLURIBUS UNUM (3), Out of Many, One”. By the time you reach "E Pluribus Unum" you are entirely Christian because, this is from the confession of St. Augustus (4), it’s actually from a Christian context.

Then, finally, we get to In God We Trust (5), which was approved for a 2 cent coin in 1864, and was eventually adopted by congress in 1956 as the national motto of the United States. “In God We Trust” can not be more Christian, particularly on the dollar bill because you have “In God We Trust” directly over the word “ONE”, the largest block of letters on the dollar bill. One tends to read it as “In One God We Trust”. It’s read as a unit.

The interesting thing is the position of this motto [IGWT] over the word “ONE” was actually put in hand by Reverend M.R. Watkinson
way back in 1864. And it was an intentional thing, again, we’re talking about intentional designs rather than figments of the imagination which were ‘read-into’ symbols later on.”

(1) Annuit Coeptis - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Above the Pyramid & Eye
(2) Novus Ordo Seclorum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Beneath the American Pyramid
(3) E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle
(4) St. Augustus - Catholic Online
(5) IN GOD WE TRUST
 
Last edited:

Sammy2

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
87
Reaction score
12
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I thought that it was "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion" ...with the focus on removing Christianity from the US at any cost and under any stupid "reasoning" while touting and emphasizing any other religion in the same breath. And not by anyone here, just those who are the root of all anti-Christian movements.

The history behind the above phrase was due to the fact (look it up) that those who fled England due to religious persecution knew a government in which someone had to be of a specific faith in order to be in that government. That was not acceptable for the founding fathers. And that's the bottom line.

And to whomever implied that more people=more violence. It's about percentages, not head count. But....how's China doing? How agnostic is that country? What's their population vs. their murder/drug/Britney Spears rate vs. the US? And how religious is that country? And I am willing to be proved wrong. I haven't done enough research to do anything other than throw this out for thought.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I thought that it was "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion" ...with the focus on removing Christianity from the US at any cost and under any stupid "reasoning" while touting and emphasizing any other religion in the same breath. And not by anyone here, just those who are the root of all anti-Christian movements.

You don't have "freedom OF religion" unless it includes the right to be "free FROM religion." The goal of separatists is NOT to remove Christianity from the US, but to remove the government sponsorship of Christianity or any other religion.

The history behind the above phrase was due to the fact (look it up) that those who fled England due to religious persecution knew a government in which someone had to be of a specific faith in order to be in that government. That was not acceptable for the founding fathers. And that's the bottom line.

Those who fled England due to religious persecution set up harsh theocracies with every aspect of religious life regulated and enforced as their own government in this country. Those who wrote the US Constitution were almost 200 years past that development in history. Some separatists were influenced by the Enlightenment in Europe, some were influenced by the corruption in state churches, but whatever the reason, a majority of the founders wanted government to be free from church control.
 

hypgnostic

Banned
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
628
Reaction score
75
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
While circling, please revisit the actual wording. This is where you went haywire.

Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion..

Nobody is saying the words "In God we Trust" established a religion. Those words are paying respect to a monotheistic religion that has already been established.

That is precisely why they should be removed. By even mentioning the name 'God' it is suggesting that American governement is putting trust into a non-existent entity. I find it embarassing as an American to suggest that my government is so short-sighted and superstitious, and that it's citizens could be fooled by such clearly insane logic.
 

hypgnostic

Banned
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
628
Reaction score
75
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I thought that it was "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion" ...with the focus on removing Christianity from the US at any cost and under any stupid "reasoning" while touting and emphasizing any other religion in the same breath. And not by anyone here, just those who are the root of all anti-Christian movements.

The history behind the above phrase was due to the fact (look it up) that those who fled England due to religious persecution knew a government in which someone had to be of a specific faith in order to be in that government. That was not acceptable for the founding fathers. And that's the bottom line.

And to whomever implied that more people=more violence. It's about percentages, not head count. But....how's China doing? How agnostic is that country? What's their population vs. their murder/drug/Britney Spears rate vs. the US? And how religious is that country? And I am willing to be proved wrong. I haven't done enough research to do anything other than throw this out for thought.

Good point. China is a great example of how peaceful society can be when there is not this malignant force of monotheism and fundamentalism.
 

PoliticalActivist

Active member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
284
Reaction score
19
Location
Highland Park Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do not understand why this topic is a long drawnout debate. We're a divided nation. Some believe in GOD, others believe in whatever they want
to believe in, and who are we to knock a person because they don't have
the same religious believes we have. Our problem today is our expectations
of others, and most seem to think its their way or no way at all.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do not understand why this topic is a long drawnout debate. We're a divided nation. Some believe in GOD, others believe in whatever they want
to believe in, and who are we to knock a person because they don't have
the same religious believes we have. Our problem today is our expectations
of others, and most seem to think its their way or no way at all.

Well put.

We need neutrality from government regarding religion.

People are religious, or not, and they have the complete freedom to be either per their individual conscience.

Government must be separate, taking no actions regarding the existence or non-existence of a God.
 

PoliticalActivist

Active member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
284
Reaction score
19
Location
Highland Park Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Now Tryreading we're on the same soundwave pattern. I agree that there is
no place for politics in any church. The government has mixed politics bigtime
in the middle east holy wars. Which has mixed the bullshit so strong until its
smell is at a level where it can be smelled all over the world.

Again...yes in GOD we are divided, and as long as the Priests,Preachers,and
others is money greedy we will always be divided.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't have "freedom OF religion" unless it includes the right to be "free FROM religion."

Only if the absence of religion is a religion, so if you have a good argument showing how Atheism is a religion lets hear it.

The goal of separatists is NOT to remove Christianity from the US, but to remove the government sponsorship of Christianity or any other religion.

Then since IGWT is not government censorship you don't object to it.

Those who fled England due to religious persecution set up harsh theocracies with every aspect of religious life regulated and enforced as their own government in this country. Those who wrote the US Constitution were almost 200 years past that development in history. Some separatists were influenced by the Enlightenment in Europe, some were influenced by the corruption in state churches, but whatever the reason, a majority of the founders wanted government to be free from church control.

Then since IGWT established no state religion, nor grants any church judicial power, you have no objection to it.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is precisely why they should be removed. By even mentioning the name 'God' it is suggesting that American governement is putting trust into a non-existent entity. I find it embarassing as an American to suggest that my government is so short-sighted and superstitious, and that it's citizens could be fooled by such clearly insane logic.

IGWT only shows that the citizens of the country trust in God, not the government.

The entire subject over rather or not God exists is entirely irrelevant, as even if He didn't exist citizens are still putting trust Him.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Only if the absence of religion is a religion, so if you have a good argument showing how Atheism is a religion lets hear it.

Not so. FREEDOM OF includes ALL options, not just a selected few choices.



Then since IGWT is not government censorship you don't object to it.

I do object to government sponsorship or favoritism toward ANY religion.



Then since IGWT established no state religion, nor grants any church judicial power, you have no objection to it.

It grants a church special privileges, the privilege of using government property to express their theology. Why do you think Christians are USING such examples to claim special favor such as in claiming a right to taxpayer support for their programs, by asserting "The founders intended this to be a Christian (only) nation, that inscription proves it?"
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well put.

We need neutrality from government regarding religion.

People are religious, or not, and they have the complete freedom to be either per their individual conscience.

Government must be separate, taking no actions regarding the existence or non-existence of a God.

I do not understand why this topic is a long drawnout debate. We're a divided nation. Some believe in GOD, others believe in whatever they want
to believe in, and who are we to knock a person because they don't have
the same religious believes we have. Our problem today is our expectations
of others, and most seem to think its their way or no way at all.

That is precisely why they should be removed. By even mentioning the name 'God' it is suggesting that American governement is putting trust into a non-existent entity. I find it embarassing as an American to suggest that my government is so short-sighted and superstitious, and that it's citizens could be fooled by such clearly insane logic.

Good point. China is a great example of how peaceful society can be when there is not this malignant force of monotheism and fundamentalism.

Now Tryreading we're on the same soundwave pattern. I agree that there is
no place for politics in any church. The government has mixed politics bigtime
in the middle east holy wars. Which has mixed the bullshit so strong until its
smell is at a level where it can be smelled all over the world.

Again...yes in GOD we are divided, and as long as the Priests,Preachers,and
others is money greedy we will always be divided.

China's official religion isn't one. Marx's belief that religion is the opium of the people gives authority to communist countries adopting beligerent policies towards any movement that has the potential to challenge the all-encompassing authority of the state. The communist countries, all that is Ceaser's is rendered to Caesar, and all that is God's is rendered to Ceaser!

China has moved to establish an "official" Catholic Church in China, appointing bishops who promise not to challenge the overall authority of the state. They can be viewed as an arm of the state apparatus, and China has received strong rebukes from the Vatican for appointing such bishops. Nevertheless, many Chinese remain faithful to their Buddhist faith, but it is personal rather than organised. The underground church in China is massive but illegal, as is all other forms of religion including "Falun Gong"- more of a sect than a religion, but a threat to the authority of the state. Communism can only survive when the state is supreme, hence the fast and often brutal suppression of new popular movements, of religious or political persuasion
.

Asian Marketing, Market Research and Economic Capsule Review

You look up to a communist country as an example of how this capitalist country should become, and argue in favor of what makes a communist country possible and durable and advocate the implementation of that cornerstone here.

One can only assume that you favor communism.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not so. FREEDOM OF includes ALL options, not just a selected few choices.

…..and "bald" is a hair color…..

I do object to government sponsorship or favoritism toward ANY religion.

That's just too bad.
I haven't seen your proposal of what the new dollar should look like, so let’s see it.

It grants a church special privileges, the privilege of using government property to express their theology. Why do you think Christians are USING such examples to claim special favor such as in claiming a right to taxpayer support for their programs, by asserting "The founders intended this to be a Christian (only) nation, that inscription proves it?"

Any King Nimrod can come along and claim that some obscure engraving, picture, etc., somehow establishes a right or privilege for this or that.

A motto is not a law so they must show a law which establishes what they want, or they don’t have anything to claim.

Enumerate these "special privileges" in the act which established IGWT.
 

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Just Crazy Enough to Work
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
313
Location
Wilmington, DE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Asian Marketing, Market Research and Economic Capsule Review

You look up to a communist country as an example of how this capitalist country should become, and argue in favor of what makes a communist country possible and durable and advocate the implementation of that cornerstone here.

One can only assume that you favor communism.

What's wrong with Communism? Ever since the 1950s, America has used Communism as an excuse for war, emergency action, and displays of inane patriotism. True communism is not practiced by any communsistic countries in which government officials wallow in luxury- communism entails that all people are equal and recieve equal resources.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
IGWT only shows that the citizens of the country trust in God, not the government.

The entire subject over rather or not God exists is entirely irrelevant, as even if He didn't exist citizens are still putting trust Him.

Many of the citizens in this country trust in God.

Whether he exists or not is not the argument.

Any citizen can put his trust in God, that's his right. But the government has no place in trusting and establishing him.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Only if the absence of religion is a religion, so if you have a good argument showing how Atheism is a religion lets hear it.

You speaketh in tongues, I think.

I don't believe in a God. Is that my right, or not?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any King Nimrod can come along and claim that some obscure engraving, picture, etc., somehow establishes a right or privilege for this or that.

Obscure? I thought it was being claimed that such engravings were displayed in prominent places, and so frequently that it was unmistakable that the founders meant this to be a Christian nation.

A motto is not a law so they must show a law which establishes what they want, or they don’t have anything to claim.

All they have to do is convince enough people that their INTERPRETATION is correct.

Enumerate these "special privileges" in the act which established IGWT.

The special privileges which resulted are placing declarations from one religion to the exclusion of others in public places using public money to do so and public money to maintain the sites.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What's wrong with Communism? Ever since the 1950s, America has used Communism as an excuse for war, emergency action, and displays of inane patriotism. True communism is not practiced by any communsistic countries in which government officials wallow in luxury- communism entails that all people are equal and recieve equal resources.

It's a conspiracy theory I receive flack for subscribing to....on the one hand I flamed for seeing the rise of the communist’s agenda executing in America; on the other folks are like "yeah, so what".
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Many of the citizens in this country trust in God.

Whether he exists or not is not the argument.

Any citizen can put his trust in God, that's his right. But the government has no place in trusting and establishing him.

IGWT created no state religion nor gave any church judicial power.
 
Top Bottom