In God We Divide?

[tryreading]

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

The point is the US Congress mandated by law that IGWT be printed on American currency, and mandated by law that IGWT replace the previous national motto.

They mandated an homage to God be legally supported and printed on our currency, documentation, and buildings.

The amendment reads '...no law...'

The language in the Constitution is very straightforward on this issue.

 

[tryreading]

The extreme you argue to supports communism, seeking to establish such an extreme assists communism.

My position supports the Constitution. And it is not extreme.

The constant attempts by some to have their religion supported by the state are extreme. They and their efforts are not supported by the Constitution, and their need to have control over others because they feel their religion demands it are extreme. The desire for enforcement of one's religion by American law is a very extreme position.


This is a very short list of positions that are extreme:

The need for the power to advertise one's God on state objects and documents
The need for the power of enforcement of prayer in American public schools
The need for the power to force a captive audience of children to repeat the contrived phrase 'under God' every morning
The need for the power to have Creationism taught in public school science classes, or failing that, the need for the power to have the science subject of evolution disclaimed

In my humble opinion, my position that these things are illegal is not extreme.

 

[tryreading]

Sure.



(10 charactors)

Okay. The follow up question is does the Constitution guarantee me that right?

 

[Felicity]

And again--"God" isn't a religion. The only ones who may have a beef are atheists and you cannot deny that the founders INTENDED a government that was deist. So "IGWT" is completely legit--it isn't a religion, nor is it promoting a religion, it is simply stating a historical fact.

 

[Felicity]

That means religious symbols and monuments can be kept out of public buildings. There is no freedom to do whatever one wants in the name of their religion.

I suppose I can see MANDATING a symbol of a specific religion like symbols for Judeo-Christian religions--but "allowing" symbols? Why is that a problem? And that still doesn't affect the non-specific "IGWT" statement which is not a symbol of any particular religion.

 

[OKgrannie]

The extreme you argue to supports communism, seeking to establish such an extreme assists communism.

Communism is an economic system, in spite of the fears of the McCarthyists in the 50's, it does not necessarily deny God.


communism: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
com·mu·nism (kŏm'yə-nĭz'əm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

 

[OKgrannie]

And again--"God" isn't a religion. The only ones who may have a beef are atheists

"God" represents a religion. Other than athiests who have a complaint, are those who worship multiple Gods, those who worship a Goddess or Goddesses, and those who worship God but don't desire government support or interference of their worship.

and you cannot deny that the founders INTENDED a government that was deist.

The founders INTENDED a government that was NEUTRAL toward religion.

So "IGWT" is completely legit--it isn't a religion, nor is it promoting a religion, it is simply stating a historical fact.

It was INTENDED to promote a religion. Neither is it stating a historical fact, since the "WE" in this case refers to ALL of the population, and would never have been true at any time.

 

[Felicity]

"God" represents a religion.

You say "a" religion...which one?

The founders INTENDED a government that was NEUTRAL toward religion.

Not neutral...simply not HOSTILE toward any particular religion. They wanted FREEDOM of religion. I think someone already pointed out it's "of" not "from."

It was INTENDED to promote a religion.

Which one?

Neither is it stating a historical fact, since the "WE" in this case refers to ALL of the population, and would never have been true at any time.

The nation is we. In the DoI, it says "WE hold these truths self-evident..." That's not apparently 100% accurate either. You're a deconstructionist.

 

[OKgrannie]

You say "a" religion...which one?

Anti-separatists usually say "Judeo-Christian" in order to gain some support from the Jewish population. It is actually a faction of Christians pushing for theocracy.

Not neutral...simply not HOSTILE toward any particular religion. They wanted FREEDOM of religion. I think someone already pointed out it's "of" not "from."

Someone else pointed out that freedom of religion must include the choice to be free from religion, otherwise no freedom exists.

Which one?

"Judeo-Christian"

The nation is we. In the DoI, it says "WE hold these truths self-evident..." That's not apparently 100% accurate either. You're a deconstructionist.

The DoI is not a legal document. I'm a constructionist who construes the U.S. Constitution with a strict interpretation.

 

[Felicity]

Anti-separatists usually say "Judeo-Christian" in order to gain some support from the Jewish population. It is actually a faction of Christians pushing for theocracy.
.

Where's your evidence of this? Congress is full of "Christians pushing for theocracy?" :rofl

 

[Felicity]

Someone else pointed out that freedom of religion must include the choice to be free from religion, otherwise no freedom exists.

If you don't "have" religion--how does the amendment apply to you at all? That would be a strict reading.

 

[tryreading]

And again--"God" isn't a religion. The only ones who may have a beef are atheists and you cannot deny that the founders INTENDED a government that was deist. So "IGWT" is completely legit--it isn't a religion, nor is it promoting a religion, it is simply stating a historical fact.

If God isn't religion, or the basis of it, then freedom of religion does not include the freedom to worship God, right?

The Founders intended a government of law.

It is not a historical fact that 'we' trust in God. Some do. The government can't speak for me on the subject of religion. The people who sponsored law that provided government backing for God, as if He needed it, were religious and trusted in God, and because they happened to be in the majority in this country they got their way in certain areas.

By the way, I'm not an atheist, I think their viewpoint is ridiculous.

 

[Jerry]

The point is the US Congress mandated by law that IGWT be printed on American currency, and mandated by law that IGWT replace the previous national motto.

They mandated an homage to God be legally supported and printed on our currency, documentation, and buildings.

The amendment reads '...no law...'

The language in the Constitution is very straightforward on this issue.

Since the law respected an establishment of a motto, not a religion, it's constitutional.

Why not spend your time on something your tax dollars are funding today?

 

[Felicity]

If God isn't religion, or the basis of it, then freedom of religion does not include the freedom to worship God, right?

Are you sure you want to say something so logically twisted? Do you want to re-word that before I respond?

The Founders intended a government of law.
It is not a historical fact that 'we' trust in God.

Then who is the "We" in the DoI that held rights to be inalienable and endowed by our Creator?

Some do. The government can't speak for me on the subject of religion. The people who sponsored law that provided government backing for God, as if He needed it, were religious and trusted in God, and because they happened to be in the majority in this country they got their way in certain areas.

Yeah...like not being English subjects any longer.

 

[Jerry]

Communism is an economic system, in spite of the fears of the McCarthyists in the 50's, it does not necessarily deny God.


communism: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
com·mu·nism (kŏm'yə-nĭz'əm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

That doesn't prove my source unreliable nor factually in error so your post does not address my argument.

Communism is to religion as PC is to abortion and GM is to marriage: Everyone can do whatever they want.

Gay marriage and pro choice assist the establishment of the economic structure of the North American Union which Bush is working with Mexico and Canada establish. It the common denominator those 2 topics share.

Once established, a communist state would have to allow "the opium of the people" (from my last source), but in order to change a capitalist society to a communist society, the capitalist society must be separated from it's greater rule and measure of right and wrong, from it's sense or normalcy. The capitalist government must be sterilized of all traces of this greater rule of measurement in order for the new state, the new communist state of the North American Union, to take hold.

 

[tryreading]

I suppose I can see MANDATING a symbol of a specific religion like symbols for Judeo-Christian religions--but "allowing" symbols? Why is that a problem?.

IGWT is mandated. And as far as American law, it is an establishment of religion. Establishment of "a" religion is not how the Amendment reads.

And that still doesn't affect the non-specific "IGWT" statement which is not a symbol of any particular religion.

It is specific. It gives homage to God. Religion is the worship of God, right, per the Constitutional meaning?


Non sequitor-
I've got the news on in the background, and Anna Nicole Smith is the subject again. It was all over the radio shows today too (every day lately). If this story is all over the news, it has to be because broadcasters know it will attract viewers and listeners. Who are all the people who want to see this trash? What a waste of valuable air time. The story is unimportant in the grand scheme, and the not-so-grand scheme.

Its a sex and money thing, so the voyeurists can't get enough. And today, the idiot of a judge cried about the case, so that was huge news, and had to be replayed over and over. I turn the station whenever a report on this thing comes on, but no matter where you go, there it is, and before you know it you've heard it again even if you tried not to. Its maddening.

 

[tryreading]

:And again--"God" isn't a religion.

If God isn't religion, or the basis of it, then freedom of religion does not include the freedom to worship God, right?

Are you sure you want to say something so logically twisted? Do you want to re-word that before I respond?

What does 'religion' in the 1st Amendment refer to? The worship of God, right? What other thing could it refer to?

So if Congress passes a law mandating we worship God, is religion unaffected (for the purpose of this argument)?

If Congress passes a law mandating we shall not worship God, is religion unaffected?

What is the exercise of religion, as far as Constitutional meaning?


Go ahead, Make your day.

 

[hypgnostic]

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 agree with you wholeheartedly which is why I think it is important to move any reference to 'God' by our government. A slogan containing the word has a DIRECT reference to religion and religious ideology. The government should remove IGWT immediately from all money.

 

[Jerry]

I agree with you wholeheartedly which is why I think it is important to move any reference to 'God' by our government. A slogan containing the word has a DIRECT reference to religion and religious ideology. The government should remove IGWT immediately from all money.

Congress shall make no law respecting a reference to religion?

Didn’t we just go over this?
Stick to the exact wording of the 1st.

 

[Jerry]

What does 'religion' in the 1st Amendment refer to? The worship of God, right? What other thing could it refer to?

I agree.

So if Congress passes a law mandating we worship God, is religion unaffected (for the purpose of this argument)?

That would be a law which establishes religion, so that would be unconstitutional.

If Congress passes a law mandating we shall not worship God, is religion unaffected?

That would be a law preventing the free exorcize of religion, so that would be unconstitutional.

What is the exercise of religion, as far as Constitutional meaning?

The ability to worship God as one pleases, free from government interference.

Go ahead, Make your day.

IGWT established no religion, gave no church municipal power, nor bars anyone from worshiping how they choose.

 

[hypgnostic]

IGWT is mandated. And as far as American law, it is an establishment of religion. Establishment of "a" religion is not how the Amendment reads.



It is specific. It gives homage to God. Religion is the worship of God, right, per the Constitutional meaning?


Non sequitor-
I've got the news on in the background, and Anna Nicole Smith is the subject again. It was all over the radio shows today too (every day lately). If this story is all over the news, it has to be because broadcasters know it will attract viewers and listeners. Who are all the people who want to see this trash? What a waste of valuable air time. The story is unimportant in the grand scheme, and the not-so-grand scheme.

Its a sex and money thing, so the voyeurists can't get enough. And today, the idiot of a judge cried about the case, so that was huge news, and had to be replayed over and over. I turn the station whenever a report on this thing comes on, but no matter where you go, there it is, and before you know it you've heard it again even if you tried not to. Its maddening.

I seriously doubt any radio station was forcing you to tune in to their news about A.N.S. How could you let that news bother you??

The reason it's big news is because Americans are obsessed with money and super-stardom, you and I may find that stupid, but I'm not losing sleep over the kind of idiots that are entertained by that stuff. I think watching baseball is even stupider than being obsessed with movie stars, but I'm not about to go out and protest a baseball game and claim it makes kids stupid.

 

[hypgnostic]

Congress shall make no law respecting a reference to religion?

Didn’t we just go over this?
Stick to the exact wording of the 1st.

That is why IGWT is a very clear violation.

 

[tryreading]

That would be a law which establishes religion, so that would be unconstitutional.



That would be a law preventing the free exorcize of religion, so that would be unconstitutional.

In response to Felicity saying God isn't a religion, which is true, I am trying to make the point that the Constitution, when it refers to the exercise of religion, is referring to the free worship of God, and nothing else.

The purpose of the questions was to show that substituting the word 'God' or the phrase 'the worship of God' in place of the word 'religion' would not change the meaning of the 1st Amendment. You seem to agree.

 

[tryreading]

I seriously doubt any radio station was forcing you to tune in to their news about A.N.S. How could you let that news bother you??

I like to listen to talk radio to learn new things, hear about interesting subjects, etc. So I tried to listen today, but the ANS thing wouldn't stop. I wasn't being forced to listen to it, but couldn't seem to escape it.

 

[Jerry]

That is why IGWT is a very clear violation.

You didn't read my post or what?