In God We Divide?

[Felicity]

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.

You're free to not worship God. I agree that "the worship of God" is tantamount to "religion"--but a statement that represents the factual history of our nation is not a form of worship--it is just a statement. And, that statement isn't advocating any form of worship--it is historical fact and fact for the majority still today. Just because it's on an atheists dollar bill doesn't mean she can't spend it.

I totally DO NOT agree that changing the word "religion" to "God" in the 1st amendment would not change the meaning--however, changing it to "the worship of God" wouldn't change it.

God does not equal religion.
Worship of God equals religion.

 

[Jerry]

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the worship of God?

If that were the actual wording of the amendment, then the fact that it had “God” in it would establish religion, according to how you’ve been reading it.

 

[tryreading]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the worship of God?

If that were the actual wording of the amendment, then the fact that it had “God” in it would establish religion, according to how you’ve been reading it.

Again, what does 'religion' in the 1st mean? Religion is the means of worshipping God. Without God, the belief in God, there is no need to use the word 'religion' in the Constitution.

The Constitution uses the word religion, and there is no question what that refers to.

The Constitution says the government can't establish religion. It is illegal to do so. But without knowing what religion is, and therefore what God is in the minds of many, we would not know what is illegal per the 1st Amendment regarding the religion clause.

 

[tryreading]

You're free to not worship God. I agree that "the worship of God" is tantamount to "religion"--but a statement that represents the factual history of our nation is not a form of worship--it is just a statement. And, that statement isn't advocating any form of worship--it is historical fact and fact for the majority still today. Just because it's on an atheists dollar bill doesn't mean she can't spend it.

I totally DO NOT agree that changing the word "religion" to "God" in the 1st amendment would not change the meaning--however, changing it to "the worship of God" wouldn't change it.

God does not equal religion.
Worship of God equals religion.

You threaten me with ridicule and all I get is this slap on the wrist? I feel let down.


Francis Scott Key wrote this in 1814:

"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Star-Spangled Banner (Memory): American Treasures of the Library of Congress


So, Francis Scott Key wrote some new words to an old drinking song. 88 years after the founding of our country, a push by certain religious people was under way to add religious phrases to federal documents. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase was a sucker for this. He suggested phrases of his own for use on money to the US mint. Chase shortened Francis Scott Key's phrase above to 'In God We Trust,' and offered this motto with others to the mint.

'In God We Trust' was invented in the 1860s as a motto to be printed on money. It had no historical meaning at the time, especially since 'The Star Spangled Banner,' where the phrase originates, didn't become the national anthem until 1931. Saying now that it represents the factual history of our nation is just plain wrong. It represents the manufacture of a religious phrase by a religious person who had the desire and the influence to have our nation advertise his religion, even though the contrived motto makes a false statement.

 

[Felicity]

You threaten me with ridicule and all I get is this slap on the wrist? I feel let down.

You want I should spam with over 300 abortion jokes?:2razz:

Francis Scott Key wrote this in 1814:

"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'

And what religion is Mr. Key endorsing there?

Look--Some "religious people" who worshiped the Christian God did in fact suggest that God should be honored as such--but that does not mean that the motto is not representative of "We the people..." in our modern democracy, nor does the motto that appears on money "establish" any sort of religion other than to acknowledge our history reflects God-fearing sentiments and our citizenry is primarily people who assent to the authority of God.

Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"

It is merely a recognition of the final authority of God and as a people of democracy, it is what the majority believe.

 

[Felicity]

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.

You say this over and over and I think you are not getting that religion and "a" religion is irrelevant. Religion is a specific system of belief. God is not a system of belief.

Now...you'd have an argument if the money said, "In Catholicism We Trust" or "In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints We Trust." You'd even have a point if the money said "In Jesus We Trust." But GOD is so generic as to make your point moot. It is FACT that this nation was and is inhabited by God-believers--many different kinds of God-believers--but God-believers nonetheless. No specific religion is "established."

 

[hypgnostic]

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.

That's because most people ARE interested in ANS. I think it is a very interesting case for a number of reasons. I'm embarassed for the famlies of the idiots who are squabbling over her money though. I think ANS is the only one that really deserved any of it.

With that aside, the 'MUTE' button is my favorite button when it comes to nearly every story the media sees fit to air. ESPECIALLY when it involves what people refer to as 'super stars'.

 

[hypgnostic]

You say this over and over and I think you are not getting that religion and "a" religion is irrelevant. Religion is a specific system of belief. God is not a system of belief.

Now...you'd have an argument if the money said, "In Catholicism We Trust" or "In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints We Trust." You'd even have a point if the money said "In Jesus We Trust." But GOD is so generic as to make your point moot. It is FACT that this nation was and is inhabited by God-believers--many different kinds of God-believers--but God-believers nonetheless. No specific religion is "established."

I don't think 'God' is quite as 'generic' as you would like to believe. About half of the population of the planet thinks that the entire idea of a 'God' is absolutely preposterous (and I tend to agree with them), and since every religious person believes in some form of 'God', then it is very obvious that using the word 'God' by our governement is acknowledgement of a RELIGIOUS ideology. Let's face it, it is very rare to find a person who believes in this supernatural entity that has not had the concept of such an 'entity' that was founded in religion or religious ideology. Believing in God is not a 'natural' state, it's learned behavior and while I believe every person may have an innate ability to connect to this idea of 'God', people who don't believe in such nonsense should not have it crammed down their throats. Mentioning 'God' on every piece of money IS cramming it down our throats. Of course religious people are not capable of looking at this objectively because their 'faith' is what is at stake.

 

[Felicity]

I don't think 'God' is quite as 'generic' as you would like to believe. About half of the population of the planet thinks that the entire idea of a 'God' is absolutely preposterous (and I tend to agree with them), and since every religious person believes in some form of 'God', then it is very obvious that using the word 'God' by our governement is acknowledgement of a RELIGIOUS ideology. Let's face it, it is very rare to find a person who believes in this supernatural entity that has not had the concept of such an 'entity' that was founded in religion or religious ideology. Believing in God is not a 'natural' state, it's learned behavior and while I believe every person may have an innate ability to connect to this idea of 'God', people who don't believe in such nonsense should not have it crammed down their throats. Mentioning 'God' on every piece of money IS cramming it down our throats. Of course religious people are not capable of looking at this objectively because their 'faith' is what is at stake.

How does this at all adress the core issue--the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES? I don't care how many people in the rest of the world believe in God as it related to this issue, and I don't care if you think a motto that honors God is being crammed down your throat. Deconstructing the rights granted our citizenry is what I am against--re-writing the Constitution to suit your deconstructionist views is what I'm against.

I don't know what y'all have an issue with. You know--years down the road if the world went all godless and a coin was found inscribed with "In God We Trust," it would be likely that the future archeologist/anthropologists would determine it was the coin we worshipped rather than any God of a religion. You know--they wouldn't be so wrong after all!

 

[hypgnostic]

How does this at all adress the core issue--the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES? I don't care how many people in the rest of the world believe in God as it related to this issue, and I don't care if you think a motto that honors God is being crammed down your throat. Deconstructing the rights granted our citizenry is what I am against--re-writing the Constitution to suit your deconstructionist views is what I'm against.

I don't know what y'all have an issue with. You know--years down the road if the world went all godless and a coin was found inscribed with "In God We Trust," it would be likely that the future archeologist/anthropologists would determine it was the coin we worshipped rather than any God of a religion. You know--they wouldn't be so wrong after all!

It violates the separation of church & state, and I'm sorry that you seem unable to see that very obvious violation, but most people DO see it, they just choose to ignore it. The IGWT slogan wasn't even ADDED until only a few decades ago anyway, so since the founding fathers obviously didn't think it belonged on money, why should it be added at any point in American History? I

It was a VERY stupid idea to add IGWT because it IS such a blatant violation of the Constitution. If we have freedom FROM religion, then there should not even by the mentioning of theist ideology anywhere in government. The 10 Commandments should be removed from ANY public building, and so should religious holiday decorations. Why should any theistic word belong on public property? If it is the 10 commandments, it is offensive to the 9 Satanic Statements. It is simply poor form to single out one religion above any others, but it is just as bad to combine all as 'God' because not everyone believes in this superstitious stuff. Why should they have to see it? And more importantly, what would YOU lose as a Christian, if IGWT was not on money? NOTHING is the correct answer.

 

[Felicity]

It violates the separation of church & state, ....... If we have freedom FROM religion, then there should not even by the mentioning of theist ideology anywhere in government.

Right there's your problem, son. Study up a bit on your Constitution.

 

[Jerry]

Again, what does 'religion' in the 1st mean? Religion is the means of worshipping God. Without God, the belief in God, there is no need to use the word 'religion' in the Constitution.

The Constitution uses the word religion, and there is no question what that refers to.

The Constitution says the government can't establish religion. It is illegal to do so. But without knowing what religion is, and therefore what God is in the minds of many, we would not know what is illegal per the 1st Amendment regarding the religion clause.

IGWT established nothing.

Now if you were arguing for the removal of Annuit Coeptis then I would have to agree, as Annuit Coeptis is a pagan prayer and certainly a prayer has no place on our money.

One calls into question why you ignore Annuit Coeptis.

 

[OKgrannie]

How does this at all adress the core issue--the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES? I don't care how many people in the rest of the world believe in God as it related to this issue, and I don't care if you think a motto that honors God is being crammed down your throat. Deconstructing the rights granted our citizenry is what I am against--re-writing the Constitution to suit your deconstructionist views is what I'm against.

The ONLY way to guarantee that the rights granted our citizenry are protected in an equal manner for ALL citizens is to maintain the separation of church and state. Allowing the majority religion to use public property to advertise infringes on the rights of the minority. Not allowing ANY religion to use public property to advertise does not infringe on anyone's rights, as advocates of any religion can advertise on private property. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect individual and minority rights; the majority does not need guarantees of their rights, they simply assume them.

 

[Jerry]

The ONLY way to guarantee that the rights granted our citizenry are protected in an equal manner for ALL citizens is to maintain the separation of church and state. Allowing the majority religion to use public property to advertise infringes on the rights of the minority. Not allowing ANY religion to use public property to advertise does not infringe on anyone's rights, as advocates of any religion can advertise on private property. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect individual and minority rights; the majority does not need guarantees of their rights, they simply assume them.

IGWT is not an advertisement; it is a motto which states a truth.

IGWT violates no right of anyone.

IGWT establishes no religion.

IGWT gives no church municipal authority.

 

[hypgnostic]

IGWT is not an advertisement; it is a motto which states a truth.

IGWT violates no right of anyone.

IGWT establishes no religion.

IGWT gives no church municipal authority.

IGWT states a motto of 'truth'??!?!? HAHAHA!!

hahah!! haha!! :rofl

That was too funny! Perhaps you can find the 'truth' in that motto? If it were to be converted to a truth, it could say in 'gold' we trust. At least that definition would have some merit, but how could the US government prove such a claim when there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest that 'god' is anything other than an illusion based on faith?

 

[hypgnostic]

IGWT established nothing.

Now if you were arguing for the removal of Annuit Coeptis then I would have to agree, as Annuit Coeptis is a pagan prayer and certainly a prayer has no place on our money.

One calls into question why you ignore Annuit Coeptis.

If it's Paganism that you choose to ignore, then why do you celebrate the birth of Christ during the Yule, which is clearly a Pagan holiday? Christ was not born on Dec. 25th, in fact it's not even close.

 

[Jerry]

IGWT states a motto of 'truth'??!?!? HAHAHA!!

hahah!! haha!! :rofl

That was too funny! Perhaps you can find the 'truth' in that motto? If it were to be converted to a truth, it could say in 'gold' we trust. At least that definition would have some merit, but how could the US government prove such a claim when there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest that 'god' is anything other than an illusion based on faith?

Well, yes, there is evidence, but that's another thread.

God does not need to exist in order for people to believe he exists and trust in who they believe exists.

If the people of America believed that his holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed and placed trust in.....it.....then saying that the people place trust in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be true even though I piled on the cheese and meat and ate the Flying Spaghetti Monster last night for dinner.

 

[Jerry]

If it's Paganism that you choose to ignore, then why do you celebrate the birth of Christ during the Yule, which is clearly a Pagan holiday? Christ was not born on Dec. 25th, in fact it's not even close.

I don't ignore paganism. In fact I take no issue with the Greek Goddess on the CA state seal, for example.

My comment was directed outward, as in, why are you, hypgnostic, ignoring the pagan symbols on the currency? Those are easier arguments so I thought they would have been argued first.

 

[Felicity]

The ONLY way to guarantee that the rights granted our citizenry are protected in an equal manner for ALL citizens is to maintain the separation of church and state. Allowing the majority religion to use public property to advertise infringes on the rights of the minority. Not allowing ANY religion to use public property to advertise does not infringe on anyone's rights, as advocates of any religion can advertise on private property. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect individual and minority rights; the majority does not need guarantees of their rights, they simply assume them.

You could start a study group with hypgnostic. Seems you both can't get that your Church and State thing is not "Constitutional" and that there is no specific religion being advertised.



I had a thought...maybe you think atheism is a religion...do you? How 'bout you, hypngnostic?

 

[OKgrannie]

IGWT is not an advertisement; it is a motto which states a truth.

For the purposes of the Judeo-Christian religion, it is an advertisement placed on public property in order to remind all viewers that the Judeo-Christian religion is ever prevalent.

IGWT violates no right of anyone.

Constutional violations (or deconstruction of the Constitution, as Felicity puts it) violates the rights of every citizen, threatens our freedoms, including those who like the advertisement.

IGWT establishes no religion.

Vote by Congress to display it RESPECTS an establishment of religion.

IGWT gives no church municipal authority.

You're right on that one.:sarcasticclap

 

[OKgrannie]

You could start a study group with hypgnostic. Seems you both can't get that your Church and State thing is not "Constitutional" and that there is no specific religion being advertised.

I had a thought...maybe you think atheism is a religion...do you? How 'bout you, hypngnostic?

It is quite appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do--separating church and state. The Judeo-Christian religion is the specific one being advertised, there is no specific DENOMINATION being advertised at this time.


To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jerry]

For the purposes of the Judeo-Christian religion, it is an advertisement placed on public property in order to remind all viewers that the Judeo-Christian religion is ever prevalent.

It's just a statement of a truth, it forces nothing upon you.

Heh...how about some PC relativism...."No one's forcing you to trust God, so if you don't like it, don't read it".

Constutional violations (or deconstruction of the Constitution, as Felicity puts it) violates the rights of every citizen, threatens our freedoms, including those who like the advertisement.

IGWT does not violate the constitution because it establishes no religion nor grants any church municipal power.

Vote by Congress to display it RESPECTS an establishment of religion.

If your argument were true then a vote by Congress to display the 1st. amendment RESPECTS an establishment of religion.

 

[OKgrannie]

It's just a statement of a truth, it forces nothing upon you.

Heh...how about some PC relativism...."No one's forcing you to trust God, so if you don't like it, don't read it".

So, let's hang curtains over it.

IGWT does not violate the constitution because it establishes no religion nor grants any church municipal power.

It RESPECTS an establishment, what don't you get about RESPECTING? Has anybody claimed that religious displays grant a church municipal power?




If your argument were true then a vote by Congress to display the 1st. amendment RESPECTS an establishment of religion.[/QUOTE]

LOL, only if the First Amendment is an object of worship.

 

[Felicity]

So, let's hang curtains over it.

Then you'd bitch about what the "curtains" represented because everbody would KNOW what was under there--an endorsment of Judeo-Christian idiology (those bastards!).:roll:

Actually--hanging the curtains over the expression of what you deem "religion" would be a violation of the 1st amendment. But I suppose that would be okay with you.

 

[tryreading]

Annuit Coeptis. This motto, adapted from Vergil's Aeneid, IX, 625, in which Ascanius prays to Jupiter for help in slaying an enemy, appears on the Great Seal of the United States.

It seems to me that Godly people should be concerned about Annuit Coeptis too. Unless Jupiter is their God.

Our days of the week are named after irrelevant gods:

The First Day: Sunday was named after the Sun god.
The second Day: Monday was named after the moon goddess.
The Third Day: Tuesday was named after the god Tyr.
The Fourth Day: Wednesday was named after the god Odin.
The Fifth Day: Thursday was named after the god Thor.
The Sixth Day: Friday was named after the goddess Frigga.
The Seventh Day: Saturday was named after the god Saturn.

Most of the months of the year in our calendar are named after gods and goddesses too. But they are mythical, so aren't a problem.

If your God was no longer believed in by anyone, the associated religion wouldn't exist, and I probably wouldn't care if his name was on a coin any more than if Poseidon's name were.

_________________________________________________________________


Deconstructing? There would be no need to protest 'In God We Trust' if very opportunistic people hadn't illegally decided to make it law. The same with any other government backing of religion. Anything constructed illegally has to be deconstructed.


_________________________________________________________________


Anyway, I keep repeating the law because I think its being misinterpreted.

'Congress shall pass no law (in regard to) (any) establishment of religion (religion itself)...'

Doesn't say or mean establishment of '...a religion...' or 'a national religion' or '...a national church...'