What I dont get is.... what harm does it do? How does 4 words on a peice of paper hurt anyone? Why do athiests beleive they are being suppresed because of this? I just dont get it? What will taking it off change? Who will it benifit? What harm will leaving it do? People keep saying it is not sensitive to there beliefs. SO? Does that mean you arent allowed to have your beleifs? Does having this printed on a bill limit the free practice of Athiesm in any way? Sorry but this exact argument has been used agaisnt supportes of keeping it too.
You CANNOT use this argument for your side without realizing that the opposition can use it just as well.
Taking it off the bill hurts no one, leaving it there, hurts NO ONE! I oppose this because its a freaking WASTE OF TIME! All the energy that is directed at removing the ten commandments and "under God" and "In God we trust" could be placed somewhere else to actually benifit this country! We have some SERIOUS problems to deal with in America and this aint one of them!
You CANNOT use this argument for your side without realizing that the opposition can use it just as well.
Taking it off the bill hurts no one, leaving it there, hurts NO ONE! I oppose this because its a freaking WASTE OF TIME! All the energy that is directed at removing the ten commandments and "under God" and "In God we trust" could be placed somewhere else to actually benifit this country! We have some SERIOUS problems to deal with in America and this aint one of them!
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 302
The only thing that gets me is that the words "In God we trust" tends to presume that ALL americans worship God. Seeing as we claim to be a democracy, the people are represented by senators, and the president is elected and these people are holding those words up and placing them on the national currency.
That to me says that everyone should live by those words due to the idea that a democracy represents the views of all of it's members.
I'm sorry personally I dont really care what it says on the money. I dont believe in God and the words on the back of a dollar bill are not going to make me question that lack of belief. The dollar will still serve perfectly well to buy alcohol and porn either way.
That to me says that everyone should live by those words due to the idea that a democracy represents the views of all of it's members.
I'm sorry personally I dont really care what it says on the money. I dont believe in God and the words on the back of a dollar bill are not going to make me question that lack of belief. The dollar will still serve perfectly well to buy alcohol and porn either way.
G
Guest
Guest
- #24
Thread Owner
GOD DELIVER US FROM EVIL
Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government out of religion, not keep religion out of the government. . Like most of the Constitution, the First Amendment was intended to limit the authority of the federal government to prevent abuses of power. It was never meant to restrict the importance or involvement of religious and moral ideas from the halls of government or the public square.
What the First Amendment accomplished was to prohibit the federal government from establishing an official national denomination, as existed in Europe with the Church of England and the Catholic Church in Spain.
An official national denomination such as that which existed in England prohibited any other religious denomination to function. Catholics in England during the period 1558 to 1829 were prohibited by law to practice their faith either in public or private. It was illegal to be Catholic. [Parliament finally emancipated Catholics in England in 1829.] Today Cuba is an atheist country where there is obviously no division between Church and State.
The Pilgrims armed with Bibles fled to the New World which offered them the freedom to worship away from the restraints of the Anglican Church. Anglican authorities had forced into law a provision stating that anyone who didn't attend services in the established church or who went to an unlawful religious meeting would be imprisoned, exiled, and (should they persist) eventually face death.
It is with the spirit of the First Amendment that allows one to worship according to their religious beliefs without the fear of persecution. Sadly however many are misinterpreting the intent of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment was never meant to be construed in any way as to restrict public displays of religion or recognition of God by the government. Proof of this is James Madison's proposal that the First Amendment be: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established."
The Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments; both houses of Congress open each session with a prayer. Attempts by some legal groups to remove these same expressions from other public arenas are contradictory to the facts and spirit of the First Amendment. Washington issued several proclamations calling for public prayer, including one by Washington that stated, "It is an especial manner our duty as a people ... to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God."
Jefferson, considered one of the least religious Founders, wasn't even in the country when the First Amendment was proposed or approved. Even so, his words are etched in his memorial: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
Other religions are permitted in the United States precisely because this country was founded upon the principles of Christianity
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
I do not believe as long as man shall live that there will ever be resolution to the feud that exists between those of different religions. Atheists are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not rest until all Christians are driven back into secret worshipping and fearing of punishment lest one utter the word GOD!!! My gut re-action to this form of persecution: GOD DELIVER US FROM EVIL!:angel7:
.The First Amendment
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government out of religion, not keep religion out of the government. . Like most of the Constitution, the First Amendment was intended to limit the authority of the federal government to prevent abuses of power. It was never meant to restrict the importance or involvement of religious and moral ideas from the halls of government or the public square.
What the First Amendment accomplished was to prohibit the federal government from establishing an official national denomination, as existed in Europe with the Church of England and the Catholic Church in Spain.
An official national denomination such as that which existed in England prohibited any other religious denomination to function. Catholics in England during the period 1558 to 1829 were prohibited by law to practice their faith either in public or private. It was illegal to be Catholic. [Parliament finally emancipated Catholics in England in 1829.] Today Cuba is an atheist country where there is obviously no division between Church and State.
The Pilgrims armed with Bibles fled to the New World which offered them the freedom to worship away from the restraints of the Anglican Church. Anglican authorities had forced into law a provision stating that anyone who didn't attend services in the established church or who went to an unlawful religious meeting would be imprisoned, exiled, and (should they persist) eventually face death.
It is with the spirit of the First Amendment that allows one to worship according to their religious beliefs without the fear of persecution. Sadly however many are misinterpreting the intent of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment was never meant to be construed in any way as to restrict public displays of religion or recognition of God by the government. Proof of this is James Madison's proposal that the First Amendment be: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established."
The Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments; both houses of Congress open each session with a prayer. Attempts by some legal groups to remove these same expressions from other public arenas are contradictory to the facts and spirit of the First Amendment. Washington issued several proclamations calling for public prayer, including one by Washington that stated, "It is an especial manner our duty as a people ... to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God."
Jefferson, considered one of the least religious Founders, wasn't even in the country when the First Amendment was proposed or approved. Even so, his words are etched in his memorial: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
Other religions are permitted in the United States precisely because this country was founded upon the principles of Christianity
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
I do not believe as long as man shall live that there will ever be resolution to the feud that exists between those of different religions. Atheists are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not rest until all Christians are driven back into secret worshipping and fearing of punishment lest one utter the word GOD!!! My gut re-action to this form of persecution: GOD DELIVER US FROM EVIL!:angel7:
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Responding to GoingNova…
Political motivation, after all in those times religious fanatics were still killing infidels and the belief in God high amongst the public. I would be much more inclined to believe personal letters where there was no gain in professing Christianity to close friends.
Responding to Sicander…
Why do we believe we’re suppressed because of it? Because it’s not representing us and while it may seem very harmless now, heavy right wing fundamentalists may use that as a means against us because we don’t believe in God when clearly it says “In God We Trust”. Now, of course YOU wouldn’t be opposed to having that placed on our money nor having the Ten Commandments on government property… but how would you feel if a judge clearly labeled “There Is No God” in his courtroom? Or how about had quotes from the Ko’ran? Or had people swear without a Bible (Unless they choose to)? Hmmm…
Promoting equality and seizing the means of what can easily potentially become very discriminatory in the hands of the government is not a waste of time, but rather pre-emptive action that is a benefit for us all. When not everyone is being represented then there’s a large problem and havoc can occur, people that do not believe in God need to be just as recognized and respected of just like everyone else.
Responding to Angloirish…
It’s almost like you were there yourself…
So?
Where does that say so you can put religious items on government property?
And you have the right to do so anytime you want, but to do so on government’s time is what I completely object to.
I bet he said that to a big crowd didn’t he? What? Do you think he wouldn’t try to act as a Godly man in order to get elected? I would rather follow personal letters to close friends where he had nothing to gain in acting Christian like. Such as say… “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Oh and I love this one:
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
If you can quote the Bible for these things, please do so:
Representative democracy
Freedom of religion
Separation of powers
Habeus corpus
Freedom of speech
Free press
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure
Trial by jury
Bicameral legislation
Limited executive power
Oh and you might want to see what the unanimously-approved by the Senate Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 has to say: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Now you profess you can read our minds, seem to be a rather paranoid individual and seem to have a problem of with people wanting to be recognized by the government just like you are. I have no problem with you worshipping God; I have a problem of you imposing it upon the rest of us.
Hi Sean Hannity.
Political motivation, after all in those times religious fanatics were still killing infidels and the belief in God high amongst the public. I would be much more inclined to believe personal letters where there was no gain in professing Christianity to close friends.
Responding to Sicander…
Why do we believe we’re suppressed because of it? Because it’s not representing us and while it may seem very harmless now, heavy right wing fundamentalists may use that as a means against us because we don’t believe in God when clearly it says “In God We Trust”. Now, of course YOU wouldn’t be opposed to having that placed on our money nor having the Ten Commandments on government property… but how would you feel if a judge clearly labeled “There Is No God” in his courtroom? Or how about had quotes from the Ko’ran? Or had people swear without a Bible (Unless they choose to)? Hmmm…
Promoting equality and seizing the means of what can easily potentially become very discriminatory in the hands of the government is not a waste of time, but rather pre-emptive action that is a benefit for us all. When not everyone is being represented then there’s a large problem and havoc can occur, people that do not believe in God need to be just as recognized and respected of just like everyone else.
Responding to Angloirish…
It’s almost like you were there yourself…
So?
Where does that say so you can put religious items on government property?
And you have the right to do so anytime you want, but to do so on government’s time is what I completely object to.
I bet he said that to a big crowd didn’t he? What? Do you think he wouldn’t try to act as a Godly man in order to get elected? I would rather follow personal letters to close friends where he had nothing to gain in acting Christian like. Such as say… “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Oh and I love this one:
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
If you can quote the Bible for these things, please do so:
Representative democracy
Freedom of religion
Separation of powers
Habeus corpus
Freedom of speech
Free press
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure
Trial by jury
Bicameral legislation
Limited executive power
Oh and you might want to see what the unanimously-approved by the Senate Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 has to say: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Now you profess you can read our minds, seem to be a rather paranoid individual and seem to have a problem of with people wanting to be recognized by the government just like you are. I have no problem with you worshipping God; I have a problem of you imposing it upon the rest of us.
Hi Sean Hannity.
G
Guest
Guest
- #26
Thread Owner
You may not be aware that a silent war is raging against Christians but the proof is in the pudding. Atheists are filing suits more often than naught against all forms and symbols that are Christian in its origin.
I cite several examples of law suits filed AGAINST Christianity:
In 1980 Roger Florey, an atheist, filed suit against a local school district's holiday programs, claiming that singing of religious carols during Christmas concerts, like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful," were a violation of the separation of church and state.
In 1995, in Columbus, Ohio the KKK sued and won the right to display an unadorned cross in the Public Square during the 1993 Christmas season.
The Supreme Court handed down their decision holding that an unattended cross erected by the KKK on public grounds would not give the impression of government endorsement and, hence, is not a violation of the separation of church and state.
Meanwhile in Pittsburgh the Supreme Court ruled that while a crèche display on public property was unconstitutional, a menorah display on another piece of public property was not.
Is it constitutional for the United States government to recognize Christmas as an official paid holiday? Richard Ganulin, an atheist lawyer, argued that it isn't and filed suit, but a U.S. District Court ruled against him.
In 1994, the ACLU brought a suit against the City of Jersey City to stop it from erecting a holiday display which included a menorah, a crèche, a holiday tree, and a sign stating that the display was part of the broader celebration of diversity.
Judith M. Koenick, a former public school teacher, filed suit against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland, challenging the constitutionality of a Maryland statute providing for public school holidays on the Friday before Easter through the Monday following.
Andrea Metzl, an Illinois public school teacher, filed a lawsuit to prevent the state of Illinois from (among other things) using of public funds derived from taxes that she paid to pay teachers for the Good Friday holiday.
On March 17, 2000, Jarrod Sechler and David Warren Saxe filed a complaint against State College Area High School. Sechler's complaint was based upon the allegation that he was prevented from participating in a volunteer lunchroom program because of his status as a "youth pastor" at a local Christian church. Saxe's complaint was based upon the allegation that there were no Christian symbols displayed at a winter holiday program at the Corl Street Elementary School, even though symbols from other religions were displayed. According to Saxe, this extensive inclusion of religious symbols and ideas from Chanukah and Kwanzaa and the simultaneous exclusion of anything and everything
Christian was an expression of hostility towards Christianity on the part of school officials. On November 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court ruled against Saxe's complaint.
Christians are being persecuted and the writing is on the wall. It is rather frightening when the KKK can display it’s hatred in public but the Nativity scene is banned from public viewing or when a US District court rules in favor of not displaying Christian symbols yet always all other forms of religious expression to be displayed.
I have come to the conclusion that an Atheist is an appropriate acronym for: Angry Terse Heathens Ever Instilling Satan’s Theory. What’s the matter with these people? Jealous because they don’t have anything to display that would represent their form of belief? I wonder if anyone is aware that no law suits were ever filed against the public display of any other religion but Christianity.
I once pitied those misguided full of rage people, however, I have recently changed my mind. Settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution; they came so they may have the right to worship their God freely. Today, a minority of atheists are attempting to remove their right to worship, to remove their freedom of religion. Sadly the Supreme Court seems to be favoring their attacks and granting them the permission to suppress any Christian tradition.
I find it ironic that the very ones against the Church and its teachings; the very ones who bemoan the fact that State and Religion should not co-exist are the very ones running to the courthouse with suits protesting religious freedom and rights. Should the courts become involved? After all it is the atheists who are the ones preaching separation of State and Religion. Should not the courts remove themselves from making any decision whether it is favorable or unfavorable against ANY organized religion? It would seem that the atheists want it both ways – they want the courts to stay out of the Christian arena yet at the same time they want the Courts to enter into the conflict long enough to rule on their behalf.
Prior to the wave of anti-Christian sentiment, I ignored atheists. I didn’t care if they worshipped a carrot, what they did was their business as long as their doings was not infringing on my rights. Today, these people are a threat to our traditions and beliefs and I feel that they must be stopped. It is ludicrous to believe that they will go quietly away. They have a hate agenda and will not stop until all references to a Higher Power are removed from public.
It is disgusting how society is granting a return of hedonistic behavior. Furthermore it blows my mind how the minority can acquire so much power without opposition from the majority! Unbelievable!
I cite several examples of law suits filed AGAINST Christianity:
In 1980 Roger Florey, an atheist, filed suit against a local school district's holiday programs, claiming that singing of religious carols during Christmas concerts, like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful," were a violation of the separation of church and state.
In 1995, in Columbus, Ohio the KKK sued and won the right to display an unadorned cross in the Public Square during the 1993 Christmas season.
The Supreme Court handed down their decision holding that an unattended cross erected by the KKK on public grounds would not give the impression of government endorsement and, hence, is not a violation of the separation of church and state.
Meanwhile in Pittsburgh the Supreme Court ruled that while a crèche display on public property was unconstitutional, a menorah display on another piece of public property was not.
Is it constitutional for the United States government to recognize Christmas as an official paid holiday? Richard Ganulin, an atheist lawyer, argued that it isn't and filed suit, but a U.S. District Court ruled against him.
In 1994, the ACLU brought a suit against the City of Jersey City to stop it from erecting a holiday display which included a menorah, a crèche, a holiday tree, and a sign stating that the display was part of the broader celebration of diversity.
Judith M. Koenick, a former public school teacher, filed suit against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland, challenging the constitutionality of a Maryland statute providing for public school holidays on the Friday before Easter through the Monday following.
Andrea Metzl, an Illinois public school teacher, filed a lawsuit to prevent the state of Illinois from (among other things) using of public funds derived from taxes that she paid to pay teachers for the Good Friday holiday.
On March 17, 2000, Jarrod Sechler and David Warren Saxe filed a complaint against State College Area High School. Sechler's complaint was based upon the allegation that he was prevented from participating in a volunteer lunchroom program because of his status as a "youth pastor" at a local Christian church. Saxe's complaint was based upon the allegation that there were no Christian symbols displayed at a winter holiday program at the Corl Street Elementary School, even though symbols from other religions were displayed. According to Saxe, this extensive inclusion of religious symbols and ideas from Chanukah and Kwanzaa and the simultaneous exclusion of anything and everything
Christian was an expression of hostility towards Christianity on the part of school officials. On November 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court ruled against Saxe's complaint.
Christians are being persecuted and the writing is on the wall. It is rather frightening when the KKK can display it’s hatred in public but the Nativity scene is banned from public viewing or when a US District court rules in favor of not displaying Christian symbols yet always all other forms of religious expression to be displayed.
I have come to the conclusion that an Atheist is an appropriate acronym for: Angry Terse Heathens Ever Instilling Satan’s Theory. What’s the matter with these people? Jealous because they don’t have anything to display that would represent their form of belief? I wonder if anyone is aware that no law suits were ever filed against the public display of any other religion but Christianity.
I once pitied those misguided full of rage people, however, I have recently changed my mind. Settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution; they came so they may have the right to worship their God freely. Today, a minority of atheists are attempting to remove their right to worship, to remove their freedom of religion. Sadly the Supreme Court seems to be favoring their attacks and granting them the permission to suppress any Christian tradition.
I find it ironic that the very ones against the Church and its teachings; the very ones who bemoan the fact that State and Religion should not co-exist are the very ones running to the courthouse with suits protesting religious freedom and rights. Should the courts become involved? After all it is the atheists who are the ones preaching separation of State and Religion. Should not the courts remove themselves from making any decision whether it is favorable or unfavorable against ANY organized religion? It would seem that the atheists want it both ways – they want the courts to stay out of the Christian arena yet at the same time they want the Courts to enter into the conflict long enough to rule on their behalf.
Prior to the wave of anti-Christian sentiment, I ignored atheists. I didn’t care if they worshipped a carrot, what they did was their business as long as their doings was not infringing on my rights. Today, these people are a threat to our traditions and beliefs and I feel that they must be stopped. It is ludicrous to believe that they will go quietly away. They have a hate agenda and will not stop until all references to a Higher Power are removed from public.
It is disgusting how society is granting a return of hedonistic behavior. Furthermore it blows my mind how the minority can acquire so much power without opposition from the majority! Unbelievable!
G
Guest
Guest
- #27
Thread Owner
ANGLOIRISH said:
I think this is terrible. They shouldn't be able to change this. I don't care that it says God; it is part of our national identity so they should tell this guy to drop dead it's staying the same. The people of other religions or atheist have already made enough changes to this country to make it more comfortable for them and less comfortable for people like me who is Catholic.
Klashbash said:
Not a good explanation. If, as so many people now contend, the founding fathers intended the United States to be secular government, there is no way in hell he would have given a public speech like that. Plain and simple.
G
Guest
Guest
- #30
Thread Owner
This is not about splitting hairs regarding historical revisionism. It is about allowing free religious expression. Go read the Constitution and tell me where it says that it is allowed that religious expression is to be suppressed. You won't find it.
From the Constitution:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The majority in this country has displayed tolerance and acceptance of minority religious groups. It is high time we saw them reciprocate.
From the Constitution:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The majority in this country has displayed tolerance and acceptance of minority religious groups. It is high time we saw them reciprocate.
Still not a clear answer.
The founders themselves had varying ideas about how much distance to place between their own beliefs and their public roles. Washington saw nothing wrong with issuing presidential proclamations of giving thanks to God; Jefferson considered such proclamations unconstitutional.
As best as I can tell the founders of the US were prolific writers who contradicted themselves (and one another) almost as frequently as did the authors of the Bible. I'm not sure that it would be productive to get into a "this founding father said this but that founding father said that" type discussion. It seems to me that if the writers of the US constitution had wanted to include some sort of god they certainly would have mentioned it. They mentioned it in plenty of other places.
See, I don't know what that is being as how I'm not Newdow. Can you be a little more specific? How exactly is your right to practice your religion being infringed?GoingNova said:
I am certainly not going to argue with you on this point. I'm not trying to change anyones mind here. I'm just trying to figure out how anyones rights to practice their religion is being infringed so I can go to bat for them.
I'll give it a whack.
The founders themselves had varying ideas about how much distance to place between their own beliefs and their public roles. Washington saw nothing wrong with issuing presidential proclamations of giving thanks to God; Jefferson considered such proclamations unconstitutional.
As best as I can tell the founders of the US were prolific writers who contradicted themselves (and one another) almost as frequently as did the authors of the Bible. I'm not sure that it would be productive to get into a "this founding father said this but that founding father said that" type discussion. It seems to me that if the writers of the US constitution had wanted to include some sort of god they certainly would have mentioned it. They mentioned it in plenty of other places.
I'm still waiting to find out where your right to practice your religion is being suppressed. Be as specific as possible.ANGLOIRISH said:
G
Guest
Guest
- #32
Thread Owner
ANGLOIRISH said:
Exactly and this should be changed for no body.
Bob, decent points. Let me see what I can come up with in response.
Let me try it this way. Rather than state how removing "In God We Trust" from currency impedes on my right to practice religion, I would argue that it in no way, shape, or form does any harm to anyone. There is no "protection against being offended" in the Constitution, so I do not see where Mr. Newdow has a leg to stand on. Quite obviously, "In God We Trust" is not a law establishing a religion, so it would not be covered under the First Ammendment, and since 85% of the country has a belief in God, I think Mr. Newdow, and the likes of him, should just shut their loud, attention seeking mouths. How is that? :Dbob_gray said:
Bob, I am going to agree with you, it is not infringing on my rights to practice religion. It is an expression that the overwhelming majority of Americans see nothing wrong with, and to remove it to "not offend" a very small minority is wrong. There is no protection against being offended in the Constitution, so this is a case where "majority rules" is fitting. It does no harm to people, the majority of people see nothing wrong with it, so leave it alone.bob_gray said:
Certainly a very reasonable explaination. I just do not agree. I still contend that were the country intended to be secular, there would be no place for public "official" proclamations such as this.bob_gray said:
See my last comment on this matter.bob_gray said:
G
Guest
Guest
- #34
Thread Owner
A pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically. This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed.
Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating. Recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued. In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, "We Can Be Good without God." The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates. Fundamentalist Christian groups are branded as hate mongers and potential terrorists. The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago warns that plans by Southern Baptists to hold a convention in the Windy City next year might foment "hate crimes" against minorities, causing some Christians to fear that speaking openly about their religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. Christianity itself is often a target of hate-crime violence. We remember the students at Columbine, and the United Methodist minister who was fatally beaten and burned in a remote part of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to name a few examples of interpersonal violence aimed at believers.
Just who is the real enemy? I contend that it is those men who can easily be identified as
Satan's “string pullers”. They are patiently networking both visible and invisible principalities to discredit Christian causes. Indicators reveal the propaganda blame-game against western believers is working.
Even a casual observance of the facts reveals growing isolation of Christians as a people group, especially school age believers. Faculty and peer efforts to convince public school children that America was not founded on Christian ideals, and that our forefathers actually wanted a secular society, permeates public school interaction. History revisionists labor to eliminate any and all contradictory historical evidence from public school curriculum, and mockingly stereotype Christians as unenlightened fringe.
A few years ago, sixty social studies and history textbooks used in public schools across the United States were examined by a study conducted in New York. The committee was amazed to find that almost every reference to the Christian influence of early America was systematically removed. Their conclusion: the writers of the commonly used textbooks exhibited paranoia of the Christian religion and intentionally censored Christianity's positive role in American history.
Intolerant, Christ-hating censors of religious expression target the media and public school curriculum because this is the best place, outside of the churches and families, to indoctrinate children and thus manipulate the future political and cultural landscape. If one succeeds in separating Godly principles from public education and the media, they deny citizens the knowledge of good and keep them from embracing the laws of God. To that extent, they are pawns of evil and subvert and destroy both the message and the messengers of righteousness.
Over the last decade or so there has been an upsurge of violence in teens. It is my belief that there is a direct correlation between the increasing violence, rape and murder and the censoring of the Christian model and denigrating biblical values. With no solid religious foundation we have produced a generation where every day in the United States children are bringing hand guns to school, children are abusing alcohol and drugs, children are serving time in adult jails, children are murdering other children and adults, and children are resorting to more and more violent behavior.
This generation's inability to define absolutes, and a growing pattern of anti-Christian behavior, may ultimately result in the collapse of the American superstructure, as situation ethics, AIDS and other forms of sexually transmitted diseases, the redefining of the family unit, and other abandonment of biblical standards of morality come to their dangerous and natural conclusion.
For the past five decades Americans have allowed the liberal Left to defend the use of public funds for pornography, explicit sex education, and anti-Christian curricula. The Hollywood elite have denigrated Christian values and mocked the virtues of purity. The highest courts in the land have ruled with contemptuous decree against God, against prayer, and against the free expression of religion. Is it any wonder we have become the most profane and violent society in the industrialized world?
America's Founding Fathers understood that all government is based on either a theistic or anti-theistic foundation. Adepts of history like George Washington understood that countries whose systems of government embrace national anti-theistic views ultimately come to ruin. Strong religious convictions therefore played a role in the development of the United States, which was established on Christian principles and open to all people of good will. In 1892 this was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. After exhaustive deliberation, the Court said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. [It is] impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating. Recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued. In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, "We Can Be Good without God." The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates. Fundamentalist Christian groups are branded as hate mongers and potential terrorists. The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago warns that plans by Southern Baptists to hold a convention in the Windy City next year might foment "hate crimes" against minorities, causing some Christians to fear that speaking openly about their religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. Christianity itself is often a target of hate-crime violence. We remember the students at Columbine, and the United Methodist minister who was fatally beaten and burned in a remote part of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to name a few examples of interpersonal violence aimed at believers.
Just who is the real enemy? I contend that it is those men who can easily be identified as
Satan's “string pullers”. They are patiently networking both visible and invisible principalities to discredit Christian causes. Indicators reveal the propaganda blame-game against western believers is working.
Even a casual observance of the facts reveals growing isolation of Christians as a people group, especially school age believers. Faculty and peer efforts to convince public school children that America was not founded on Christian ideals, and that our forefathers actually wanted a secular society, permeates public school interaction. History revisionists labor to eliminate any and all contradictory historical evidence from public school curriculum, and mockingly stereotype Christians as unenlightened fringe.
A few years ago, sixty social studies and history textbooks used in public schools across the United States were examined by a study conducted in New York. The committee was amazed to find that almost every reference to the Christian influence of early America was systematically removed. Their conclusion: the writers of the commonly used textbooks exhibited paranoia of the Christian religion and intentionally censored Christianity's positive role in American history.
Intolerant, Christ-hating censors of religious expression target the media and public school curriculum because this is the best place, outside of the churches and families, to indoctrinate children and thus manipulate the future political and cultural landscape. If one succeeds in separating Godly principles from public education and the media, they deny citizens the knowledge of good and keep them from embracing the laws of God. To that extent, they are pawns of evil and subvert and destroy both the message and the messengers of righteousness.
Over the last decade or so there has been an upsurge of violence in teens. It is my belief that there is a direct correlation between the increasing violence, rape and murder and the censoring of the Christian model and denigrating biblical values. With no solid religious foundation we have produced a generation where every day in the United States children are bringing hand guns to school, children are abusing alcohol and drugs, children are serving time in adult jails, children are murdering other children and adults, and children are resorting to more and more violent behavior.
This generation's inability to define absolutes, and a growing pattern of anti-Christian behavior, may ultimately result in the collapse of the American superstructure, as situation ethics, AIDS and other forms of sexually transmitted diseases, the redefining of the family unit, and other abandonment of biblical standards of morality come to their dangerous and natural conclusion.
For the past five decades Americans have allowed the liberal Left to defend the use of public funds for pornography, explicit sex education, and anti-Christian curricula. The Hollywood elite have denigrated Christian values and mocked the virtues of purity. The highest courts in the land have ruled with contemptuous decree against God, against prayer, and against the free expression of religion. Is it any wonder we have become the most profane and violent society in the industrialized world?
America's Founding Fathers understood that all government is based on either a theistic or anti-theistic foundation. Adepts of history like George Washington understood that countries whose systems of government embrace national anti-theistic views ultimately come to ruin. Strong religious convictions therefore played a role in the development of the United States, which was established on Christian principles and open to all people of good will. In 1892 this was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. After exhaustive deliberation, the Court said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. [It is] impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
ANGLOIRISH said:
I wanted to quote ANGLOIRISH's entire post, but it was too long. I read it in it's entirely, and I agree with it. Whether or not you agree that it IS happening or not, you would be foolish to dismiss it entirely as something "that could not happen". If you think it can't, then do some history research.
Personally, I believe it all falls into line with a "global socialistic society", run by the UN. I believe with all my heart that the "powers that be" are trying their hardest to bring about a world government, and I see that as the end of freedom as we know it, and an age of tyranny. I see a world government as, essentially, a nanny state, wherein the government treats us like children, dictating what we are "responsible enough" to handle and what we are not. Gun control is the best example of this. England, for example, has told it's citizens that they are not responsible enough to have guns. So there were taken away. Funny, I did the same thing yesterday to my three year old son when he picked up a knife.
Uh...........NO.
Obviously I am going take the opposite stance to GoingNova and you on this position since it is so obviously different from Nazi Germany. The most obvious differences being that the Jews were a very small portion of the German population and Christian Europe has a 1500 year tradition of persecuting Jews and Germany was in the middle of the worst depression + military sanctions they had ever experienced. Christians hold power in _EVERY_ seat of government in the US so I seriously doubt that the US will see Chrsitian ghettos showing up soon. This is obviously the ravings of a religious lunatic.
Let us not forget the hyperbole that started this thread. Apparently removing the words from the money is the same as preventing those who believe in god from practicing their religion. I was merely trying to figure out how that was happening. Thank you for responding to the question:
Since it is not infringing on anyones right to practice their religion that line of reasoning should be dropped. It does nothing to forward the argument of those in favor of keeping the words because it is simply untrue.GoingNova said:
A reference to where you pulled this would be nice. How about this one: http://www.worthynews.com/christian-persecution.htmlANGLOIRISH said:
Obviously I am going take the opposite stance to GoingNova and you on this position since it is so obviously different from Nazi Germany. The most obvious differences being that the Jews were a very small portion of the German population and Christian Europe has a 1500 year tradition of persecuting Jews and Germany was in the middle of the worst depression + military sanctions they had ever experienced. Christians hold power in _EVERY_ seat of government in the US so I seriously doubt that the US will see Chrsitian ghettos showing up soon. This is obviously the ravings of a religious lunatic.
Right, Satan. Who is this Satan you speak of?
Actually, you are just opposed to the government baby sitting those things that you want. You have no problem with the government baby sitting drugs and sex (just to name two).GoingNova said:
bob_gray said:
:laughing7 Bob, that is a gross simplification of my position on drugs, which is perhaps best left for another thread. On sex, I am guessing you are referring to my position on government giving out condemns, not really sure. Again, best left for another thread.
Bob Gray...I think I love you.
I won't bother quoting anything from your post, because I agree with all of it.
I was trying to think of a counter example to comparing the christians of the US to Jews in Nazi Germany...I was going to phrase it in the form of "Comparing the Christians in the US to the Jews in Nazi Germany is like comparing the ____ to the _____," except that I couldn't think of something equally as ridiculous.
I won't bother quoting anything from your post, because I agree with all of it.
I was trying to think of a counter example to comparing the christians of the US to Jews in Nazi Germany...I was going to phrase it in the form of "Comparing the Christians in the US to the Jews in Nazi Germany is like comparing the ____ to the _____," except that I couldn't think of something equally as ridiculous.
G
Guest
Guest
- #40
Thread Owner
Satan is evil personified. He is an adversary to God. He is the force that entertains the souls of certain human beings and while he dwells within them, he has them do his bidding. Satan's objective is to turn mankind away from God and in return he has man worship him. He is very much present on the world stage today.
Bob you are obvious more than aware of the seeds of persecution against Christians that is happening today as you seem to be familiar with the Christian writings on the Net. My question then is why would you need any of us to answer your questions as you obviously surf the Net enough to see the answers for yourself? If what has been written and documented as proof that the Christians are being persecuted today is not enough to convince you then there is not much that anyone can say on the subject to sway you to alter your position on religion and anti-Christian sentiments in society, or throughout the entire universe.
Bob you are obvious more than aware of the seeds of persecution against Christians that is happening today as you seem to be familiar with the Christian writings on the Net. My question then is why would you need any of us to answer your questions as you obviously surf the Net enough to see the answers for yourself? If what has been written and documented as proof that the Christians are being persecuted today is not enough to convince you then there is not much that anyone can say on the subject to sway you to alter your position on religion and anti-Christian sentiments in society, or throughout the entire universe.
