Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[East of Eden]

Because somebody here brought up my beliefs.

Hardly. In post 68, SailingCyclops listed a number of Supreme Court decisions which dealt with religious expression in schools. You, in a remarkable display of naked contempt for any argument which poses difficulties for your theocratic leanings

LOL, I guess y ou have similar contempt for any argument which poses difficulties for your atheistic leanings, huh? Even to the point of grossly distorting the attitudes of the Founders and buying hook line and sinker ACLU type revisionism.

SC pointed out that, however you feel about them, they represent the state of constitutional law.

And so did Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson at one time.

That's when you said you wouldn't "obey any law that forces me to violate my religious beliefs" in post 72.

Not in reference to the school decision (I'm 53 for pete's sake) or did you just make that up?

Yes, I've had lots of college courses. I even remember an openly socialist sociology professor sermonizing about the government's role in job creation. I remember him because it was so unlike the rest of my professors who didn't sermonize.

So only one is OK? How about if we have only one teacher being an evangelist, is that OK?

So we should make sure that they've got real differences upon which to discriminate?

Pathetic, the Founders would have laughted at that argument, I suspect.

It's like you don't even know that there's all this America below the Mason-Dixon line.

So why deny them what they want to do?

I know. And you're upset about losing the privilege you've had for decades.

Justs pushing back against militant secularism. This whole issue never impacted me, having gone to a private Christian school, so that kind of blows your argument.

Well, yes. It's unconstitutional for you to have your religion promoted above all others.

Thanks to a stupid court decision. As dissenting justice Potter Stewart said, "It led not to true neutrality with respect to religion, but to the establishment of a religion of secularism." I suppose the silver lining is it has fueled the private school and home school movements.

Oh, I'll get around to it eventually.

In the meantime, please retract your ad hominem.

[McCulloch]

Yet it [the Lord's Prayer] is a Christian prayer. It excludes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahá'í and Wiccans?

Funny I never hear those groups complaining, only atheists.

That makes it right? Congress shall pass no law to promote or prohibit religion, but only if someone other than the atheists complain. Right?

It harms me not, but that is not the point.

I think it is the point.

The fact that it does me no harm, means that I am unwilling to expend a whole lot of energy pressing the issue or asserting my rights. Congress shall pass no law to promote or prohibit religion, unless no one is harmed.

It is my position that stopping school prayer is prohibiting religion, which you said is not allowed.

I have never said that prayer should be prohibited from schools. All students and staff in all schools should be allowed to pray as their own conscience dictates. However, a publicly funded school, as an arm of a secular government should not either prohibit nor promote the practice of religion, including prayer.

I see it more as a post-Christian society. Christianity was an important step towards where we are now, but many of the central ideas of Christianity have been long abandoned: The Divine Right of Kings;

Where did Jesus teach this?

Jesus made a passing reference to the government's right to tax. Paul explicitly taught that Kings were established by God (Romans 13).

Demons Cause disease;

They can, see Job.

We should debate that in the Science forum.

Flat Earth;

Isaiah says, 'The Lord sits upon the circle of the earth'. Again, where did Jesus teach a flat earth?

Isaiah said circle not sphere or ball. The gospel writers apparently thought that if you had a mountain high enough, you could view all of the kingdoms of the earth. That only works with a flat earth model.

Laws against Blasphemy and Heresy;

Those laws were contrary to Christianity, not because of them. Jesus compelled nobody, but simply sadly walked away when He was rejected. He said specifically to allow God to judge at the Last Judgement, because we don't know who is who.

Too bad that so many of his followers over many centuries did not get that message. Until the US, established Christian Religions were the norm in the West.

Laws against homosexuality;

Hardly only a Christian thing, for 5,000 years of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women.

But the opposition to gay marriage is based solely on religion. In a Christian majority country, that means the Christian religion.

Acceptance of Slavery;

Nonsense, the movement to end the slave trade and much of the abolitionist movement was by Christians such as William Wilberforce, not secular humanists. It was the godless who opposed him. Lord Melbourne was outraged that Wilberforce imposed his Christian values about slavery and human equality on British society. He said, "Things have come to a pretty pass, when one should permit one's religion to invade public life."

Are you aware on an anti-slavery movement outside the Christian West?

Slavery was an established part of Christian western society until the abolitionists took up the cause in the late 1700's. If slavery was anathema to Christianity, then why did it take so long for them to figure it out? There were Christians on both sides of the slave debate on both sides of the Atlantic. The Christian theologian, Thomas Aquinas accepted slavery as part of a proper social system. Questions about the legitimacy of slavery first started to come to light with the Enlightenment (a movement away from Christian theology) and the Quakers (a non-traditional non-conformist Christian sect).

Frederick Augustus Ross, (December 25, 1796 - April 13, 1883) was the pastor of the 1st Presbyterian church in Huntsville, Alabama, until 1875. He published a book entitled "Slavery as ordained of God" (Philadelphia, 1857). http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8slav10h.htm

In 1835, Albert T. Bledsoe became an Episcopal minister and became an assistant to Bishop Smith of Kentucky. He was after a theological disagreement with the Episcopalians, ordained a Methodist minister in 1871. He was writer of Christian doctrinal material. He wrote Examination of Edwards on the Will (1845). In 1856, he published An Essay on Liberty and Slavery where he defends the Christian and Biblical justifications for slavery.

The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, on the premise that the Bible sanctions slavery and that it is acceptable for Christians to own slaves. They believed slavery was a human institution which Baptist teaching could make less harsh. Many of the their preachers, including the Rev. Basil Manly, Sr., president of the University of Alabama, owned slaves. It was not until June 1995, that the Southern Baptist Convention voted to adopt a resolution apologizing for its past defense of slavery.

Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists in the Southern US (and the Confederacy), all Bible believing Christians, could not see what seems obvious to East of Eden. That slavery is clearly and unequivocally an unchristian practice. Too bad the writers of the New Testament could not have written with a bit more clarity!

Taxation without Representation;

Again, where does Christianity mandate that?

When Jesus taught about taxation, did he not say to render unto Caesar what is his? He did not tell his disciples that they should have representation as a condition for taxation. Thus, it seems that Jesus himself taught taxation without representation.

In the 1760s Americans were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen, which rights went back to the Magna Carta.

Yes, taxation without representation did go against the Magna Carta. But not the Bible or Christian theonomy .

[East of Eden]

[PhiloKGB]

Nobody is talking about that, I'm talking about the right to collective prayer for school districts who want to being taken away.

Conveniently enough, the right to collective prayer hasn't been removed. The only impermissible sort of prayer is the kind where some part of the school day is officially set aside for prayer alone.

[PhiloKGB]

LOL, I guess y ou have similar contempt for any argument which poses difficulties for your atheistic leanings, huh? Even to the point of grossly distorting the attitudes of the Founders and buying hook line and sinker ACLU type revisionism.

"I know you are but what am I." This is the best rebuttal you can come up with? A tu quoque fallacy?

SC pointed out that, however you feel about them, they represent the state of constitutional law.

And so did Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson at one time.

And those cases have obvious flaws that the ones listed by SailingCyclops do not. Unless, of course, you'd care to point out how they're flawed in ways similar to Dred Scott, rather than simply waving your hands and shouting "activist judges!"

That's when you said you wouldn't "obey any law that forces me to violate my religious beliefs" in post 72.

Not in reference to the school decision (I'm 53 for pete's sake) or did you just make that up?

For Pete's sake, I noted the specific posts in which the exchange takes place. You appear to have very little shame.

Yes, I've had lots of college courses. I even remember an openly socialist sociology professor sermonizing about the government's role in job creation. I remember him because it was so unlike the rest of my professors who didn't sermonize.

So only one is OK? How about if we have only one teacher being an evangelist, is that OK?

Sure. I remember a few that came close.

Honestly, I have no idea what good you think pursuing this particular argument can do. Until we clone Walter Cronkite, the folks manning the classrooms will be flawed humans. What's more, college students are adults; it's expected, encouraged even, that they will be confronted with ideas that challenge their own. It's not a bad thing that professors are not all script-reading automatons.

So we should make sure that they've got real differences upon which to discriminate?

Pathetic, the Founders would have laughted at that argument, I suspect.

I'm not surprised. You've entered this debate with the bizarre assumptions that 1) the Founders would agree with everything you're saying; and 2) what the Founders would have found funny is of anything but passing interest to modern legal thought.

It's like you don't even know that there's all this America below the Mason-Dixon line.

So why deny them what they want to do?

You mean like hang Obama for [strike]being black[/strike] treason? Because I live in rural West Virginia, and I guarantee you there are folks here who want to do that.

In all seriousness, it's because when you write "they," what you really mean are the 75% or so who broadly share your privilege. If non-Christians object, hey, too bad, you're the majority. Besides, what better way to evangelize than to force a captive audience to listen to your sermonizing?

Justs pushing back against militant secularism.

Poor thing. You must be just horrified that people who don't share your ideology are trying to subvert your privilege using arguments and legal channels!

Also, "militant secularism"? Really? I'll just leave this here:

This whole issue never impacted me, having gone to a private Christian school, so that kind of blows your argument.

It really doesn't.

Well, yes. It's unconstitutional for you to have your religion promoted above all others.

Thanks to a stupid court decision. As dissenting justice Potter Stewart said, "It led not to true neutrality with respect to religion, but to the establishment of a religion of secularism."

Stewart fell into that particularly icky trap of assuming that the absence of X entails the presence of Y. It's right out of the creationist playbook: If it couldn't have happened by evolution, it must have been created by God, therefore Jesus, therefore the Bible is true, AMEN.

Needless (I hope) to say, the lack of promotion of a religion does not mean that a competing philosophy is promoted thereby.

I suppose the silver lining is it has fueled the private school and home school movements.

We'll see if that's enough to counter the steady movement of younger generations out of the church.

In the meantime, please retract your ad hominem.

Oh, I wouldn't think of it. WorldNet Daily is a worthless rag regardless of my feelings toward that particular article.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Funny I never hear those groups complaining, only atheists...

I can't let this one pass without comment. My wife was a Wiccan Witch and later a Theosophist. She often complained, but only after having suffered a physical attack by three fundamentalist Christian women. She used a table lamp to defend herself and very severely "enlightened" one of them with it.

P.S. The women called the police after the altercation, but the police lost interest after hearing their accusation that my wife was an "evil witch."

[McCulloch]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 123:

...
And Paul disobeyed Caesar when Caesar took God's rightful place.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

[East of Eden]

Nobody is talking about that, I'm talking about the right to collective prayer for school districts who want to being taken away.

Conveniently enough, the right to collective prayer hasn't been removed. The only impermissible sort of prayer is the kind where some part of the school day is officially set aside for prayer alone.

You mean like Congress does, including the first Congress who wrote the 1A?

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

Funny I never hear those groups complaining, only atheists...

I can't let this one pass without comment. My wife was a Wiccan Witch and later a Theosophist. She often complained, but only after having suffered a physical attack by three fundamentalist Christian women. She used a table lamp to defend herself and very severely "enlightened" one of them with it.

P.S. The women called the police after the altercation, but the police lost interest after hearing their accusation that my wife was an "evil witch."

Your wife needs a concealed carry permit.