House votes on reaffirming our Nation's Motto

[sFe]

Morality is not being good for reward or out of fear of eternal punishment. I cringe every time I hear about the bible and morality. I have a question for the religious; If your God said it was okay now to murder, steal, vandalized, etc. would you? Personally I don't think anyone would change because you wouldn't want these things done to you, no religion necessary.

 

[Daylen]

Morality is not being good for reward or out of fear of eternal punishment. I cringe every time I hear about the bible and morality. I have a question for the religious; If your God said it was okay now to murder, steal, vandalized, etc. would you? Personally I don't think anyone would change because you wouldn't want these things done to you, no religion necessary.

Of course morality is being good for reward! Just not necessarily a reward promised by a religion. We wouldn't have morality if there was no reward for it.

 

[Citizen]

Gee, guys. Would it be possible to "snip" some out when quoting, rather than quoting a mile long post.

I would go so far as to say it is a mark of an experienced net forum member to quote only the material upon which he is really commenting. Sorta like you can tell the real gunnies from the wanna-be's by who practices the Four Rules, especially muzzle control and keeping their finger out of the triggerguard.

For those who are following the conversation closely, it is little problem to scroll back up from the quote to the full post if the reader really wants or needs it.

 

[Daylen]

...
I would go so far as to say it is a mark of an experienced net forum member to quote only the material upon which he is really commenting. ...

Some people will however complain that something is taken out of context in heated arguments and don't like it when I do this.

 

[sFe]

Of course morality is being good for reward! Just not necessarily a reward promised by a religion. We wouldn't have morality if there was no reward for it.

I was talking more of a personal reward, like the one promised by religions, of course humanity benefits from it.

 

[Tawnos]

I still say that this country was founded on Christian principles.

Could you tell me what those principles are and what makes them uniquely "Christian" principles (so much so that they would be referred to as such)?

 

[Tawnos]

Then they declared there would be no prayer in schools.

This is false. What was declared was that it could not be prayer from the platform of the school. If someone wants to privately pray in school, there is nothing preventing such.

I don't believe they would have had the courage or determination to declare independence from England unless they had faith in a higher power.

I posted this link earlier, but I am not sure if you saw it, it outlines why the pervasive myth of a Christian nation is false. One of the most important things to look at is that we were a country that invoked no divine favor in our current Constitution. Many saw that as a terrible shortcoming of the system of government that we now live under. "In the light of these documents, it's easy to see just how unique, unusual, even unprecedented the Constitution is. The United States of America was the first modern republic that was created on the foundation of reason, without seeking blessings from a god, without imploring divine assistance or invoking divine favor. And, as I said, this fact was not overlooked when the Constitution was being debated. Very much to the contrary, the religious right of the founding generation angrily attacked it, warning that ratifying this godless document as-is would spell doom for the nation."

 

[Daylen]

This is false. What was declared was that it could not be prayer from the platform of the school. If someone wants to privately pray in school, there is nothing preventing such.


I posted this link earlier, but I am not sure if you saw it, it outlines why the pervasive myth of a Christian nation is false. One of the most important things to look at is that we were a country that invoked no divine favor in our current Constitution. Many saw that as a terrible shortcoming of the system of government that we now live under. "In the light of these documents, it's easy to see just how unique, unusual, even unprecedented the Constitution is. The United States of America was the first modern republic that was created on the foundation of reason, without seeking blessings from a god, without imploring divine assistance or invoking divine favor. And, as I said, this fact was not overlooked when the Constitution was being debated. Very much to the contrary, the religious right of the founding generation angrily attacked it, warning that ratifying this godless document as-is would spell doom for the nation."

No just recognition of Divine Providence in other founding documents and on the Great Seal of our Republic with the words Annuit Coeptis, meaning roughly He approves.

 

[Tawnos]

No just recognition of Divine Providence in other founding documents and on the Great Seal of our Republic with the words Annuit Coeptis, meaning roughly He approves.

The Eye over [the pyramid] and the motto Annuit Cœptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause.

It REPLACED the explicit god-invoking statement "Deo Favente" (with god favoring). So, uh, perhaps you should pay better attention.

Bonus points, Novus Ordo Seclorum is "a new order of the ages", which is fitting considering how many trends we broke with the Constitution, including the invocation of a divine power.

I like the weasel words "founding documents" because it allows you to point to things that did invoke a divine power, such as the Magna Carta or Declaration. You don't find it amazing that the founding father's document of our modern country, the law under which we presently live, broke from that pattern? Your claim is like someone pointing to my dad and saying that I live in a Christian family because of where I came from, not because of what I believe or act under in the present.

 

[Daylen]

The Eye over [the pyramid] and the motto Annuit Cœptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause.

It REPLACED the explicit god-invoking statement "Deo Favente" (with god favoring). So, uh, perhaps you should pay better attention.

Bonus points, Novus Ordo Seclorum is "a new order of the ages", which is fitting considering how many trends we broke with the Constitution, including the invocation of a divine power.

I like the weasel words "founding documents" because it allows you to point to things that did invoke a divine power, such as the Magna Carta or Declaration. You don't find it amazing that the founding father's document of our modern country, the law under which we presently live, broke from that pattern? Your claim is like someone pointing to my dad and saying that I live in a Christian family because of where I came from, not because of what I believe or act under in the present.

Oh I certainly include the Declaration of Independence what's wrong with the Declaration? It is the first real document of the Republic. I would not include the magna carta, nor other such precursory documents made in Europe.

When did I say this is a Christian nation? I think you misunderstand me and are confusing me with others. Yes I know the founders chose a very subtle reference to divine providence instead of an overt one. In fact I've been arguing that our Republic's motto is not "in god we trust" (the subject of this thread), because (among other reasons) such is more fitting of a church and holds nothing very American.

Novus Ordo Seclorum is fine and good, I prefer Annuit Cœptis, not out of any religious reason (for I have none), but because it has some truth in it beyond religion. But that is would take us very far off topic.

 

[Citizen]

Some people will however complain that something is taken out of context in heated arguments and don't like it when I do this.

Oh, yes. Its a lie. The context is just above in the original post. Of course, you have to be a little honest about how you address what you quoted. But, its a desparation measure by the objector, otherwise.

 

[Tawnos]

Oh I certainly include the Declaration of Independence what's wrong with the Declaration? It is the first real document of the Republic. I would not include the magna carta, nor other such precursory documents made in Europe.

When did I say this is a Christian nation? I think you misunderstand me and are confusing me with others. Yes I know the founders chose a very subtle reference to divine providence instead of an overt one. In fact I've been arguing that our Republic's motto is not "in god we trust" (the subject of this thread), because (among other reasons) such is more fitting of a church and holds nothing very American.

Novus Ordo Seclorum is fine and good, I prefer Annuit Cœptis, not out of any religious reason (for I have none), but because it has some truth in it beyond religion. But that is would take us very far off topic.

The problem is that it's not binding law nor governance of our current country. It was issued by the Second Continental Congress, who formed the Articles of Confederation. We don't refer to those articles as being the governing doctrine of our country. As previously stated, the Constitution broke from the traditions of the documents before it, and that fact did not go unnoticed by the Constitutional contemporaries or even those who followed it. No divine favor was invoked by the Constitution, and the only time gods or religion is mentioned is in the negative.

The fact is, during the anti-communist sentiments of the 50s we abandoned much historical precedent, reducing the first amendement's power by adding "under god" to the pledge, making "in god we trust" part of some declaration of us motto, etc. It's similar to how 9/11 led to many abrogations of the fourth amendment: fear makes people willing to give up those things which should be inviolate.

 

[Daylen]

...
The fact is, during the anti-communist sentiments of the 50s we abandoned much historical precedent, reducing the first amendement's power by adding "under god" to the pledge, making "in god we trust" part of some declaration of us motto, etc. It's similar to how 9/11 led to many abrogations of the fourth amendment: fear makes people willing to give up those things which should be inviolate.

And I'm calling BS and being the stick in the mud trying to keep freedom and history.

I still call BS on the gun control laws for the same reason.

 

[Tawnos]

And I'm calling BS and being the stick in the mud trying to keep freedom and history.

Citation: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

 

[Daylen]

Citation: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I'm not calling BS to history. I know the history of the pledge and the bs with the motto. I'm calling BS on congress' authority and the process it used to do these things. If congress can pass a law to change the motto of all Americans on a whim then it can be changed on a whim to "kill the rich and eat their babies". The half assed way things have been done since FDR is what I'm calling BS to. Saying oh the motto is changed by the way, but not actually changing the Great Seal or money or anything at all except now there is a record of "oh yea our motto is xyz" is BS and should be ignored at best. Its the same sort of BS congress uses to insert federal power anywhere they want.

 

[SovereignAxe]

Thank you for your kind words, SVG. I never meant to start a rucus, just express an opinion! I consider you a friend and a difference of opinion will never change that. I hope all is going well for you also, SVG.

I do not see the pledge of allegiance in the same light as you do. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..... That sentence says it all, as far as I am concerned. Just about everyone here has allegiance to this country and especially to the Constitution. When I went into the Army and took the oath to defend my country, that wasn't just for the time I was in service. For me, I took that oath for the rest of my life.

I agree that their should be no state mandated religion and government should not respect one religion over another. But, IIRC, at the end of the President,s oath of office are the words, "so help me God." You cannot take "God" out of our society, our documents, etc. Those four words alone are enough to make me believe that our Founding Fathers did believe in God and were guided by Christian principles. I am NOT saying anything against any other religion, just expressing what is there. Whatever anyone's beliefs are, I respect that, whether I share that belief or not; I just would appreciate the same respect.

I've always had a problem with this. Say someone gets elected that has no religious affiliation, or at least isn't affiliated with the Christian Bible. What then? Even better, what if I go to court or for whatever reason and have to swear an oath, where they put my hand on the Bible and end what I'm saying with "so help me God?" To me, the Bible is nothing more than an interesting story book with some good and not so good rules to live by. That oath then means very little. I think it would make more sense to swear an oath my peers. My peers are real (to me) and tangible. God (or Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or whatever you want to call Him) is no more real to me than Zeus, Apollo, or Thor.

 

[georg jetson]

The problem is that it's not binding law nor governance of our current country. It was issued by the Second Continental Congress, who formed the Articles of Confederation. We don't refer to those articles as being the governing doctrine of our country. .

I've covered this before... The Articles were replace by the Constitution. Nothing replaced the D of I. It's STILL our first legal document and is STILL valid.

 

[Daylen]

I've always had a problem with this. Say someone gets elected that has no religious affiliation, or at least isn't affiliated with the Christian Bible. What then? Even better, what if I go to court or for whatever reason and have to swear an oath, where they put my hand on the Bible and end what I'm saying with "so help me God?" To me, the Bible is nothing more than an interesting story book with some good and not so good rules to live by. That oath then means very little. I think it would make more sense to swear an oath my peers. My peers are real (to me) and tangible. God (or Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or whatever you want to call Him) is no more real to me than Zeus, Apollo, or Thor.

I've wondered this myself. I've never had to do so, but I'm not sure what one should swear upon if there are no appropriate religious texts. The constitution perhaps, but that seems very silly. Part of the problem is swearing upon something is an innately religiousish act. For those of us who do not believe in Jehovah, Budda, or Al Gore we have nothing really to swear upon in the normal sense. If I was an old man I could swear upon my heirs. Perhaps taking up the Asian view would work and swear upon ones ancestors...

 

[Daylen]

I've covered this before... The Articles were replace by the Constitution. Nothing replaced the D of I. It's STILL our first legal document and is STILL valid.

Then we're still Independent from the King of England?

 

[MilProGuy]

The House of Representatives passed a bi-partisan resolution Tuesday night reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States.

After all is said and done...it is what it is, folks.