|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ||||||||||||||||
Date: 4/5/2004 12:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
Under God is not Religion, in this context, but agianst Communism. |
Date: 4/5/2004 12:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Which all atheists were assumed to be communists. Demonised for their beliefs not being those that were in line with the judeo-christian God.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
The president said it himself, that he wanted all schoolchildren to pledge themselves to god, and he would use the law to do it. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
The cotext was working under the assumption that atheists were evil, and the enemy of the United States by deffinition. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
You are actually goint to try and say "the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." holds NO religious conotation? |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
What conotation does "God" hold, if not that of religion? |
Date: 4/5/2004 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 58334
Because the US was founded under Christianity. Besides, God is a religous figure and not all believe in him.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:44:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
This is also the period where "In God we Trust" replaced the national motto that had stood for over 150 years. Done again, to emphasize the monotheistic beliefs involved with the Judeo-Christian God in the United States as being better, more respectable, and more trustworthy citizens. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
The US was NOT founded under Christianity. It was founded under people. People of different religions, and beliefs. If we were founded as such a christian nation, why is god not mentioned in the constitution, as it was written by the founding fathers? That is an entierly different debate, considering these changes were made just 50 years ago, 150 AFTER the founding of our nation. So you honestly believe that legislation put forth to demean the beliefs of those who are not christia, and demonise them is an apporpriate thing for us to stand by, and support? |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
" Besides, God is a religous figure and not all believe in him." Exaclty, so why should by children be compelled by the government to pledge their alegience to him? |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 12:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
That was supposed to read "my children" |
Date: 4/5/2004 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 57579
The us wasnt founded under christianity  |
Date: 4/5/2004 2:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 36901
Nimiwae is right! Patrick Henry, the patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". So, yeah, The US was founded under Christianity.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 2:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Patrick Henry founded the United states all alone... I missed that in my history book. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 2:17:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
If you wanna swap quotes we can do that: Thomas Jefferson: I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Jefferson again: Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus. John Adams: Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? Also Adams: The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. James Madison: What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy. Also Maddison: Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. I can go on if you like. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 2:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Quotes that have been deamed either false or, cannot be substatiated: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! -- Patrick Henry (questionable) It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. -- George Washington (questionable) 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. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. -- Holy Trinity v. U.S. [Supreme Court] (false) We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God. -- James Madison (false) Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. -- Benjamin Franklin (questionable) The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer. -- Noah Webster (questionable) There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet. -- Noah Webster (questionable) The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion. -- Abe Lincoln (questionable) The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. -- Abe Lincoln (questionable) A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader. -- Samuel Adams (questionable) [this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002] I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. -- Thomas Jefferson (questionable) America is great because she is good. and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. -- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book; perhaps in other more obscure writings; questionable) |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 2:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." If you would like me to continue... just let me know... |
Date: 4/5/2004 3:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Phydeux, it appears you did your homework on this one. No arguement from me. It should be fun once the night shift comes on though.  |
Date: 4/5/2004 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 62184
I think it is as it's said and what was mentioned before. Under God, meaning that he's watching over us. What we do is under God's supervision. We are among our own territory while God is among his own. And as what was mentioned previously, the U.S was founded under Christianity. In my opinion, this is a topic on one's own personal beliefs.. and all the information in history books couldn't answer the question. I do believe that it has some to do with religion, but not all. This is only my opinion though.  |
Date: 4/5/2004 4:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
To me, the real question is do those words "Under God" constitute a state sponsered religion? I don't think that there is a guarentee in the constitution that no one will ever mention "God" in a public setting. In our state, the pledge is not manditory. I really think that this is a waste of the Supreme courts time.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 5:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
The idea that the US was founded as a Christian nation is etirely unfounded, and just plain wrong. The fact is it does come down to personal beliefs, and that apparently the personal beliefs of Christians are held in higher regard than others. To me, that constitutes sponsoring a religion. Is the pledge mandatory? No, it isn't. Still, should a person be disqualified form pledging their allegience along with everyone else because they don't believe in the God of the Christian faith? Are they less important than the christian citizen? And there is a LARGE difference between somone MENTIONING God, and the government writing into law that in order to recite the pledge in the correct fassion you must also pledge yourself to a God that is not of your faith. A very large difference. |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 6:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 62618
Why can't the people opposed to the "under God" phrase just replace it with a similar word or phrase in rhyme and meter? Like pseudopod. Or Shot your wad. Or guy named Todd? Or fast hot rod? (runs out of debate, laughing maniacally.) Katlillie  |
Date: 4/5/2004 6:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 15319
Nimi you got OWNED by Phydeux, plain and simple.  |
Date: 4/5/2004 7:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Its not about religion, its about God.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 7:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
If you look into the bible you wont find the word religion,in the old testament and very few times will you find it in the new testament. Then certainly it is not used in a postive way. Dictionary:::Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective AS YOU can see by this religion is basically a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs or practices. So when it says in GOD we trust, does not mean just the christian God, it can mean any God. It has nothing to do about a religouse denomination. |
Date: 4/5/2004 9:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 40979
If you think about it ...no one really specifies which GOD we r talking about in the pledge ...it could be any god from any religion ....and why do us christians have to change our money ,our pledge and crap ? Why cant we pray in school any more or talk about god ?? Why do we need to PLEASE everyone else ...my thought is , if you don't believe in God , fine , your call . Don't say the pledge , don't pray in school and don't worry about it .  |
Date: 4/5/2004 9:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Phydeux, who says those "questionable" quotes are questionable?  |
Date: 4/5/2004 9:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 57830
Dead Petals...don't say the pledge just because you don't believe in God!? ha, NO! That's stupid, the pledge isn't about God. It's simple, say the pledge like i've heard it used to be, without the line "under God". Thats what i do, works just fine. *hmm...maybe i read your reply wrong and you really weren't saying not to say the pledge if you don't believe in God, but thats the way i took it.  |
|
Date: 4/5/2004 10:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Right on deadPetals, Papa, all quotes are questionable when they dont agree with someones belief, LOL. OR arugments. Sandydunes. The pledge says, one nation under God and as its been pointed out there are many GODS, the satanist *or some of them* believe that satan is their God,some budda as God and so on and so forth. I really dont understand why one would not want to say one nation under God. Choose your God and say the pledge. I choose the christian God, others will choose other Gods, and then for those with no God they could say, "one nation under no God" so simple. And I agree with dead petals, if one doesnt believe, dont say it, but leave the other 90 percent of us alone that DO want to say it. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 6:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
Which is my point, FB. The Founding Fathers were, with 3 exceptions (Jefferson, a Christian Unitarian; Franklin, a deist that a number of biographers think may have converted before his death; and Paine, who later regretted writing his book "The Age of Reason"), overwhelmingly Christian, although like most intellectuals they were disgusted with the excesses of organized, state-sponsored religion in Europe. Many Atheists simply cannot distinguish between commentary about the actions of the Churches in England and a denial of Christ. |
Date: 4/6/2004 9:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 47166
Firstborn, just a quick fact check- no one believes in Buddha as a "god." Buddhism only has "deities" because it's easier for people to visualize the abstract concepts that make up that particular pseudo-religious philosophy if they do. That's all, bye. :)  |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 11:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Excuse the typos, I was rushing with a kid in my lap. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 11:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Katlillie, and why could black people just use their own water fountains. It wasn't like they couldn't get a drink, they just couldn't do it as equals. FB, the constitution has nothing to do with denomination, denomination doesn't even enter into it. You do not have to sponsor a specific denomination to sponsor religion. And it ESSPECIALLY does not rely on the bible's usage of the word religion. Our language is not defined by the bible, nor are our laws, so that ESSPECIALLY has nothing to do with anything. God is a product of religion, without exception. God is a religious concept. And no, it does not represent all religions, no matter how much you tout it, and are corrected on it, as many religions are not mono-theistic, and find it sinfull to refer to god in a singular. It also does not represent those of no faith as atheists and agnostics, or are they not really citizens as George Bush said? Who gives a crap about them right? Dead petals, YOU money? YOUR pledge? I thought these things belonged to us all. THAT is the attitude I was talking about before. And why change them? 50 years ago when these things were added, people seemed to have no problem changing them. Or is it ok to change things, but only when it is in your favor, and to hell with everyone else? David Barton, the man who popularised these quotes is the one who later admitted that these quotes were false, or at best highly questionable when historians began showing him their research into the validity of those quotes. Straight from the horses mouth. And firstborn, you might want to lay off on the blind statements there. I dont just make this stuff up. Also, in the Buda is not a God, he was a prophet, you might also wanna stick to subject matter you have ANY knowledge of. So firstborn, we should have a national pledge that excludes 10-20% of Americans, because of communist paranoya? Just because you WANT to say it? Well, if you want to butcher the national pledge for the sake of sying God one more time in a day go ahead, but why should I be forced to do it if I want to say the pledge based on resons of personal beliefs, and something that I hold very close, my personal faith? Taking out under God (which was an added revision in the first place is not the denial of christ. It is the acknowledgement that Chistians are not held in any higher regard in this supposed nation of equality. Where the religious are not held above the non religious, because both systems of beliefe deserve the same amount of respect. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 12:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
Last Verse of "My Country Tis of Thee"..... <<<<Our father's God to, Thee, Author of liberty, To Thee we sing. Long may our land be bright With freedom's holy light; Protect us by thy might, Great God, our king.>>>> Would a non christian nation uphold such a song, if it were not thankfull to the Lord God Our King?  |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 12:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
How does the national anthem proclaim this to be a nation founded on christianity? |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 12:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
OOPS! LOL! I heard second hand the national anthem was mentioned!!! I didnt read the post.I Appologise! |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 12:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
That was my mistake. And I appologise. SOmeone had sent me a message about the national anthem in a post, and I read it wrong, it was about something TOTALLY different. My mistake. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 12:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Still all we have to do is change the song though.... hehehe... How does my country tis of thee prove this to be a nation founded on christianity? |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Considering this was a song written by a babtist minister, and used primarily as a church hymn, it is no big leap to see why it would contain such verses. It is no more proof that this was founded as a christian nation that God Bless America does. It only shows that these songs were written by christians, as many songs have been, and many others written by non christians. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d dy of October, A.D. 1789. (signed) G. Washington |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question: "I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point." To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows: "Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835. "Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant. ... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully. "Your humble servant, "WILLIAM WHITE." (Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197). In a letter to Rev. B.C.C. Parker of Massachusetts, dated Nov. 28, 1832, in answer to some inquiries respecting Washington's religion, Bishop White says: "His behavior [in church] was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude. ... Although I was often in company with this great man, and had the honor of dining often at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion. ... Within a few days of his leaving the presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory" ("Memoir of Bishop White," pp. 189-191; Sparks' "Life of Washington," Vol. ii., p. 359). The Rev. Parker, to whom Bishop White's letter is addressed, was, it seems, anxious to obtain some evidence that Washington was a believer in Christianity, and, not satisfied with the bishop's answer, begged him, it would appear, to tax his mind for some fact that would tend to show that Washington was a believer. In a letter dated Dec. 21, 1832, the bishop writes as follows: "I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character" ("Memoir of Bishop White," p. 193) Dr. Wilson's sermon was published in the Albany Daily Advertiser in 1831, and attracted the attention of Robert Dale Owen, then a young man, who called to see its author in regard to his statement concerning Washington's belief. The result of his visit is given in a letter to Amos Gilbert. The letter is dated Albany, November 13, 1831., and was published in New York a fortnight later. He says: "I called last evening on Dr. Wilson, as I told you I should, and I have seldom derived more pleasure from a short interview with anyone. Unless my discernment of character has been rievously at fault, I met an honest man and sincere Christian. But you shall have the particulars. A gentleman of this city accompanied me to the Doctor's residence. We were very courteously received. I found him a tall, commanding figure, with a countenance of much benevolence, and a brow indicative of deep thought, apparently approaching fifty years of age. I opened the interview by stating that though personally a stranger to him, I had taken the liberty of calling in consequence of having perused an interesting sermon of his, which had been reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city, and regarding which, as he probably knew, a variety of opinions prevailed. In a discussion, in which I had taken a part, some of the facts as there reported had been questioned; and I wished to know from him whether the reporter had fairly given his words or not. ... I then read to him from a copy of the Daily Advertiser the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning, 'Washington was a man,' etc., and ending, 'absented himself altogether from the church.' 'I indorse,' said Dr. Wilson, with emphasis, 'every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the public. Dr. Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression was -- for I well remember the very words -- 'Sir, Washington was a Deist.'" In February, 1800, a few weeks after. Washington's death, Jefferson made the following entry in his journal: "Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572). Jefferson further says: "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (Ibid). Simply because a president endorses God as for holidays, and respect, it does not declare that they themselves are true believers. A person's true beliefs are more readilly seen in private corespondences, than in public addresses. It was important to maintain the apperance of a good christian, and remains so today in polotics. I have heard many here on this site declare that Bill Clinton was not a true question, though he made many speaches, and refertences to christianity, and attended church. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
If you want more, I have it here for you. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
" Some years ago I received a letter from Hon. A.B. Bradford of Pennsylvania, relative to Washington's belief. Mr. Bradford was for a long time a prominent clergyman in the Presbyterian church, and was appointed a consul to China by President Lincoln. His statements help to corroborate the statements of Dr. Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Mr. Underwood. He says: "I knew Dr. Wilson personally, and have entertained him at my house, on which occasion he said in my hearing what my relative, the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green of Philadelphia, frequently told me in his study, viz., that during the time that Congress sat in that city the clergy, suspecting from good evidence that Washington was not a believer in the Bible as a revelation from heaven, laid a plan to extort from him a confession, either pro or con, but that the plan failed. Dr. Green was chaplain to Congress during all the time of its sitting in Philadelphia; dined with the President on special invitation nearly every week; was well acquainted with him, and after he had been dead and gone many years, often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist." |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Why is it we can always believe that the "bad guys" used religion as a means to an end, while the "good guys" COULD NEVER do that, it is simply impossible. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:42:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
It is also odd to see that many people on USM will be the first to tell you when someone is not a true christian, but when they need to back up their numbers for statistics, they will take anyone who says they even believe God exists. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Washington was an inclusive, "big tent" political leader seeking support from the large numbers of Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in Virginia, and even more groups on a national level. He did not enhance his standing in some areas by advocating support for a particular theology, and certainly did not identify "wedge issues" based on religious differences. Instead, in late 1775, Washington banned the Protestant celebration of the Pope's Day (a traditional mocking of the Catholic leader) by the Continental Army. He deplored the sectarian strife in Ireland, and wished the debate over Patrick Henry's General Assessment bill would "die an easy death." Washington was not anti-religion. Washington was not uninterested in religion. He was a military commander who struggled to motivate raw troops in the French and Indian War. He recognized that recruiting the militia in the western part of Virginia required accommodating the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Baptists, and Dutch Reformed members in officially-Anglican Virginia. He was aware that religious beliefs were a fundamental part of the lives of his peers and of his soldiers. He knew that a moral basis for the American Revolution and the creation of a new society would motivate Americans to support his initiatives - and he knew that he would receive more support if he avoided discriminating against specific religious beliefs. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:54:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
While Washington had mentioned God many times, a telling sign, is that he never once made a reference to Jesus Christ, as we ALL know "true" Christians are apt to do... again, and again. As Jesus Christ is a cornerstone in the Christian religion, it is hard to believe that such a devout Christian, in such a public standing would not ever make ONE reference to Christ. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 1:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Sorry for all of the replies. Just had a lot to post on that subject. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
definition found for deism. Main Entry: de·ism Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA- Function: noun Usage: often capitalized Date: 1682 : a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe - de·ist /'dE-ist, 'dA-/ noun, often capitalized - de·is·tic /dE-'is-tik, dA-/ adjective - de·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective - de·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb.... So according to the definition of a deist, and your implication, George Washington one of the founding fathers of our Nation and first president, was nothing more than a pure hippocrite. Because in public, he did not deny the interferance of the Creator God. That, (in itself) by all standards should brand him too, as a hippocrite as so does the title that is so commonly given to nearly all christians today. I personaly believe he would wear the title proudly, because the word Hipocrite fits so well with us christians in todays sociaty. You were so concerned that a baptist minister wrote the words of the song "My County Tis of Thee" in the year 1861. Well why is it that you are not concerned with the fact that Francis Bellamy "also" a baptist minister, as being the one who wrote the Original pledge? Will you fight for the baptist minister who wrote the pledge that you so desperatly need to say, and not fight for the baptist minister that wrote the words to a patiotic American song? Best be putting a side saddle on that old fence that you are straddling. Cause in time it is going to become rather painful. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Here, I will even give you a hand, here is an often cited James Maddison quote "Religion is the foundation of government." |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I never argued that his being a minister implied anything negative, I simply said that that would give HIM a reason to write religious verse, and that it says nothing as to the founding of this nation. Side note, other reports show him writing it as early as 1832. I never said this was to make a negative statement, only that this man had no part in the founding of our nation. He wasn't even born at the time of the revolution. I could write a song called "God has nothing to do with America" that would not prove this was NOT a christian nation. And yes, a minister did write the pledge, and intentionally left out any reference to God, so that the pledge COULD apply to all Americans. He was later excommunicated for his socialist beliefs, does that mean the pledge is empty and meaningless, of course not, but it does show intentions. Not all deists believed that specific deffinition. And so what if he was hipocritical? Would that make him less of a patriot? |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
It is my belief that the majority of the people of this great nation as it was being formed was primarily christian and many of the founding fathers themselves were too. Those that were not, but were men of political power knew so as well! You say the name Jesus Christ was never mentioned, by Washington. Yet still others of the founding fathers, were found mentioning and uplifting the name Jesus Christ. If this was not early concidered to be a christian nation, then why on earth do we find the unbelieving men of great political power, giving into the reverence of the name Jesus Christ, at certain times? Was it just to look good, to keep the votes? Why would the votes matter, if the majority were not christians to begin with? |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Show me where I said that the majority of the populace were not Christians? And the subject at hand was George Washington, so that is who I was speaking of. You are the one that chose that subject, I was just sticking with it. And even if people were christians (which I never denied) that does not mean that their intention was to form this country around Christianity, or hold Christianity above all others in the political process. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 57830
"one nation under NO god"? well, if thats not a waste of breath. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 2:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
nobody is asking for a denial of God either ;) |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
Mr. Washington did not use the name "Jesus" but he did call upon and give thanks to the one who is called "Lord". When a christian refers to the person whom is reverenced as Lord, we all know it is Jesus, and not Jehovah of who is being reverenced. |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
YEP Papa. |
Date: 4/6/2004 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
He didn't say to the Judeo-Christian Almighty! He could just as well have said "Creator"! And, if the atheists have a problem with this, I can only say that the atheists will have a problem with any God, any Almighty, any Allah, any Budda, anywhere and anytime. If you wish the world to be dictated by atheists likes and dislikes, well, get ready to change just about everything to satisfy just a few! Love and Light  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Lightworker, so you will honestly say that with all of the in God we trust, and under God stuff, atheists are held in equal regard with the theists? By the way, how many buddhists do you see out there fighting to insure that "under God" remasins in the pledge? In fact, is it the theists as a whole that are demanding it not be removed, or mostly Christians? Everyone seems to want to play this as if it is simply the Atheists whining, and the entire religious community that is fine with the whole idea. I hate to tell you folks, but that just isn't the case. While it is majoritivly the Atheists and agnostics that are calling for the removal, it is pretty much only the Christians that want it to stay. Groups including multiple Hindu groups, Associated Pantheist Groups, Buddhist Temples coalition, miltiple pagan groups, and groups of other faiths have all petitioned to have "under God" removed from the pledge. If they feel that the pledge in it's current for is so fair, then why are they calling for it's removal? What threat does this pose for the American Christian. None, I can honestly think of none, and have yet to see whare any have been stated here. Nor have I seen any of the under God supporters respond to the majority of the quetions I posed. This was as predicted, and precisly why the questions were asked. The fact is the only threat it poses is that if it is removed from the pledge it becomes just one more sign that Christianity is losing it's grip and control over this country. Most people would consider any of the laws put forward out of little more than fear during the McCarthy era are absurd, until it comes to God, and Christianity, then it is a whole other tune. And Haeema, that is all fine and well, but that does not rule out ANY of what I stated in any way shape or form, esspecially the statements of those who KNEW Washington, I am sure far better than you did, as they lived AT LEAST in the same century, and KNEW him. This isn't about Atheists having a problem with deities, as so many try to pint out on a regular basis. Most atheists are completly ambivolent to deities. Seeing as atheists see them as nothing more than imaginary, and mythological, why would they care. Trust me, the majority of atheists don't care if you believe the in the great cosmic fish of Zantar 5. It makes no difference to them. What does matter is when the law is used to hold theists in higher regard, and to place them as more important citizens than the non faithfull. Plain and simple. It isn't that complicated folks. |
Date: 4/7/2004 5:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
God never PUSHED Himself onto anyone. It is up to each individual to either accept or to reject God. It would be a very good thing if the US did recognize God in all of its affairs and to be a God ruled country, but it is not. The way I see it is ..Would God be pleased to have His name placed above a harlot's door? How hypocritical would this be? Is God pleased with any who wears His name and yet they are guilty of some of the world's worst sins? Is God pleased by those who say "I am of God" but they are far from Him? When our money says "In God We Trust" isn't this country guilty of taking God's name in vain and are they not also lying? Christians are to teach the gospel and those who are willing will hear. How is it teaching the gospel by placing In God We Trust on our money? To wear the name of God one is to be holy. Is the US holy? That would be like taking the surname of the husband and then go out and commit all sorts of evil acts against him. That would be more of a disgrace than anything else. For the US to claim that it is of God would amount to the same. The best a Christian can do is to live a holy life and to teach their children and others of God. Fighting to keep God's name in our major documents and on our money is so very hypocritical and is disgraceful to God.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 7:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
well ya know, I'm not going to fight to keep it on the money , as the battle is Gods and its not going to change my faith one way or another. It wont stop me from praying, it wont stop me from speaking to others about the Lord Jesus and it wont stop me from making posts on usm. The non believers can do all they want to take God out of the united states, off the buildings, out of schools, off the money, out of the government, but they need to face one fact. GOD Is not going to GO AWAY. I've heard a lot of people on usm say, " WEll your going to be surprised when you find ALL of us in Heaven" I say that would be a pleasant surprise , however it may be them that is surprised. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 8:57:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Again, not one respone to anything I have said. FB, you can make the claims all you want that we are trying to remove God from America if it makes you feel better, but the fact is, that is not what anyone is doing. You have made this claim again and again, and it simply is not true. Why must it be that people are trying to remove God from America when they try to only have the government not recognise Christians as being any higher and more important than anyone else? Why is that "removing God from America". That is a foolish statement in itself. You cannot remove a concept from a people. The only people capable of doing that, are the ones who believe in that concept. You try and paint us as bad people by making these statements, but the fact is, we have done NOTHING to bring you harm, or to try and destroy your religion, for if your religion relies on the aproval and acknowledgment of the federal government, then it cannot be that strong. I have asked MULTIPLE questions, and you refuse to answer them all. Instead you chose to give a sermon, and ignore that anyone else had even spoken. |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
man, i wish i could figure out how the copy and paste functions work.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Hold down the mouse button, drag it over what you want so it is hilighted, and press Ctrl+C. Then go where you wanna put it and press Ctrl+V. |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The Constitution is FULL of "majority rules" designations. If only 10 - 20 % of the U.S. population has a problem with something, well, they just are not the majority. Whine and cry about it all you want, all the time, all day long, and perhaps you'll start building up a higher number in your minority, and maybe even become the majority at some point, but until then, suck it up. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:45:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Oh, very nice Deb. It always comes down to accusing someone of whining and crying instead of actually discussing the point at hand. Keep it up Deb. You make my life so much easier that way. It is easier to call people names, or make fun of them than to actually have a discussion. Wow, it feels almost like being back in grade school. The fact is Deb, that our laws and history are also filled with examples of protecting minorities from the majority. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Who needs facts, and discussion when you can call someone a crybaby, right? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:49:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And again, tho opposition says NOTHING of my statements above, nor answers any of my questions... I wonder why that is? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Selective reading again, huh, Phydeaux? The point is MAJORITY RULES. And what exactly are the minority in protection from in this issue? The white coats coming after them if they just do not SAY ANYTHING in that juncture of the pledge? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:22:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Why should the pledge not apply to ALL AMERICANS Deb. You wanna talk about selective reading, how about you answer ANY of the questions posed in this debate. Majority rules huh? Apparently you have a thing or teo to learn about the law, because I hate to tell you, it isn't that simple, and it does not apply to EVERYTHING in this country. HEck, look at the last presidential election. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And selective reading on my part, what was it I ignored Deb, I will address it right now. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
The last presidential election was decided by a MAJORITY of the Supreme Court Justices, if memory serves me correctly. The pledge DOES APPLY to all Americans. What I think you are saying is that ALL the PLEDGE doesn't apply to every American, and if that is your argument, then, once again, instead of it having to be an "us" against "you" issue, exercise your right not to SAY ALL of the pledge. God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Why should I not be able to say the true national pledge, and why should the government not support a pledge that represents Americans a a whole? ONe that we can ALL say with pride? And this case is going before the supreme court where it will be decided by a majority. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 1:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
"Why should I not be able to say the true national pledge?" you ask. The true national pledge is the one that the nation, as a whole, accepts at this point in time. If you, as an individual, find truth in not saying "under God", than you as an individual are NOT FORCED to say that. I honestly do not see how much simpler it gets than that. And either way the Supreme Court decides, it is not going to FORCE ME to not say "under God" whenever and wheverever I so choose. God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 1:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Exactly, the pledge is as it is nationally recognised by the government, and they recognise a pledge that does not stand for all Americans. No, nobody is going to force you to say the national pledge, but you don't seem to think I deserve to have the pledge represent me, or any of the others who do not have your same beliefs of the supernatural. You think we should have to say our own version and stay out of tyour way, right? We should have the secondhand, unrecognised pledge, while good Christian' folk get to be recognised by the government as having a higher status than all the other silly people. Am I right, or wrong? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Wrong. When I hear "God" for all I know someone could be "saying" gawd or gaude. Someone else's personal beliefs are just that -- personal. If the MAJORITY in this country want to leave the phrase in, I'd have to ask why should we have to kowtow to the likes of a minority and take it out? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Because someone needs to look out for the minority, and I dont see you doing it. |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
I can't believe this post got 77 replies. I'm not even going to read them. Look at the question posed in the title. 'Nough said.  |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 5:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Phydeux, you should know by now that you cannot argue with people who have no new thoughts on ideas. The same old arguements are used every time. You will not recieve answers to your questions because those who answer you do not have an open enough mind to know how to answer them. Rusure, you are right, God never pushed himself on anyone. He doesn't have to. He has the religious right in this country to do that for him. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 10:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I have asked unanswered questions myself. And actually offered up some open-minded alternatives. But the question remains: Just exactly what does the minority need protection FROM in this issue? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 12:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 62184
I recite the pledge, but I don't believe. And I don't think that christians are "better" than any other religion. It's possible to think that, yes, because of the fact that it's more common to hear about a christian than say a jewish person, or something. As I mentioned before, you can't prove anything just by a history book and doing your homework. I don't care if your an expert on history, nobody is a hundred percent certain, they're only opinions, why do you think that everything you read is different? The bottom line is, you're not 100% right on your information, mostly perhaps, but not completely. I'm actually going to change my answer from my first comment to under God is meaning EVERY religion because we all believe in a God, maybe not the same one, but still we all believe in one. It wouldn't be under just Christian, now that I think about it, because it would be discriminating against other religions. We are all under our own God. It doesn't say "Under Christian God" I believe it's the God that you believe in. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 1:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Deb, your open minded idea was that we should recite a secondhand pledge while the one supported by law excludes us, I don't see the open minded idea in that. The minority needs the protection from the government holding the monotheistic community in higher regard than the rest of us, which perpetuates the ideas expressed by Bush, and many right wing groups that tout atheistst, aganostics, pagans, and more as being enemies of the state. They back it up with examples that the government is on their side because of statements like "In God We Trust" and "under God". These ideas born of an age of fear and paranoya only serve to extend those fears and false ideas to modern America, but what do you care, you are in the majority. And where are the unanswered questions, I will be more than happy to address them. Silent, you may wanna brush up on your theology there before you make broad generalised statements as to what all religions believe, because you are deffinatly in the wrong. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Here is your problem, Phydeaux. In this country, not every single individual's preferences can be accomodated by the government. They just can't. So, in order to maintain some semblence of order, we have set in place a majority rules which governs as a WHOLE. Now, as an individual, your MIND is not governed by anyone but yourself. Therefore, if you are not a member of the majority, your mind is free to take what it will from what the majority has passed. Neither the government, nor God Himself, nor I can FORCE you to say "under God", nor by the same token, can anyone FORCE you to believe that we are one nation under God, nor FORCE you to think "God" instead of "gawd" or "gaude" or "Goddess" or "Allah" or "Satan" or anything else when reciting that phrase -- if you feel you must say something at that juncture. In all of your posts and comments I find a recurring theme, which to me, is actually quite sad: You seem to have the NEED for the government to condone your misstatements and half-truths as Freedom of Speech, approve of whom you choose to love as in fighting for gay marriage, sanction your non-belief in God as in this post and numerous others. Honey, I know you have a mind of your own -- why do you insist that the government tell you what you can and cannot do within non-criminal means? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 2:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Deb, you are just being a jerk now. How dare you speak down to me as a child. Yes I do have a mind of my own that does not require that I have an imaginary friend to give me comfort, and explain the big scary world to me in simple black and white terms, and to boost my ego. You dont even seem to grasp a concept unless it is fed to you through the funnel of faith. You have things explained to you time and again, and the less you understand them, somehow, the more you feel above those who stated them. You think because you dont get it, there is nothing to get. Well I hate to tell you sweety, thats not how it works. Now,I will try to use as few syllables as possible for you here. You know how you want to keep "under God" in the plegde, well you see, there are some people out there in the world who are what we call "different'. This means that they dont think like you, and they dont believe in the same things that you do. And we all live in this big place called "AMerica"> See, the idea is that in this"America" no matter who you are, or what you believe in, you are all woth the same, and none of us are better than any other. But right now, it is still just a dream that a lot of people have. So they do what they can to create what we call "Social Change" so that hopefully in the future we can all live in a magical place, where we are all respected for our beliefs just the same. One of the ways we create this social change is through our government. Though they are not all powerfull, they can affect change, and help promote equality. The reason people try and do this is because they really really believe in it, and to just sit there, and keep their mouths shut when they see something being done that they think is wrong, they have to try and fix it, even if they know they will lose. It is called INTEGRITY. Is that better dear, I know you have a mind of your own, why do you insist on letting religion tell you what should be imposed on everyone else who doesn't believe like you do in legal matters? |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 2:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
"misstatements and half-truths" Where. I want to know where i altered the facts. Show them to me. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 2:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
You have now stoped responding to facts all together, history, the law, evidence, and gone straight into questioning my motives, and trying to discredit them instead of the subject at hand. Yeat I am missrepresenting the facts, and just making stuff up, right? |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 6:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
In India, it is believed that cattle are human ancesters re-incarnated back as cattle. Another religion is one of which that has to do with karma. Mabie a person who continues to point out black or white issues constantly, throws off the kind of karma that is predestined to come back as a holstein. Now that is true black and white! |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 6:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
If you do by chance ever need to know for sure, the simple black and white terms, Come back as a Holstein Bull. By the end of that life you will most definently know the terms of what is black and white. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 6:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
Just a bunch of black and white bull. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 7:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
And, like my first comment to this post said, Phydeaux, all of the "different" people who are looking for that "magical" state of government, are, as of this point, in the minority. What else did I say? Whine and cry all you want to about it, until you get a mjority of lawmakers to change what is currently in place, oh, for such social good, suck it up. Me, I'll take my social causes where they do the most good -- directly where help is needed. God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 7:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Thats right Deb, it isn't possible that I help people in other ways. I don't volunteer, I am not an organiser for Opperation Standown, I don't work withen my community, all becase I took all my time and energy to support something I believe in. Right Deb? this is an empty tactic, and sounds a bit self righteous to me. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 7:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Phydeux: "See, the idea is that in this"America" no matter who you are, or what you believe in, you are all woth the same, and none of us are better than any other. But right now, it is still just a dream that a lot of people have. So they do what they can to create what we call "Social Change" so that hopefully in the future we can all live in a magical place, where we are all respected for our beliefs just the same." Deb: "And, like my first comment to this post said, Phydeaux, all of the "different" people who are looking for that "magical" state of government, are, as of this point, in the minority." So you, being part of the majority do not believe in a society where we are all equally respected in our beliefs? |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Get a grip, Phydeaux. I have sat here through this whole post and stated that you are absolutely free to have your own thoughts, think with your own mind, believe what you want. What you are failing to grasp is that I, unlike you, don't need the government telling me what to think, how my mind should work, or what to believe. To take out any reference to God in this country's pledge, anthemn, money, etc., is NOT GOING TO AFFECT MY THOUGHTS, MIND, OR BELIEFS. But the converse appears to be your whole argument. That UNLESS the government takes these references out, you are not FREE to think and believe the way you want to. And I keep asking you, WHY DO YOU NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT THINKING FOR YOU? Do you have any idea of the COST of making all these changes you are advocating? Why in the WORLD would any person who claims to be such a social change advocate not want that kind of money SPENT DIRECTLY where it is needed most? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
No the converse would be that I believe in God because of all of these government sanctioned references, which is obviously untrue. Again, you are simply trying to make me apear weak minded and willed by pointing out things that simply are not true. it is a debating tactic and a weak one at that. And to have the words under God removed from a spoken pledge would be a financial burden on the United States? Hmmm... elaboration. I never said I have a need for the government to tell me what I can and cannot think, and anyone who knows me here or in my real life knows that. What I asked for is a change so that the government is representative of the nation as a WHOLE. Simple. You are simply trying to make me look like something that we all know I am not. You asked "WHY DO YOU NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT THINKING FOR YOU?" And I think I have told you, that question is based on something that is utterly untrue. I cannot tell you WHY I feel the need, when I do not in the first place. You refuse to discuss the topic, and instead insist on condescendingly attempt to make me look like a govenment sheep, which I am sure most of us are quite clear on the fact that I am not. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Now, I believed I have asked you MANY questions... the most recent being this reply... since you obviously did not see it, I shall repeat... Phydeux: "See, the idea is that in this"America" no matter who you are, or what you believe in, you are all woth the same, and none of us are better than any other. But right now, it is still just a dream that a lot of people have. So they do what they can to create what we call "Social Change" so that hopefully in the future we can all live in a magical place, where we are all respected for our beliefs just the same." Deb: "And, like my first comment to this post said, Phydeaux, all of the "different" people who are looking for that "magical" state of government, are, as of this point, in the minority." So you, being part of the majority do not believe in a society where we are all equally respected in our beliefs? |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
You don't respond, you simply condescend. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And you debate it quite often, and defendNOT removing it quite a bit for someone who could care less. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 8:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Dont you have more immportant issues to work with? I mean as you implied deffending such a trivial matter is wasting time and energy when there are other such important things to deal with. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 10:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Why do you Phydeux insist that people that are christian let religion do their thinking for them? That is about as absured as you thinking that deb is a jerk or talking down to you. Apparently as I can see she has tried to make the point to you, that you have made to us in times past. Before you have said, " If they take In God we Trust off the money, you will still be you. It will not effect your faith or your worship or your Integrity." YOU YOURSELF have said these words basically in times past. What deb is trying to say to you, is that having that on the money is not going to change your thinking, effect your non faith in God , or any way you may or may not worship, nor will it effect your integrity in any way, shape or form. So whats the beef? Why spend millions upon billions of dollars to change something so simply that isnt going to effect a person one way or another, isnt going to change the way a dollar is spent, when money like that could be spent better on social improvement. And that is the facts. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 11:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
One, I was not talking about money this time. And yes I did say that. What is your point? What I am talking about is the Government holding people of the Christian faith in higher regard than everyone else. You are acting as if at some time I contadicted that earlier statement. IN fact, I reinforced that previous comment. The fact is there is no need to be condescending. What, now I am wrong for being upset at being spoken to as a child? I didnt hear Deb say she was not being rude. And it is ok for her to make the assumtion that I require the government to think for me, yet, in making the point that it is not a fair annalasis of my views, I am the one that is wrong. FB, you would support Deb if she told me the sky was orange with green polka dots, and I said it was blue wouldn't you. See, what I said was sarcasim, redirecting her assertion, but I am the one in the wrong huh? Where was she responding to any of the facts, and not just attacking my ability for free thought? But I am wrong, and you fully support her right? Uh huh... thats ok. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 11:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
It always becomes about me, and my personality, and drifts away from the actual topic. Why is that? Why does the opposition always stop answering questions, and discussing the facts, and start on me personnaly? MAybe they are saving the actuall information for something else. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
point is, it doesnt matter if its money, if its school, if its the pledge, you think anything to do with God is wrong and it shows on your posts. If you wish to talk about being condensending toward a person on posts, your the king of it. But when someone turns it back on you, you wish to pick up your toys and go home. All the things that you copy and pasted on here about whom said what to whom about being a diest ect ect, blah blah, I could copy and paste stuff even from the government files that would contridict everything you just posted, and by the way in posts gone by I have did that, however, none of us were there, we only have the WORD of those that write about things of past times and their words are about as debateable as this debate, so it all depends on what books, papers ect one chooses to BELIEVE. You say that this county, the government is holding the people of the christian faith higher than everyone else, I dont think that they are. They are holding the morals of the christian faith higher and maybe not YOU but many people dont like *morals* shoved in their faces. But on another note, if the government WERE holding people of the christian faith higher, that to me would only prove one thing and that is, THAT the papers that state that most of our presidents and government *were* or started out as, or based this United states of america on IN GOD we trust, founded on the principals of the Lord Jesus, show the truthfullness where as the few papers that contridict this do not. |
Date: 4/11/2004 5:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Am i the only person who thinks that communism and christianity have alot in common? i mean, in theory they're both about sharing and working together right?  |
|
Date: 4/12/2004 8:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Once again, Phydeaux, all you do is assert you are being held to a less standard of respect than those of the Christian faith. And once again I will assert to you that if the Christian faith is the MAJORITY of this country, then, HELLO!, Christian ideals are going to be more in the forefront. Once again, that comes down to majority rules. Because YOU FEEL less respected doesn't mean there is some big conspiracy to treat Phydeaux less respectfully. And surely, you need to learn more about the law. It is made BY HUMANS. It is interpreted BY HUMANS. It is enforced BY HUMANS. The more humans with the same ideas are going to have the laws going in their way of thinking. THAT DOES NOT RESTRICT ANYBODY ELSE FROM HAVING OTHER THOUGHTS. But it does mean those peoples' thoughts are in the minority. That in no way, shape, or form equates to those minority positions not being respected. It equates into them not being a MAJORITY VIEW, period. And I just have to ask, if you don't feel the government needs to "think" for you, why do you keep arguing that the government doesn't respect you in some way, and are thereby looking for it (the government) to make changes to respect your minority views? Oh, BTW, FB, isn't the sky green with orange polka-dots???? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/12/2004 8:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
OOps, excuse me; I meant to respond to your comment, Dark Phoenix. Yes, Christianity and communism share a lot of ideals. The problem is that when communism becomes Communism, i.e., a political movement, there are STILL human beings in charge and the whole control/power/authority bug hits, making Communism nothing more than any other governmental-think entity. God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/24/2004 6:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
**sigh** Phydeux, The fundies will NEVER learn. Deny, deny, and lie. In this United States, our freedom depends upon our Constitution, which was written and developed by men who were not Christians. They decided that the only way to guarantee religious freedom is to eradicate religion from our government. These great men who wrote and formed our Constitution KNEW VERY WELL , by experience, what it was like under MAJORITY rule by the tyranical Roman Catholic Church. They wanted a lad where ALL could worship as they wish, OR NOT WORSHIP AT ALL!! (freedom FROM religion as well). Many American Christians routinely lie about this aspect of American History. They say this was originally a Christian nation and that we should get back to our Christian roots. NO! America was once a Colony of England, which is a Christian nation with a State Church. In 1776, the colonists started a Revolution for Independence. In 1789, the Colonists won the war, and erected our government upon the authority of "WE, THE PEOPLE" The United States of America, which was founded in 1789, has never been a Christian nation, and nobody, back then, would have thought such. The rude, arrogant, and wrong...."suck it up" people should be the ones made to go to a country where the MAJORITY religion rules (thocracy) and THEN, just maybe......maybe THEY can get a clue as to what that is like. If and until they do that, or IF they can't, shall we say......THEY can "just suck it up".  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.child-connection.com
demo.ahez.com
demo.strictlyfiction.net
demo.thatismypoint.com
demo.teenbookreviews.com
demo.nodpod.com
demo.usmpg.com
demo.ahez.com
demo.ahez.com
demo.angelsfeather.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
