Anti-Religion Group Sues to Block 'In God We Trust' Engraving

mathetes »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Al,
Just reviewed another thread and found where you had replied about TFR ad the restrictions of your blog host. My apologies. There are other questions I've asked; I'll keeping lookig for those answers.

mathetes »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Alockslee,

I have asked you numerous questions over the last 3-4 weeks, scattered over a half-dozen articles. You post, then dash away and ignore any questions people ask in response. So tell me why I should answer you?

Anyway, I will answer this, then I'm going to sleep.

You claim, "Josephus isn't good as a source since those entries are known forgeries and accepted as forgeries by christian historians." Did you forget to back up YOUR assertion with credible references?

You said, "put up the actual writings of Jesus to show he even existed and that the gospels aren't just a fictional account written 50-70 years after some event that not one bit secular proof even mentions their claims and if those events did happen witnessed by thousands someone would have recorded it."

I've already explained the logic as to how we know that Mark and Luke were written pre-62 A.D. Did you forget to back up why you question that date? You can't say it ain't so because you said it ain't so....

Here are a few of the secular (non-Christian) historians who corroborate the fact the Jesus was a real person, a Jewish teacher who was killed by the Jews: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Plinius Secundus, and Thallus. The Jews, opponents of Jesus, recorded his life and death in the Talmud. A Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion also wrote a letter to his son describing three men that were killed by their countrymen but live on in their teachings: Socrates, Pythagoras, and Jesus.

Please don't embarass yourself by ignoring the proofs I've cited. I'll check for your answers sometime tomorrow.

PS: I've asked you what the TFR means on your posts 2-3 times. In words you should recognize (they're yours), "For once just answer the question as it is directed to you not anyone else."

Slacker »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"While your at it answer my blog post and put up the actual writings of Jesus to show he even existed and that the gospels aren't just a fictional account written 50-70 years after some event that not one bit of secular proof even mentions their claims and if those events did happen witnessed by thousands someone would have recorded it. Certainly somewhere someone would have recorded something and since nothing, even the meticulous Roman records fail to list Jesus's crucifixion and Josephus isn't good as a source since those entries are known forgeries and accepted as forgeries by christian historians"

I don't understand how you research, it amazes me, eliminate all the factual evidence and then you can make up the past as you see fit, is that it... First off the Gospels were not written 50-60 years after the fact, they were written at most 30 years. Look it up... Oh wait that would violate your research rules and mess up your blog....

Slacker »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:30 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The problem with removing all forms of religion from the government is in itself a form of religion. The court has ruled that the lack of religion (Atheism) is a form of religion, so the argument to remove is a interesting one...

rolln4him »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Atheist are perhaps the most frustrated group of people on earth. Nowhere in the history of man has their never been success of man's relationship with God. Poor chaps.

Alockslee »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Re-posted after correcting a typo.

mathetes »
Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:59 pm : 0 : 0 Flag

u4,
"Paul never mentions a living Jesus. Most of the mythical Jesus doesn't exist is Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 or four generations after the supposed death."

I don't know where you get this stuff; an atheist web site perhaps? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the whole chapter is Paul's description of Jesus' resurrection and its meaning.

As for the Gospel of Mark, only the most liberal try to put the writing of Mark that late. Since about 50% of Mark shows up in the Gospel of Luke, and Luke wrote his combined works Luke-Acts before 62 AD, Mark must have been written no more than 32 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------
In response: Paul never said he met Jesus he talks about a vision, not a personal face to face meeting.

Notice the after death comment of your own , guess you think one thing and then write something else, since you can't seem to grasp the after death means "not living".

While your at it answer my blog post and put up the actual writings of Jesus to show he even existed and that the gospels aren't just a fictional account written 50-70 years after some event that not one bit of secular proof even mentions their claims and if those events did happen witnessed by thousands someone would have recorded it. Certainly somewhere someone would have recorded something and since nothing, even the meticulous Roman records fail to list Jesus's crucifixion and Josephus isn't good as a source since those entries are known forgeries and accepted as forgeries by christian historians.

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/

Where are the written words of Jesus?
TFR

Alockslee »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

mathetes »
Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:59 pm : 0 : 0 Flag

u4,
"Paul never mentions a living Jesus. Most of the mythical Jesus doesn't exist is Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 or four generations after the supposed death."

I don't know where you get this stuff; an atheist web site perhaps? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the whole chapter is Paul's description of Jesus' resurrection and its meaning.

As for the Gospel of Mark, only the most liberal try to put the writing of Mark that late. Since about 50% of Mark shows up in the Gospel of Luke, and Luke wrote his combined works Luke-Acts before 62 AD, Mark must have been written no more than 32 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------
In response: Paul never said he met Jesus he talks about a vision, not a personal face to face meeting.

Notice the after death comment of your own , guess you think one thing and then write something else, since you can't seem to grasp the after death means "not living".

While your at it answer my blog post and put up the actual writings of Jesus to show he even existed and that the gospels aren't just a fictional account written 50-70 years after some event that not one bit secular proof even mentions their claims and if those events did happen witnessed by thousands someone would have recorded it. Certainly somewhere someone would have recorded something and since nothing, even the meticulous Roman records fail to list Jesus's crucifixion and Josephus isn't good as a source since those entries are known forgeries and accepted as forgeries by christian historians.

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/

Where are the written words of Jesus?
TFR

Alockslee »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Did you know that the words plastered over at the monument are the national motto "and the God we trust statement was added in the 1950's hardly something that is historically accurate as a notional motto since it is a recent invention.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/11084

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m7d16-FFRF-files-lawsuit-to-stop-religious-engravings-in-Capitol-Visitor-Center

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/
Where are the written words of Jesus?
TFR

Alockslee »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul »Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:52 am Alockslee...please see my 11:39 post. It's for you. (I will venture to say you didn't flag it!) Isn't it insulting that someone thinks you aren't up to a fair arguement?

To the flagger: Alocksee is a big boy and can flag for himself....
------------------------------------------------------------
In response: If I knew what you were referring to I might be able to and since I can't quote due to the flagging it would make even that impossible.

Where are the written words of Jesus?

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/

TFR

Daniel Paul »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Alockslee...please see my 11:39 post. It's for you. (I will venture to say you didn't flag it!) Isn't it insulting that someone thinks you aren't up to a fair arguement?

To the flagger: Alocksee is a big boy and can flag for himself....

Daniel Paul »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

" (Had Canada joined us in rebellion, I can only imagine what our history might look like.)"

Now, THERE'S something we can agree on!!! Eh! (Hee, hee)

viking »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

JDblue,
Hi yes the motto went on paper and became official in 1956 but was first on Coins in the early 1800's. The motto is one of historical rather than religious significance and that is why it has not been a problem for the courts to rule on.

wowie »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

And again I'm posting this...(read it fast, I seem to have stepped on someones toes)...LOL, I'm feeling so sorry for the person who has nothing better to do than sit on their butt and flag posts....guess what flagger, I read the flagged ones FIRST!! (LOVE the "show" button!!) So, if you think your flagging is keeping our comments from being read, it might just be backfiring on you :o)

mathetes »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

u4,
"Paul never mentions a living Jesus. Most of the mythical Jesus doesn't exist is Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 or four generations after the supposed death."

I don't know where you get this stuff; an atheist web site perhaps? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the whole chapter is Paul's description of Jesus' resurrection and its meaning.

As for the Gospel of Mark, only the most liberal try to put the writing of Mark that late. Since about 50% of Mark shows up in the Gospel of Luke, and Luke wrote his combined works Luke-Acts before 62 AD, Mark must have been written no more than 32 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

jdblue82 »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

It wasn't until 1956 that "In God We Trust" was adopted the US motto.

E Pluribus Unum was the original motto on the Seal of the United States in 1776. Why? Because it had 13 letters, which matched the number of rebel colonies. (Had Canada joined us in rebellion, I can only imagine what our history might look like.)

On the reverse of the Seal (of 1776) was the motto, "Annuit coeptis" which is officially translated as, "He (God) has favored our undertakings." This motto was inscribed over the giant Eye of Providence that is also commonly seen atop the pyramid on our currency.

The Eye of Providence was commonly viewed at that time as synonymous with ideas of God. However, many of the Founders held rather more universalist ideals about the nature of the Deity than America's Christians today.

As you can see, this subject is hardly clear-cut, but there are some clear indications in our historical record that our nation was made up (even then) of many different religious views. I think then that it is up to us to look to the present and make a determination as to what is most fair.

Should an atheist's tax dollars be used to support a religion he doesn't believe in? Well, that's a trick question actually, as most all religious organizations today are given tax breaks, irregardless of how little our atheist friend would like to give them. But those are private organizations, and there are good social reasons for giving them tax breaks.

The government is not, nor will it ever be, a private organization. As such it has a responsibility to serve and represent all of its people. Would the atheist truly be served and represented through a public declaration of support for religion inscribed into the CVC? Does that declaration do any social good that outweighs the misrepresentation of our country's religious diversity?

If this is a democracy, then the atheist's opinion matters just as much as the Christian's. And if that is the case, I think we ought to lend some credence to our atheist neighbors' concerns before we go and say, "Hah! Too bad! The Christians are a majority, so you're just going to have to deal with it!" That behavior does not bode well for the day when we are in the minority and our atheist neighbor still recalls his mistreatment at our hands.

Daniel Paul »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Yes for nearly 250 years this country has been held back by these superstitions, it is long past time to stop paying tribute to the Sky Ghost. Remove "In God we Trust" from all and take away the tax breaks for your private clubs."

Our church is a corporation. We don't get any more of a break then the United Way. We have various funds to help people and various ministries involved in the community. In truth, our church puts several million dollars each year into the local community in one form or another. These are NOT door to door evangelism but rather feeding the hungry (food banks and 'soup kitchens'), shelters, childrens homes, medical and psycological care, household financial counseling (including budgeting) and the list goes on. The goal of our church is to be known in the community as the "church that shows love to people".

Now...exactly how does Christians promoting the general welfare hold this country back?

Daniel Paul »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Paul never mentions a living Jesus. Most of the mythical Jesus doesn't exist is Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 or four generations after the supposed death."

First, the reason Paul refers to Jesus as the "risen Lord" is because that is exactly who Jesus is. It is the most accurate term for Jesus. Still, Paul starts his letters with "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus". Your statement isn't logical as a person is not a bond-servent to a dead person.

Second, Mark was written about 55-65 A.D. for various reasons.

Now, various people put out the belief that it was written later but there is no logical reason for the statement.

Daniel Paul »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Why don't they have 2 entrance doors...one with "In God We Trust" over it and the other marked "Separation of Church and State". That way everyone can be happy.....

(Tee, Hee)

Daniel Paul »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"5.Please list and give secular supporting evidence to support this allegation"

You do not proceed from a position of logic. Any evidence that supports anything religious is not secular by defintion. Your request is illogical....

u4eeeahhh »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show Before you endorse continuing with the mass delusion of belief in this folklore you should think about the infallible church, your philosophical ancestors who executed men for saying that the earth revolved around the sun. I think we can ALL agree on the relative position of the earth and sun these days. Paul never mentions a living Jesus. Most of the mythical Jesus doesn't exist is Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 or four generations after the supposed death. Yes for nearly 250 years this country has been held back by these superstitions, it is long past time to stop paying tribute to the Sky Ghost. Remove "In God we Trust" from all and take away the tax breaks for your private clubs. Go get a copy of the DVD THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE and Open your eyes and mind a bit. Read Sam Harris if you dare. Or Richard Carrier hide

Acushla »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Supreme Court Judges have deliberately misrepresented what Founding Fathers meant by `Separation of Church and State.` They did not want State Churches like those in Nations of Europe. Now Judges are saying it means anything & everything.

Alockslee »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To the person flagging my posts do you have the guts to announce who you are and tell me what in the following post deserved to be flagged?

To scientist3...
I will address each of your assertion by the number in your Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:13 am Post;
1.The meaning behind the majority was given and understood to be America to be "christian "Nation as the population to be christian, practicing the religion as a regular group, denomination and to base their ideology from the christian perspective. So your claim to the
contrary is baseless.
2.See my post about Barton and then respond. Also recognize the historical facts show approval of the entire Senate AND the understanding of the declaration that America was NOT a christian Nation period.The Senate voted upon the English Article and Approved it period.
3.Washington had many quotes perhaps you could acknowledge his disdain for religion instead of stating the opposite and ignoring the factual truth of history.
4.http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=347 Quakers hanged!!!!
5.Please list and give secular supporting evidence to support this allegation.

BTW your term accusation is incorrectly used and should be changed to allegation or do you disagree?

Thanks looking forward to reading your responses and then fact checking to validate your evidence, hopefully you will resist the urge of revisionism and finally learn to accept true fact based history and give up on revisionist versions that are neither provable factually nor even believable since it is nothing more than the same failed attempt that the fascists tried in Nazi Germany and it won't wash here.
http://alockslee.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-america-christian-nation.html#comments
TFR

Alockslee »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Wowie here is what i found was said with regard to secular humanism:
Here we see the Court washout. The Court says that it will fight to block a move to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more properly profess to have, a belief in some particular kind of religious concept. Atheism is not a "belief in some particular kind of religious concept" as the Framers understood it. It is one thing to "test" a person's belief in the mode of baptism or his membership in a particular denomination. All the Christians who signed the Constitution agreed on equality for all Christian denominations. But the overwhelming majority also agreed that an atheist does not have the requisite religious beliefs to take an oath.  [Back to opinion]

The Court says Maryland was intended to be "securely beyond the reach of oaths . . . ." Certainly Lord Calvert wanted to eliminate laws which discriminated against Christians because of their church affiliation. But is there any evidence that Lord Calvert sought to eliminate all oaths? Did he envision witnesses in court testifying without taking an oath? Did he imagine men assuming political office without an oath of office? The Court is exploiting ambiguity to establish the religion of Secular Humanism.
http://alockslee.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-america-christian-nation.html#comments
TFR

Alockslee »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wowie »Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:27 am
-----------------------------------------------------------
In response: how many times must you be told to to stop inventing the cause of action in a case. In the case below the cause of action was to determine the following issue, the rule of law, it's application and the holding of the court:

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496."

TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/Torcaso.htm

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-america-christian-nation.html#comments

TFR

Alockslee »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show To scientist3... I will address each of your assertion by the number in your Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:13 am Post; 1.The meaning behind the majority was given and understood to be America to be "christian" Nation as the population to be christian, practicing the religion as a regular group, denomination and to base their ideology form the christian perspective. So your claim to the contrary is baseless. 2.See my post about Barton and then respond. Also recognize the historical facts show approval of the entire Senate AND the understanding of the declaration that America was NOT a christian Nation period.The Senate voted upon the English Article and Approved it period. 3.Washington had many quotes perhaps you could acknowledge his disdain for religion instead of stating the opposite and ignoring the factual truth of history. 4.http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=347 Quakers hanged!!!! 5.Please list and give secular supporting evidence to support this allegation. BTW your term accusation is incorrectly used and should be changed to allegation or do you disagree? Thanks looking forward to reading your responses and then fact checking to validate your evidence, hopefully you will resist the urge of revisionism and finally learn to accept true fact based history and give up on revisionist versions that are neither provable factually nor even believable since it is nothing more than the same failed attempt that the fascists tried in Nazi Germany and it won't wash here. http://alockslee.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-america-christian-nation.html#comments TFR hide

scientist3 »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:13 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

To viking,

It appears that you've misunderstood a few things.
1) Every Christian on this site has referred to the USA as being a Christian nation in the sense that it was built on Christian principles. No one has stated or meant that we are a Christian nation as in a theocracy (like the Muslim states) or like the European countries. I didn't finally agree to this 'when pressed'. That was your incorrect assumption.
2) Re: the Treaty of Tripoli (TOT), any fair reading would not just read the words but seek historical context to it also. A text without context is just a pretext. abhodim & the tektonics article have stated the TOT in clarity,. The founding fathers were writing to Muslims who understood that America was "Christian". Since their only understanding of this was the European style of "Christianity", our fathers said that we were in no way like that. The Muslim states made war specifically against "Christian" countries. Why would they mean that, being that hundreds of the original documents specifically stated that we were built on Christianity? See "America's God & Country" & "Original Intent" books for verification of this.
3) Have you read any of the resources that have been mentioned here? If you think George Washington was not a believer, I don't think you've read his personal journals or even what other people (who knew him intimately) have said about him. There is quite a big section in "America's God & Country" book about him. it would be worth your while to read it.
4) wherever did you here that Quakers were hanged? for being Quakers Give resources for this, otherwise its just a baseless accusation.
5) Your statement about 'many' of the founders not being Christian is just wrong. Most of the founders were Christian, a few were not. Again, please provide resources for this statement. Also, check out the book "Original Intent" to see what the religious beliefs of most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were. I think you'll be quite surprised.

wowie »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:27 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Atheists part of a anti-religion group?

A federal court of appeals ruled Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmates rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is the inmates religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said."

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

viking »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:10 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Hi all as a Christian who believes strongly in the separation of church and state (as was directed by Christ when he indicated that we should render unto Cesar what is cesar's and unto god what is god's) I feel no need to defend the "In God We Trust" engraving on money as somehow reflecting Christian roots. On the other hand to remove it from it would deny the historical fact more than 100 years of use of the motto on US currency.
Several posts seem to argue past each other in reference to the Treaty of Tripoli and other documents of the founders and early government of the United States. Any fair reading of the Treaty completely in context must either accept that it means what it says that the country was in any way founded on the Christian religion or alternately as some have posted here that those signing it including several of the "Christian Founders" were perfectly willing to lie about the country and Christianity when it was diplomatically expedient to do so. I believe the former. I also believe that many of the founders were devout Christians as they understood the term in their time (remember many denominations of today such as pentecostal didn't even exist then). Many others were not what they or many (based on criteria stated in posts) on this site would define as Christian (including Washington).
When pressed some on this site have admitted that the united states was indeed not founded as a Christian nation but cling to the phrase that it was founded on Christian principles. I find this remarkable and would ask what specific "Christian principles" these would be. I would appreciate someone showing me the teachings of Christ from the gospels in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or other of the founding documents of the nation.
Now if you were to say that the Colony of Mass was founded as a Christian community I would concur of course under this Christian theocracy they hanged Quakers for their religious beliefs.

Alockslee »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DannyPoo » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:51 pm Those who brought this suit appeal to specious reasoning and lack critical thinking skills. ----------------------------------------------------------- In response: The responses garnered from the wood pulp worshippers certainly display that sentiment quite well. The speciousness exhibited by those whose sole purpose is to simply reiterate the ideology of the fundie and evangelical movement does nothing to demonstrate any thinking beyond the skills to cut and paste and nothing of critical thinking which requires at the very least to be able to separate the reality of the facts from what they have been told is and merely accept it without any effort or work to independently investigate and/or evaluate the facts for themselves and then exercise the ability to make the conscious act of promoting the truth especially when it contradicts and it most always does their ideology. http://alockslee.blogspot.com/READ THE BLOG and LEARN the TRUTH TFR hide

Alockslee »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The part of the Treaty of Tripoli that is in question follows:

"In a late 18th century treaty reached by America with certain Muslim pirates of the African coast, one part of which, Article 11, states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

That was the translation voted upon by the US Senate as read above in its entirety and not as stated by another here (RevShnorrRocks), who once again GOT IT WRONG AS USUAL, and this was taken from the following site:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html to make it VERY easy for those who need to be spoon fed due to you ideology, you now have the full truth of the matter. READ IT AND LEARN HISTORY as it is and not as revisionists want it to be.

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/READ THE BLOG and LEARN the TRUTH
TFR

scientist3 »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:13 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

To Cheisa,

Your comment proves that you know very little about early America. For instance, did you know it was the Christian clergy that STOPPED the Salem witchcraft trials?
People like you are always whining about the 20 needless deaths that Christianity produced in these trials but never seem to mention the monstrosity that secularism has produced in the likes of Stalin, Mao & Hitler? Over 100 million deaths in the 20th Century alone!

A.S.Mathew »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

We have enough of financial problems for disregarding
God in every turn. If we take " in God we trust ",
from the capital visitor's center, next from the currency; then
let us turn all the mega malls into soup kitchens of
long lines. God's wrath is revealed to the world, still
the whole world have failed to read the writing on the
wall. The economic crisis which was started in December
2007 is still lingering, even with all the smart economic
brains are working day and night to solve the problem.
Fight with God in every turn, but God is laughing at us.

abhodim »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:59 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Listen to scientist. The atheist doesn't want us to read the whole document. The quote of Adams no foundation of Christianity is contained in Article 11. It is followed by a salute to the culture, religion and traditions of the "Musselman" (1805 version of Muslim). It is pure diplomatic talk to sooth over Muslim rancor, perhaps to regain POW's (as the crew of the frigate Philadelphia, captured one year prior).
Go figure, profferring a clause tucked away in the back pages of a document that is essentially diplomatic rhetoric, instead of a foundational document that speaks of a rationale of living free in a land that could offer religious freedom, as for example the Mayflower Compact.
It borders on deceit.

Daniel Paul »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Since these people hate the phrase "In God We Trust" so much...they can send me all their money since they must not want to have that in their pockets!!!

Cheisa »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Pleas4help,

Actually, even if the percentage of atheists was higher, we'll never know. In the formative days of America our Christian founders would have burned them as witches or possessed by demons if they denied God in the puritan paradise.

RevShnorrRocks »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:37 pm : 0 : 0 Flag Delete Article: U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed that without the engravings of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance, the Visitor Center would reflect an effort "to scrub references to America's Christian heritage" and to eradicate "the role of Christianity in America." As "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 it seems a stretch to claim that it is a reference to "America's Christian heritage". And since "In God We Trust" did not become the official national motto until 1956 it seems a similar stretch to claim that it is a reference to "America's Christian heritage". The treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." If Rep. King were honest, he would insist that the Treaty of Tripoli be engraved, as it is most assuredly a part of "America's Christian heritage". Ignoring the Treaty of Tripoli is indeed trying to "scrub references to America's Christian heritage". "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." hide

scientist3 »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

To RevShnorrRocks,

You've got the Treaty of Tripoli (TOT) all wrong. Go to www.tektonics.org & look under the letter T, scroll down to TOT. READ the WHOLE article and maybe you'll get educated. Then pick up a copy of "America's God & Country: Encyclopedia of Quotation" by William Federer. America was founded on Christian principles. The TOT was just saying that we're not like Muslim states that were theocratic, where the countries rulers were their religious leaders. We were founded not on the Christian religion but on Christian principles. Our founders, most of whom were Christians, wanted a republic, not a theocracy.

wrhalver »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Slacker
You have commented...
"Given that the congress is elected officials and represent the people, obviously the MAJORITY should rule."

Not so obvious. Is the majority truly in the best interests of the republic.

Please allow me to submit the following example.
The path to God is narrow and few there be that find it.
For many are called but few are chosen.

Doesn't sound like the majority win or rule.

plea4helpcom »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

What's wrong with these people? They were probably 1/10 of 1% when the country was founded...maybe less.

plea4help.com

Homoousia316 »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Flagged as inappropriate. show Good for the FFRF for standing up against the revisionist version of the national motto. hide

Online4Him »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bujo,

I agree with your observations and I should have specifically addressed those who think otherwise...thank you for your insight.

RevShnorrRocks »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show Article: U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed that without the engravings of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance, the Visitor Center would reflect an effort "to scrub references to America's Christian heritage" and to eradicate "the role of Christianity in America." As "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 it seems a stretch to claim that it is a reference to "America's Christian heritage". And since "In God We Trust" did not become the official national motto until 1956 it seems a similar stretch to claim that it is a reference to "America's Christian heritage". The treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." If Rep. King were honest, he would insist that the Treaty of Tripoli be engraved, as it is most assuredly a part of "America's Christian heritage". Ignoring the Treaty of Tripoli is indeed trying to "scrub references to America's Christian heritage". "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." hide

Bujo »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Online4Him, I wouldn't classify everyone who is on "the left" in with these people. I am a democrat and a liberal, but I do believe in God and stand for our nation's history protecting the right for all individuals to worship or not worship the god of their choosing. I think putting "In God We Trust" is fine and just--it IS our motto. However, putting E. Pluribus Unum up as well, just as it is on our coins, is also worthy as it was our de facto motto until the 1960s I think. BUT we have to remember that America is not a Christian nation. We may be a majority Christian nation. We were certainly founded on the ideals of Judeo-Christian tradition, but with that all important Establishment Clause. Remember, elected officals place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. hide

Online4Him »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:19 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Sigh...I see that the left continues to champion any cause that undermines traditional moral values and continues to cast themselves in the role of victims.

DannyPoo »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Hey maybe we should just take out our exacto knife and cut out "Creator", "God", "Supreme Judge" and "Divine Providence" out of the Declaration of Independence too. Afterall, that is displayed in many public buildings and might "offend" someone and maybe make "outsiders" feel excluded from America.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

Those who brought this suit appeal to specious reasoning and lack critical thinking skills.

Jehovahnissi »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The enemy could take everything away from the believer except one thing--- his faith in the One and Only True GOD. FAITH is a gift from HIM. He is the Auther and FInisher of our faith.

1Pe 1:7 so that the proof of your faith, {being} more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Slacker »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:52 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

"Are you serious Slacker? Do you really believe what you said to be true? I STRONGLY suggest you visit a local high school and sign up to take a basic Civics course, you might learn that this is a Republic, NOT a democracy. The Constitution specifically protects the rights of minorities."

Yes I do believe that and it is true, i suggest you research how we determine our congressional leaders it isn't about the minority picking them not is it the minority that picks the amendments or any of the other stuff. It is the majority +50%. So yes it is correct, the people decide such as it was in Califirnia with Prop 8 52% decided what they wanted for their state, it wasn't the 48% that decided as you would wish....

philo777 »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Are you serious Slacker? Do you really believe what you said to be true? I STRONGLY suggest you visit a local high school and sign up to take a basic Civics course, you might learn that this is a Republic, NOT a democracy. The Constitution specifically protects the rights of minorities.

There are perhaps 50 million non-believers, some of them your own children. We have rights, and we are going about claiming them. We have courts specifically for that purpose. Don't like it? Work hard, help win elections, so your folks can appoint judges to the Federal bench. Elections have consequences.

Slacker »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:27 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Given that the congress is elected officials and represent the people, obviously the MAJORITY should rule. The basis for everything this country has ever stood fore was based on majority rules with minority rights. To change that now or to say it never existed is blatently false....

idietolive »

Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:17 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

Why do so little hate so many?

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't place their faith in Yeshua, they will bear their own sins on the day of judgement. Who can bear their own sins? I know I can't, which is why I gave them to Yeshua. I can't cover myself so I must rely on Him.

For it is written- The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Only G-d can cover our sins. Repent and believe in Yeshua for He is the final atonement for sin.