- AnonymousMay 30th, 20074:59 PM5
Related Posts
- I Certainly Hope That Aussie And Lindy...
- I Hope Everyone Had A Wonderful Holiday
- I Hope The New Year Is Good For
- I Hope That Everyone In The Eastern Time
- Hi Everyone, I Hope Your X-Mas Was
- Hope The Roo Slut Chokes On Her Bone
- I Hope All Of Yours On The Roo
- Do You Think This Dress Makes Me Look
- I Hope Lindy Is Not As Neglectful Of
- I Hope That You're Enjoying A...
I Hope This Makes Its Way Around The
THE LAW IS THE LAW!
I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!!
So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against thelaw for the words "under God" to be on our money, then,
so be it.
And if that same government decides that the
"Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a
government installation, then,
so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a
law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that
smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the
American public's best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the " US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as
well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives
to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would
work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshiping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected
officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions"
and begin, once again, to represent the "majority"
of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord,
Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!
These are definitely things I never thought about but
from now on, I will be sure to question those in
government who support these changes.
At the top, it says "I hope this makes its way around
the USA several times over!!!!!"
Let's see that it does.
So, you have established that the true value of religion is;
Holidays off
Sundays off
Mail Delivery
I couldn’t agree more. Welcome to Atheism.
BTW, Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday.
- J
Ok, this post did get me thinking. Aside from the religious holidays which are very non inclusive, there are numerous holidays that exclude many worthy individuals. Here is my take on how I would organize them.
Dump these holidays;
MLK Day
President’s Day (Washington’s Birthday)
Columbus Day
Honoring great people with their own personal holiday is a bit strange. For one, you limit the possible number of great Americans to something less than 365. It seems so arbitrary. I’ll grant you that Washington, Lincoln, and Dr. King were all leaders – but so were FDR and Rosa Parks. I don’t see one set being above the other set. It seems unfair to celebrate the accomplishments of one set but not the other. What is needed is a holiday to salute all great Americans.
First Monday in September – Labor Day. A holiday to celebrate the working man is a concept that is weak as it includes virtually everyone. Shouldn’t a holiday celebrate something special or solemn?Dump it.
November 11th - Veterans day. Now now, before your panties wad up here me out. What about the wives? What about the factory works who make the equipment to supply the troops? My point is there is a lot of cogs on the wheel – Veterans are the only group that makes sacrifices during wartime. Many point out that if it were not for women in WWII picking up the ‘industrial’ slack, the war effort would have been a much harder road. As a veteran myself, I have no problem with making the acknowledgement that a whole lot more people deserve recognition. Once again, a holiday to celebrate all who made a sacrifice is desired.
Fourth Thursday in November – Thanksgiving. I want to dump this holiday but I will replace it with something similar. Celebration of a harvest has a certain appeal but so does a celebration of planting. I believe there is a better way to celebrate ‘cycles of life”
December 25th – Religious Holiday? Retail holiday? This day has become thoroughly polluted and meaningless. Throw it out on principal.
Keep these for all the right reasons.
January 1st – New Years Day. This must remain a holiday in order for most to recover from New Year’s eve celebrations.
Last Monday in May – Memorial Day. Unlike the aforementioned individual holidays, a holiday dedicated to those who defended our country and made the ultimate sacrifice makes sense. In fact, I would slightly expand this holiday to include fallen Police Officers and Fire Fighters.
July 4th – Independence Day. Birthday of the Country? Keep it.
Add these Holidays;
March 14 – PI Day (3/14 [3.14])to celebrate science. Human existence, let alone the success of this Country as a global powered owes a lot to science and all men and woman who expanded human kind’s horizons. Can you imagine the sales at Circuit City and Best Buy for this one. Realistically, this can replace Christmas as the ‘retail holiday’.
Ying to that Yang -
Your Birthday – Spiritual Day. I wanted to acknowledge religion without favoring one over the other. It seems apropos to use ones own birthday to be reflective and honor whatever belief system makes you happy. Perhaps even an option to move it to any day you want. Some might prefer December 25th as an appropriate day for spiritual reflection whilst others may use February 12th. Retail establishments will find it impossible to pollute such a private day. With any luck, it remains personal, special and pure.
I promised a replacement for Thanksgiving and here they are:
March Equinox – varies by a few days each year
June Solstice – varies by a few days each year
September Equinox – varies by a few days each year
December Solstice – varies by a few days each year
Taken together, these four dates represent the four seasons and can be celebrated in many ways. Together they represent the circle of life on this planet. Ideally, these would be family orientated holidays – much as Thanksgiving and Christmas are used for. Small gifts (rather than the Christmas greed) are the order of the day.
It is not lost on me that dumping Veteran’s day may still be a hard concept to accept. It makes sense to honor all who wore the uniform. It also makes sense to honor all who supported the uniform also. While we are at it, don’t police and Fire Fighter’s wear a uniform? Some server our country without a uniform. What do all of these people have in common? A belief in this Country and its principals. Where do we derive most of these ideals? The Constitution of the United States.
September 17th was when the Constitution was completed. Reserve this day to honor all that stepped forward and stated without reservation that this Country’s ideals are worth defending. Obviously this includes everyone from George Washington to Rosa Parks to the Army private and his/her spouse making it through the Iraq conflict.
There you have it – 10 holidays that celebrate ideals.
- J
But getting back to the authors post. It is ashamed that the Ten Commands is being removed from all government buildings. The moment I learned the Federal Government has ordered the Post Office to remove everything that reads "IN GOD WE TRUST" I went out and bought myself a rubber stamp that reads IN GOD WE TRUST and I stamp each and every envelope I mail out, front and back, with that stamp. I wanta see the Federal Government stop me. Of course this was also in an email floating around for people to print it on sent mail so you won't think it was my original idea.
And another thing that I thought eye catching follows:
Tennessee Ten Commandments
Some people in Tennessee have trouble with all those "Shall" and "Shall Nots" in the Ten Commandments. Folks just aren't used to talking in those terms. So, some folks in Middle Tennessee got together and translated the "King James" into "Jackson County" language...no joke...read on.
Ten Commandments posted on the wall at Trails Church in Gainesboro, TN.
(1) Just one God
(2) Honor yer Ma & Pa
(3) No tellin' tales or gossipin'
(4) Git yerself to Sunday meetin'
(5) Put nothin' before God
(6) No foolin' around with another fer's gal
(7) No killin'
(8) Watch yer mouth
(9) Don't take what ain't yer's
(10)Don't be hankerin' for yer buddy's stuff
Now that's kinda plain and simple, don't ya thank? Y'all have a nice day, ya hear?
Good day Jake!
Of course, I would join the many, many people who would also take those days off for religious reasons. Think of all of the people that would take that day off and pull their kids out of school too. All at the same time. Of course, the non-religious would not have the same excuse and would be precluded from doing the same thing by their prospective businesses. But then again, why would they or should they care?
Take for example Christmas. Probably one of the most important religious holidays for Christians … and it is dubbed as being thoroughly polluted and meaningless by our resident secular expert, J. I, personally, find that statement to be overwhelmingly offensive. Now, I know that J would be quick to note that he personally means no offense whenever he says something offensive like that. And I believe that he honestly believes that. Unfortunately, that does not detract from the fact that such a statement is … highly offensive.
One could, and should ask why any of our Christian holidays have become thought of as being thoroughly polluted and meaningless. The answer is rather easy of course. It is, actually, the fault of Christians. Unlike our non-Christian brothers and sisters of faith, who do not share their holidays with outsiders, Christians allowed those holidays to be shared events. Who got to share in those religious events? Non-religious people … people who should never have been allowed to share in those events to begin with. Those holidays have been allowed to be watered down over the years, in order to not offend or exclude. Why? Because those who should never have been allowed to join in to begin with whined, moaned, and complained because they didn’t want to be reminded that it was never their holiday to begin with. So, little by little, bit by bit, religion has been eroded out of these religious holidays. This should never have happened. Those who do not believe or wish to exhibit proper respect for a religious holiday (because of their lack of belief) SHOULD be excluded. Not denigrated … but certainly excluded. And frankly, who cares if they are offended? Personally, I could care less if they take offense to being excluded. It is not their holiday.
Christian holidays should be fully taken back and celebrated only by Christians … much in the same manner as religious holidays of non-Christians … like Hanukkah. I do not suggest that greeting your fellow man by wishing them a “Merry Christmas” … or “Happy Hanukkah” … should stop. Absolutely not!! If anything, THAT should happen more often and sayings such as “Happy Holidays” should end up being said less. If someone who is not of your faith is offended by you wishing them well in such a way …. too bad. It’s YOUR holiday … not theirs. Good manners and common decency should dictate that they simply say “thank you” … maybe even wish you well in the same fashion. I’m not Jewish, but I am always happy when someone wishes me a Happy Hanukkah and I always respond in kind.
Sadly, even our secular holidays have become polluted and meaningless … Veteran’s Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day first and foremost among them. These have all just become another day for a cookout and an excuse to go on a bender. If you find this statement to be offensive … good. It SHOULD be.
How many people really go beyond giving lip service to those holidays? Too many.
How many people REALLY give a damn about our service men and women and show them the proper respect and honor they deserve? Not nearly enough.
How many of our children (oh .. and don’t forget the adults too) REALLY understand the sacrifices that were made to bring independence to this country? Not nearly enough.
Does any of that offend you? Yes? Good!! The truth of it offends me too. I’m veteran. I am related to quite a few veterans. Some made it home … some didn’t … some are still serving proudly. These holidays mean a great deal to me and it never fails to tick me off every time I witness the disingenuous BS lip service that is given to these special days.
I say, get rid of ALL of the national, state and local holidays. You want a holiday? Take a vacation day. Maybe then the day will have some real meaning. And if not … who cares? It will be your vacation day wasted … not mine.
As you surmise, my comment that Christmas has become polluted and meaningless was not an attack. It is an observation based on the culture that surrounds the holiday. To celebrate the birth of jesus with the over the top gusto that this country displays lessens the significance. No such hype surrounds other christian holidays such as easter, good Friday, lent, etc. etc. Nor does such hype surrounds other faith’s meaningful days. Christmas has an identity issue - christian holiday by concept, crass consumerism and over indulgence by practice. I understand your objection but it is what it is – a valid observation.
As far as taking back Christmas as a christian holiday, I’m afraid christians didn’t have it first. They actually hijacked it themselves. Following your logic, the celebration of the birth of jesus should be moved rather than the ‘celebration’.
From Wikipedia
Natalis Solis Invicti
Main article: Sol Invictus
The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian (AD 270-274); and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin.[12] Emperor Elagabalus (218-222) introduced the festival, and it reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian, who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday.[13]
December 25 was also considered to be the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma.[9] It was therefore the day the Sun proved itself to be "unconquered" despite the shortening of daylight hours. (When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, December 25 was approximately the date of the solstice. In modern times, the solstice falls on December 21 or 22.) The Sol Invictus festival has a "strong claim on the responsibility" for the date of Christmas, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[2] Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus.[14] "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born," Cyprian wrote.[2]
- J
I've already heard all of what you posted numerous times before. It is all old news.
The fact remains that Christmas, Dec. 25th, is the day that most (not all) Christians celebrate teh birth of Christ. It is and has been for a very long time, a Christian holiday. I am sure that at one time it was thought that it would be a good thing if this special day was shared with one and all. Hindsight being 20/20, this, apparently, was not a good idea. This day should not have been shared with non-believers, such as yourself. Why? Because it allowed the meaning of the day to become diluted ... which was my point to begin with.
If one were to "follow my logic" one would realize that moving the date will not alter the problem at all. Actually, in order to "follow my logic" one only needs to read what I wrote already.
The practice of encouraging non-Christians to share in Christian holidays should stop completely. End of story.
If a non-Christian would like to share in the holiday, respectfully observing the appropriate traditions, then fine. Beyond that, they should be completely left out of it. They should not be allowed to to have any voice what-so-ever in how any Christian holiday ought to be celebrated. This is only proper.
Christians shouldcome to terms with the fact that they have been (and continue to be) wrong for ever allowing non-Christians to have anything to say about thier religious holiddays. The fact that we permit such intrusions, which become more and more pervasive every year, is just plain wrong.
Christians should not expect respect for thier traditions from the secular population. Those days are long past. Secularists have made it plain what thier intentions are. Those intentions are not in the best interests of Christians ... or anyone else of faith.
No one should have ever been able to change what this country was founded on.
In God We Trust - majority rules.I don't care what anyone says.Whether I believe in God or not, has nothing to do with the original founders intents.
You can call it God, your higher power or whatever you will, but for the government to totally change what this country was founded on for the viewpoint of very few is sickening.Our famous hypocritical government.It's all bullshit, I don't care what anyone says.
Shame on any of you that don't see this for what it really is.
and btw, I posted it.
If you heard the story before an it is old news, your follow up that it is still a christian day boggles the mind. As is typical for you, ignoring facts is the order of the day. What part of the Wikipedia quote did you not understand?Christians did not share the date, they hijacked it. They hijacked it because the Roman Empire was forcing Christianity down everyone’s throat and by overlapping established holiday’s it was thought acceptance would be easier.
If you have some facts to share to dispute Wikipedia, post a link but closing your eyes and tapping the ruby red shoes is not an effective way to make a point.
- J
“In God We Trust” became the national motto in 1956 – mostly to differentiate ourselves from the Communists. Before that it was E Pluribus Unum since 1782.
The country was founded on freedoms and concepts that are contained in the US Constitution. Cynics may point out that it really was a power play from England while others may claim it was for economic reasons. It is interesting to point out that many of the settlers of this country were escaping the Church of England. I’m afraid there is not evidence that the country was founded on concepts of god.
Also, the Democracy is not a majority rules concept. Many times in it’s past, the judicial branch has ruled against the majority in order to uphold rights enumerated in the Constitution.
- J
Deism in America
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
In America, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by Deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Wilson,[29] and James Madison.[30] Although these men were members of traditional Christian denominations (Hugh Williamson was a Presbyterian and the rest were Episcopalians), their political speeches show distinct Deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly Deist. These include Ethan Allen[31] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize Deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American Deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize Deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."
Currently (as of 2007) there is an ongoing controversy in the United States over whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or Deists or something in between.[32] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Richard Hedrick, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, for some of whom the evidence is mixed.[33] However, Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist
Nice try though. . .
- J
It's a fact that since God has left our schools that indeed our children have become out of control.Since this Catholic priest fallout, religion has gotten a bad name.
Although I know you are an atheist, I will most definitely say that faith is a necessary thing for all of mankind to be able to survive.
Yes faith in a higher power - the belief in good and evil.
Could good and evil exist without faith?
- J
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.
Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register Madison, on June 8, moved that "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
Stained glass and lead, from The Liberty Window, Christ Church, Philadelphia, after a painting by Harrison Tompkins Matteson, c. 1848
Courtesy of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia
In response as snippet from
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs, in his sermon already mentioned affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson -- not one had professed a belief in Christianity. From this sermon I quote the following:
"When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian."
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.'
/end snippet
To what degree Washington was a christian is clearly hazy. I could say that since his quote was a public quote, like and good politician, a bit of pandering might shade the conviction. It matters not for at the end of the day the Constitution was ratified with a conspicuous absence of any mention of god. Nor can any of the elements be construed as godly. To claim that this country was founded on Christianity is a stretch if the only proof is some portion of the founding fathers believed in a god.
I see you posted a second response citing Madison. I’ll raise you a Jefferson. To what point are you trying to make? I never said that the founding fathers were devoid of religion, I only point out that not all were christian and the documents that ‘made’ this country show a lack of reference to that particular branch of faith.
- J
To say I have faith in science is not correct. Science is what it is, a way to understand the world around me. It does this by validation and repeatable experiment that is open to peer review and exhaustive retesting. At times it is wrong but it soon corrects itself nicely and though it can not explain everything, what it can explain is astounding. It makes unknowns known. However, as many have pointed out, it can not disprove the existence of god.
What disproves the existence of god is my faith that mystical beings do not exist.
It is the total lack of even the slightest bit of evidence.
It is the improbabilities of the actions taken by a superior deity.Infanticide?Wiping out the entire world except for a small ark? Sacrifice a son to prove love?
It is the written words, allegedly inspired by a supreme being, were contradictions can be found at every turn.
It is hundreds of years of interpretation of the written words that produced some of the most terrible times and yet the deity didn’t seem fit to correct the interpretations of ‘his’ words.
All the while the faithful explaining it away by saying you can’t possible understand what ‘his’ plan is.
Science has little to do with what I believe concerning faith. It has everything to do with the rationale side of my brain rejecting the silliness of it all.
- J
A higher being? Humans worshiped most anything throughout history – the Sun, the Wind, Roman Gods, Greek Gods, a rock (Ayers) – some even prayed to a slice of burnt toast or stain on the door. Even today, multiple religions all claiming ‘their’ god is ‘the’ one exist. The gods of today will not likely exist in 5,000 years just as the gods of past have ceded into history and fable. This is hardly testament to human kind’s intuitive perception that god exists.
Before organized religion were the shamans of the tribe. It seems that for quite some time humans needed something to believe in because so much of the world was a mystery. It was a coping mechanism that in today’s world is as valuable as the appendix but still exploited by organized religion and televangelists.
- J
You just proved that faith has always exisited, to you it might be silliness. I doubt it is or was to those that # in the billions
You are trying to slip one past me. Though I would agree that one man making an opinion on another man’s belief is not conclusive proof, neither is one utterance made in public setting. I do not see where you can state it is clearly evident – especially considering we have not touched on many of the other founding fathers. At best Washington is an unknown while Madison has been often quoted as being against “ecclesiastical establishments”. Jefferson had a major issue with religion. Additionally, there is reasonable documentation that Deism was a very strong belief system in its day and influenced many signers.
Through it all is a written document that you wish to dismiss as paper but never the less represents one of the single greatest pieces of work in human history that does not acknowledge god and in fact only mentions religion twice with both being exclusionary.
I don’t see how you can rationally reject the prima facie evidence that the intent was to not build a nation based on christianity. I am not claiming the time was without god but evidence suggests that god was not a major consideration at the time.
You might find the reading of the Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11) interesting. In part –
"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 tranquillity, 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."
- J
Yes, science does contain theory but above all it is methodology whose core resides with the scientific method.I don’t want to turn this into a science lesson but the Theory of Relativity is composed of two theories – Special and General – both of which have been proven and can be repeatable proven in multiple ways. I would love to engage if you are truly interested but it is a conversation for a different thread.
You miss the point I was making. Indeed, faith did always exist but with multiple gods including plants and rocks. Given that, how important is faith in today’s world? I maintain that faith is the product of the mind’s desire to understand something it cannot comprehend just as ‘flight or fight’ is a result of the mind’s desire to survive a threatening situation. I don't dispute the role of faith, just the application of religion to that role.
- J
I like your opinion on faith. With a few small tweaks, it can easily be germane to an Atheist. “The drive for good and what is right compels my life”. Indeed, much of my complaint with organized religion is a perception that they are not treating my fellow beings in a fair manner. “It is not the written word but the word that is alive inside and allowed to grow.” Yes, morality is from within and is not derived from a book or even a teacher. You do have a more special view than most who blindly shout out dogma and I do appreciate and respect that.
- J
When men stop believing in god, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.
Umberto Eco
I have one more point to make this trip
You are trying to slip one past me. Though I would agree that one man making an opinion on another man’s belief is not conclusive proof, neither is one utterance in a public forum.
a man stating about himself carries more wieght than a man 20 or 30 years later. People have opinions that can be skewed by thier own agenda, I take Washington at his word. I am sure that this was not his only utterance of God in public or in private. we cannot take umberage with the man for we do not know him. ;-)
I went back and actually read Washington’s farewell speech. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm) Curiosity, though the word religion is mentioned several times, there is no indication that it is with respect to christianity.It should be noted that Deism was and still is considered a religion. Thus any linking of Washington to being a deist would further negate any claims that Washington was referencing christianity in his speech.
Here is a collection of quotes by those who knew him. Scroll down past the Washington quotes. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm
- J
However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.
These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."
From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848)
I would submit that you embellish your position. There is no germane evidence that shows the founding fathers followed christian doctrine in their thinking. Most of the research I see heavily favors the concept that they were influenced by Enlightenment ideas [Age of Enlightenment] of which deism played a significant part in their thinking in forming a new government.
We can throw quotes back and forth – here is my Franklin retort to your Franklin quote:
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
Likewise, your citation of B.J Lossing’s thoughts (which <cough> seems to completely ignore several key points) was put into play to refute the body of thoughts I submitted. Indeed we can continue to debate what author did the better research but I suspect we will resolve nothing. At the end of the day, it is the result that matters.
Let’s bring it back to the original raison d'être of this sub thread which was a claim that the United States was founded on “In god we trust” (christian principals). For the sake of argument, suppose the founding fathers were strongly faith centered on christianity. The question would then beg, why isn’t ‘god’ mentioned in such a historic document? The question is rhetorical since the answer is obvious - regardless of whatever private faith they held, the rationale side (some say desist influenced side) choose to leave mention of god (seemingly deliberately) out of the document - even to the extent of ensuring a separation of church and state in Amendment 1 a few years later.
Once can only conclude that the result - by explicit design - was to form a nation that was not created on any stated or endorsed religion.A few short years later, the senate unanimously ratified the Treaty if Tripoli which explicitly stated the language that we are not a christian nation.
Whereas we can endlessly debate the degree by which the founding fathers believed in a supreme being and the degree to which it was a christian god, the product of their efforts in forming the core documents that gave rise to this country are clearly secular in nature.
- J
;-)But to leave out that the country was founded on only a secular belief system is .. well to ignore who the people were. Quakers, Puritans , Deists, reformists.and so on. It is people who govern and as i said before carry out the laws and to say that what they believe does not influence is just not true. Even thediests believed in God to some degree,
One would think that you would be thrilled that my overall stance is that these religious holidays should no longer be federal, state or local holidays … regardless of my reasoning. Obviously, this is not the case.
Normally, I’d say that it saddens me to know this. However, knowing your position and overall intent, I no longer feel that way. Frankly, I really don’t care if you enjoy and/or agree with my position on this. You are an Atheist. Therefore, you should even be involved in these celebrations to begin with. Now, if that still “boggles” your mind … too bad.
“The founding of a nation is found by its people J.”
Founded by leaders who needed to rationalize what a government. They did that and explicitly left religion out of the documents. The argument is not what the founding fathers believed; it is what they instituted that matters. I also renew my ‘exhibit’ of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Look at it another way. Throw together a bunch or religiously pious people together and have them form a government. Do you for one second believe the same type of government would emerge? Suffice to say religion and mention of god would be peppered through out the founding documents. It is the conspicuous absence that is most telling of their intent of the framers. The absence can be attributed to the lack of christian influence vice the influence of other non religious influences. I am not claiming they were not of religion, I only claim that they used rationale thought to create the form of government that is recognized as a secular one.
To be sure the “people” did object to the lack of acknowledgement but never the less, the Constitution is what it is – a recognizable secular work.
- J
If you can consider independent third party factual information irrelevant to your position there is little point in continuing this conversation. Your flat earth position is noted.
- J
You CHOSE to remove yourself from the group.
Your independent third party is not a part of that group either (any of them).
Therefore, nothing any of you have to say is relevant .. or at least that is how it SHOULD be. Any religion that chooses to allow outsiders in, not only to share in but to be able to comment on, their traditions and holidays is asking for trouble. I see no problem with allowing outsiders in to observe and share (respectfully). However, outsiders should not be allowed to have any voice what-so-ever.
Lastly, I shall continue to note that one would think that you would be thrilled that my overall stance is that these religious holidays should no longer be federal, state or local holidays … regardless of my reasoning. The fact that this is NOT the case, and that you seem to be driven for some reason to have some kind of input in how a group celebrates something that you don't even believe in fascinates me.
My position is not a flat earth position (a cute but sadly lacking and vacuous insult). My position, already clearly stated in this debate (and again in the post), is that you, an Atheist, have no business providing any input at all in an area that you have already chosen to disassociate yourself from.
If you consider this to be a “flat earth position” then go ahead. You’d be wrong, but then again, who cares?