One Nation Under God [Archive]

View Full Version : One Nation Under God

plinky

08-29-2006, 09:32

Boogyman

08-29-2006, 10:25

It looks like the damn terrorists achieved more than they could have hoped for.
You got that right.

Terrorists spread fear.

Neo-cons use fear of terrorists to gain power and erode civil rights.

Both disgust me.

freesw

08-29-2006, 11:53

That the Republican party seeks to unite and not divide is the Big Lie of today's political landscape:
http://www.swordscrossed2.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=180
Coulterization of the Republican Party
by: Mike Pridmore
Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 23:00:00 PM MDT
Ender recently suggested that Anne Coulter is just an entertainer who plays to conservative audiences and suggested that she does not have much influence over the party. While I do agree that she does not influence the party per se, I would argue that her form of "entertainment" fits in nicely with the methods of the party establishment. I think that polarization, which is the effect of Coulter's brand of "entertainment," is the stock in trade of the modern Republican Party.

As my first piece of evidence is a quote from Allen Raymond (recently returned from prison after a phone-jamming conviction), who served as chief of staff to a cochairman of the Republican National Committee, supervised Republican contests in mid-Atlantic states for the RNC, and was a top official in publisher Steve Forbes's presidential campaign (link):

[Allen] says he was part of a Republican political culture that emphasizes hardball tactics and polarizing voters.

...the scheme reflects a broader culture in the Republican Party that is focused on dividing voters to win primaries and general elections. He said examples range from some recent efforts to use border-security concerns to foster anger toward immigrants to his own role arranging phone calls designed to polarize primary voters over abortion in a 2002 New Jersey Senate race.
...``A lot of people look at politics and see it as the guy who wins is the guy who unifies the most people," he said. ``I would disagree. I would say the candidate who wins is the candidate who polarizes the right bloc of voters. You always want to polarize somebody."

As my second example of polarization by the Republican party, take a look at what karl Rove said today in an attack on John Kerry and John Murtha (link):

"Like too many Democrats it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, they fall back of that party's old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles," he said.

In this quote, Rove, who is the uber-insider of Republican politics, tries to paint Kerry and Murtha as cowards who run away from a fight. This is a perfect example of attempts to polarize voters by demonizing Democrats.

The tactic of building a liberal strawman that is a misleading caricature is so reminiscent of Coulter that I think she typifies entirety of the party leadership. Rove does it all the time. And the leadership of the Republican Party, with examples given by one of its own, is constantly trying to polarize voters.

That's why I refer to this as the Coulterization of the Republican party. And i think that as long as the party leaders focus on these tactics that they are open to justified criticism from constituents. And I think Barry Goldwater would puke if he saw what they have done with his party.

---------
Things are the way things are by design.

josh

08-29-2006, 18:30

The american people are being played like a fiddle.

JimS

09-01-2006, 15:42

Nothing divides the nation more than politics these days. Conservatives and liberals acting as they`re outright enemies and everyboby seems to have forgotten that they are fellow Americans, after all.
Personally, I`m rather conservative, but I do not entirely subscribe to the neocon`s POV and I don`t automatically hate someone for having a different opininion than myself.

What happened to ONE Nation under God?

It looks like the damn terrorists achieved more than they could have hoped for.

It just makes me sad. http://www.fivepaknh.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

plinky

Unfortunately, the loss of the ONE NATION UNDER GOD concept has little to do with terrorists - this loss was occurring before we were attacked on 9/11. The reason has more to do (in my opinion) with the politically correct movement and the idea that there are no absolute truths - that everyones truths are equal and thus, no one can be wrong. Without absolute truths provided by our Creator - then moral right and wrong simply lies in the hands of the most powerful bully in the neighborhood.

My two cents worth, but I really do not think the Terrorists have done this to us - I think we let it happen long before the direct attacks and we are now begining to see the results.

JimS

IVM

09-06-2006, 03:59

plinky

09-06-2006, 09:25

Well, it was originally just ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, which was fine and dandy with me.

I mean, if you call it ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, then you're discluding all the people of other religions, and I'd hate to think we're falling a few men short of a full boat. :)

IVM, the line "Under God" still comes before "Indivisible"...but that does not really matter in the context of the original post it boils down to the same thing. You`ll probably call me a bigot but I wouldn`t mind if we would fall a few "friends of allah" short of a full boat...

IVM

09-09-2006, 16:29

IVM, the line "Under God" still comes before "Indivisible"...but that does not really matter in the context of the original post it boils down to the same thing. You`ll probably call me a bigot but I wouldn`t mind if we would fall a few "friends of allah" short of a full boat...

Yeah? What about gun toting agnostics who aren't Christian like me?
Or atheists in the military? Hell, what about Hindus in the military?

How about we include everyone first, then begin eliminating them based on factors other than religion. I have muslim friends who were upset the day 9/11 happened, and were happy to see Afghanistan freed from Taliban rule, just as much as I have coworkers who are turban-wearing Sikh Indians, not Muslim, but were discriminated against because dumbasses didn't know the difference between a Sikh Indian and an Arab Muslim.

Why don't we just have one nation, indivisible, like it was before people tried to create a psychological propaganda barrier between us and "Those Godless Commies" in the 40's and 50's by adding "under god"?

plinky

09-10-2006, 11:07

JimS

09-10-2006, 16:00

Yeah? What about gun toting agnostics who aren't Christian like me?
Or atheists in the military? Hell, what about Hindus in the military?

How about we include everyone first, then begin eliminating them based on factors other than religion. I have muslim friends who were upset the day 9/11 happened, and were happy to see Afghanistan freed from Taliban rule, just as much as I have coworkers who are turban-wearing Sikh Indians, not Muslim, but were discriminated against because dumbasses didn't know the difference between a Sikh Indian and an Arab Muslim.

Why don't we just have one nation, indivisible, like it was before people tried to create a psychological propaganda barrier between us and "Those Godless Commies" in the 40's and 50's by adding "under god"?

IVM

Which type of Agnostic are you - it would appear some do not say a god does not exist - simply that a god can not be proved/knowable.

------
Variations

Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. This often stems from the distinction (or lack thereof) between the words "belief" and "knowledge". Some consider them to be the same. (E.g.: "I believe god exists" = "I know god exists" = "I affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'"). Others consider them to be different (E.g.: "I believe god exists" can still mean "I don't know if god exists" or "I cannot affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'").
Data collection services[1][2] often display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack of disputing the existence of deities. Agnostics are listed alongside secular, non-religious, or other such categories.

Other variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

--------

As to "One Nation Under God" - I think one needs to go back to the founding fathers to determine if the U.S. was meant to be this way. The Constitution does not say FREEDOM FROM RELIGION it says FREEDOM OF RELIGION. It also states that the Government will not establish a STATE RELIGION not the so called "Separation of Church and State" that the ACLU touts. Neither of the clauses are unconstitutional if one looks at the Bill of Rights. Perhaps there is an amendment that I am not aware of.

Now, given when the clause was added one can easily state and justify that it was Christian driven (that is the majority afterall). However, the clause does not state "One Nation Under Christ" which was likely done on purpose (i.e., compromise - the way Government is supposed to work). Thus, the clause really leaves no Religion or even Cult out as most all expouse a diety/higher power. Atheism and some forms of Agnostic would not be religions if there is no belief in a diety. Again, the Constitution does not state "FREEDOM FROM RELIGION".

I find it very interesting that in our country - attacking Christian values and institutions is very vogue - try to do this with any other religion, lack of religion, etc. and one is called a bigot. Most interesting is that those that consider themselve the most enlightened (open minded if you will) are the ones to most readily attack and belittle what they do not believe.

Food for thought and I probably said way to much. No personal offense meant - though I am sure this will draw fire - it always seems to.

By the way, as a Christian - I expect the attacks when I expouse Christian beliefs and values - Why? Because the Holy Bible tells me it will be so.

2 Timothy 3:12(KJV)
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

JimS

IVM

09-10-2006, 19:04

I could best be categorized as an agnostic spiritualist, or perhaps between that of an agnostic spiritualist and an ideal agnostic. But that's all left up for philosophical debate. I'd go into it, but that's best saved for another time and another thread when I could go into it in more detail.

As far as separation of church and state, the constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is made fairly clear that Congress is specifically disallowed from making laws that respect an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This sets the legal bounds for the separation of church and state. As Congress is responsible for legislating (making laws), the buck stops at them. If they are not allowed to make any laws that respect any religion or religions, and they are not allowed to make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then theoretically church and state will never mix.

It is incredibly unlikely that the reason behind the "respect an establishment" statement was to prevent a national religion from being founded- the reason why is clear:

Madison's first proposal for an amendment concerning religion stated:

"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 pretence, infringed."

The Senate then changed it to read:

''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion..."

And later it became what we know as the part of the first amendment.

Had it been the goal of our forefathers to use this clause to prevent establishment of a state religion, then they would have stuck with the first one, rather than go with a more loose "Laws won't be made respecting or denying any one religion".

In 1802 Pres. Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury CT, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.''

There's plenty of evidence to show this. I can go on if you'd like, but I'd really like to see some of the points you can make to support your opinion that the founding fathers founded this country as a Christian one, and that the first amendment was designed to stop a state religion, not separate church and state.

I make no attempts to belittle any specific religion, nor do I attempt to do what is "vogue" by questioning Christianity.

I question everything, because it is in my inquisitive nature to do so- by questioning, I can come to understand, and by understanding, I can "know" something.

I could sit here and instead pick apart archaic religions, if you'd like, disproving the relative good of something as, say, a ritual for samhain, but I thought instead I'd focus specifically on liberty and the constitution. :)

JimS

09-11-2006, 16:56

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is made fairly clear that Congress is specifically disallowed from making laws that respect an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It is incredibly unlikely that the reason behind the "respect an establishment" statement was to prevent a national religion from being founded- the reason why is clear:

Madison's first proposal for an amendment concerning religion stated:

"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 pretence, infringed."

The Senate then changed it to read:

''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion..."

And later it became what we know as the part of the first amendment.

Had it been the goal of our forefathers to use this clause to prevent establishment of a state religion, then they would have stuck with the first one, rather than go with a more loose "Laws won't be made respecting or denying any one religion".

In 1802 Pres. Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury CT, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.''

There's plenty of evidence to show this. I can go on if you'd like, but I'd really like to see some of the points you can make to support your opinion that the founding fathers founded this country as a Christian one, and that the first amendment was designed to stop a state religion, not separate church and state.

Just exactly how many founding fathers were there - you quote TWO (there are some that proposed the Declaration of Independence contain reference to Christ and the quotes do little to actually refute what I said. Freedom of Religion and No Establishment of a State Religion - that is what the Constitution ended up stating - not what Madison and Jefferson wanted. The amendment is clearly a compromise (as I stated). That is the essense of the Constitution and our Government. I am sure there were founding fathers that also would have supported stronger controls on guns. There were some that wanted George Washington to be King.

As to proving my points, I have already done that quite extensively in the thread I started entitled " The United States WAS founded with Christian Values and I pray will remain so." At this time, I do not have the time to completely rehash this issue.

Go back and read more than just Madison and Jefferson. Count the number of Pastors that were in the founding fathers group - something like 20+ of the original founding fathers were in this group. Most including Washington exspouse their religious adherence as do a number of the early Supreme Court Justices.

The fact remains that the bulk of our laws and our Constitution are based in and on Judeo Christian tradition and law. As such, I have a hard time believing that our Founding Fathers intended for us to completely erase God from public life. They explicitly referenced God and Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Congress opens with and as to my knowledge always done so with a prayer - both houses of Congress have Chaplains (but no establishment of a State Religion - but hardly complete and utter separation - but perhaps the ACLU will get around to that in the future - who knows). The Supreme Court Invocation - The crier says, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

I could find more evidence - including State Constitutions at the time of the U.S. Constitution being written. But I have supper now.

I thank you for taking the time to respond to my email - but I have learned one thing about these forums - it is at times best to just disagree as I doubt you will change your mind and on this point I will not change mine - too much evidence to support my conclusion - I still recognize what we have is a compromise with the Constitution - but it still ends up leaning very heavy in the direction of Christianity having by in far the Greatest impact on this Country's greatest document - barring the Holy Bible.

Respectively,
JimS

IVM

09-11-2006, 17:25

I think you may be missing the point here.

The point is that the original draft of the religion part of the first amendment specifically stated "No establishment of State Religion" whereas the final version said nothing of the sort. In fact, the final version was left to a much MUCH broader "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"- There is nothing in that which would suggest "No state religion". In fact, let's break it down further.

The italicized words are the words that will be further defined, taking the dictionary definitions of the word and taking into account the language of the era.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

respecting: regarding and/or concerning (as a preposition)
establishment of religion: a church, or otherwised organized state of religion.

So in essence the amendment says:

Congress shall make no law concerning a church or organized state of religion,

Not:

Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.

In fact, it is curious that you should try and bring up the fact that there were so many pastors in Congress at the time. Personally, I find that an intriguing fact- that even though "Nature's God" and "Creator" of man were mentioned in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the entirety of the Constitution of the United States of America lacks a single reference to the word God, creator, or anything else that alludes to a higher power, and is one of the first European-style governments that specifically discluded God from the government, instead stating that the government was of the people, for the people, and by the people.

While our forefathers never intended to found this country as a Christian country- they most certainly did instill some of their Christian principles into it- providing the framework for a government that only deals with the affairs of men, giving religion the opportunity to work without any favoritism nor any hindrance, allowing people to do as they chose or saw fit, to love all, and to judge none.

The history behind many of the laws set forth by the Federal government don't base themselves on any kind of Biblical pretenses, but rather the idea that every man is born free, and should live free to do as he pleases, so long as he does not harm others in doing so, hence statutes against murder (which would deprive someone of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of property), thievery, etc.

Laws in the United States have their founding on a variation of "common law", which is based on "germanic law" and has some influence of old roman law. It is not necessarily founded or based upon biblical law.