I will not debate about politics as this is not a politically section I was simply making a point. But I can say, as a lawyer, that Fox News is far from fair and balanced. The way they report things is biased. I wll instead provide you with a link that delves into this topic further if you are so inclined to watch it.* This guy is a liberal, which I am not, but I feel he makes his points rather well against fox news. It ranges from simply misunderstandings (Or mis-informerd reporting) to complete lies. If you so wish please pm me with any quandrys you may have and I would love to talk.
Yes, we should not debate politics here but you are the one who raised the political question with your unfair comment about Fox News. This was a very telling comment on your layer side of debate to make your point. You did make your point and I simply noted it.
Actually what you are quoting comes from the Declaration of Independence and reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.". The Declaration of Independence is in NO WAY a ruling document over the United States, so you are simply factually wrong.
Your layer skills are misleading us here. You support what I said but do not want us to know it. I made it clear that the Constitution did not mention God. It, however, was premised on all those good things mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the ruling document and in no way argues against God and state but it does reject church and state. So, you are factually and logically wrong.
"In God We Trust" was added in the 50s under a wave of fanaticism and ruled by looney politicians, they thought communism was taking over and thusly added God as they thought this would some-how make things better. It is the same story for the Pledge, although it was written by a christian, a pastor to be exact, and he wrote it without "God" and it was added in the 50s.
You do build a premise for your next assertion but your premise is also misleading towards your next assertion. The point I was making is that the God philosophy in government continued into the 50's and not only did we the people state "In God We Trust" on our money but we incorporated it into our pledge to the flag. Not only does the Constitution protect us from church and state but it protects our rights to recognize God in our national philosophy. It also protects us to speak out against philosophies of atheism and humanism such as communism and liberal politics that attempts to separate us from God and our national premise for reasoning about human rights and self evident truths. Do you not see how wrong your premise is? Once God is excluded, which you want to do, the source of our rights is gone. That is really the most dangerous situation I can imagine, a nation without God.
looney politicians, they thought communism was taking over and thusly added God as they thought this would some-how make things better.
You do fail to recognize that the communist threat was a world wide and national threat. It did take a fantastic response to halt the march of this evil and liberal march of communism into the world. Eastern Europe serves as evidence of this post World War II danger. The threat was real and the liberal thinkers that said we did not need God still speak this language today. Liberalism was associated with communism in the 60's for good reason. The addition of God has made the world better, which communism and liberalism regards as the operate of the people. I vote we keep God.
In my honest opinion as a Lawyer I think both should be removed, as the word "God" is recognizably divisive. It spreads people apart as there are different beliefs in this nation of ours, and right after the word indivisible it seems to only be ironic.
How would inserting the word "humanism" or "liberalism"
make things better? Changing words will make nothing better for we believe our rights to be a minority on issues is protected and come from God and not from the consensus of men. Your logic might be that of a lawyer but it is too liberal for a Christian theologian.
So in ending, God is not the giver of our freedoms from the governments eyes, and shouldn't be as this nation is supposed to be free for all not just those who agree with us. "Humanism" is other talked about as this evil thing, I am a Christian Humanist, and what I mean by that is I am both Christian and believe in the power of people, that by our own will we can set out to accomplish great feats, this power endowed by God lets us change our own lives. In one, children are in no way being taught humanism, and in another so what if they were? What is so bad about being taught are worth something.
Humanism is the default ethics and political strategy of atheism. Your above statement is very similar to the Communist Manifesto. It is the liberal manifesto and the philosophy of humanism is in direct opposition to Christianity, the Nicene Creed, and the philosophy of the CF. You do plainly declare that your world view is anything but the Christian world view which we hold here on the CF. You do tell us that we can make it without God.
believe in the power of people, that by our own will we can set out to accomplish great feats,
That was the world issue in the late 20's and 40's when the German people accepted the late
superman theory. Faith in humanism has not worked out well in history and it is not working well in world politics today. Why do you guys want to change our national philosophy to an unproven philosophy of life without God? I do reject that what you guys do is an assertive Christian effort. The philosophy of humanism has not made the world a better place to live. Christians are not humanist in the historical sense in that they do not trust in God.You can not logically be both, a Christian and an atheist. You must choose one or the other.