Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Both the "under God" and "In God we trust" were added in the 50s during the Red Scare, where we did everything possible to distance ourselves from the "godless commies." The US government certainly wasn't built upon biblical law, nor the sentiment of "In God we trust."The bible was the one to give the law....This nation was estalished according to these laws. why then we have "in God we trust" on our money? If we trust in God why would we "offend" God. There are double messages.... If we recognize God as the higher authority and according to the constitution we are one nation under God why should we blaspheme against Him? I seems pretty contradictory to me.
The bible was the one to give the law....This nation was estalished according to these laws. why then we have "in God we trust" on our money? If we trust in God why would we "offend" God. There are double messages.... If we recognize God as the higher authority and according to the constitution we are one nation under God why should we blaspheme against Him? I seems pretty contradictory to me.
Now if non-believers have rights to be respected that is their constitutional right and calling an atheist a bad name is punishable by law. Why would i want to change the Koran or the Bible as not to blaspheme about non-believers when there is millions of writtings out there unsnsorned about Chistians and any kind of believers? I do no think a solution like that one is possible or propable.
I fail to see how a god who really deserves this label would be in need of being defended against criticism by societal laws.Should blasphemy be a crime punishable by law?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. "
And yet, in March, 2009, under prompting from Pakistan, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on "defamation of religion:"
"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs." (emphasis mine)
One can still wonder why would the constitution would include this (bellow site with the preamble of each state about God ) regardless if it was ONLY about the time of the red scare that it was introduced.... Hmmm I wonder why would people state that they are having their states "under God" while they believe that to blasphemy God is okay. Pretty conflicting ideas if you ask me
God in the State Constitutions - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Why should we or anyone else for that matter care what the U.N. says about.....well anything? It would be a better use of resources to tear the place down and set up a McDonalds.
While that may be true that those specific words were added at that time, if one goes back in the pages of history and reads what was stated by our founding fathers, there will be no mistake that “one nation under God” has always been there. The English language has changed over the years, we all know that, and the way we say things today may not have been the way it was stated then, and vice versa. Look at the terms “deist, agnostic, atheist” in the dictionary and you will find they all have very similar meanings. Some have stated that Washington of all people was a deist. But to look at what he, among others, have said, you cannot come away with no other conclusion that the meaning is clear, they believed in God Almighty.Both the "under God" and "In God we trust" were added in the 50s during the Red Scare, where we did everything possible to distance ourselves from the "godless commies." The US government certainly wasn't built upon biblical law, nor the sentiment of "In God we trust."
While that may be true that those specific words were added at that time, if one goes back in the pages of history and reads what was stated by our founding fathers, there will be no mistake that one nation under God has always been there. The English language has changed over the years, we all know that, and the way we say things today may not have been the way it was stated then, and vice versa. Look at the terms deist, agnostic, atheist in the dictionary and you will find they all have very similar meanings.
Some have stated that Washington of all people was a deist. But to look at what he, among others, have said, you cannot come away with no other conclusion that the meaning is clear, they believed in God Almighty.
Thomas Jefferson stated he was a real Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ,
William Penn stated this:
Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." It almost appears he had a foreknowledge of what was to come today.
Look at the terms deist, agnostic, atheist in the dictionary and you will find they all have very similar meanings.
Ummm...the *only* defining feature of a deist is that they believe a god exists.
The *only* defining feature of an atheist is that they believe that no god exists.
How, in your mind, are these things very similar?
The defining feature of an atheist is that they lack a belief in a god.
Not necessarily that they believe there is no god. I know plenty of atheists who would not find the following a statement of truth for them "I believe there are no gods"
Because agnosticism is not about beliefs or lack thereof, but about abstaining from a claim of knowledge. Thus, there can be agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.*nods* fair enough.
I've wondered, though, why somebody who would does not actively believe in a god, but would not agree with the above statement, would identify as atheist, rather than agnostic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?