craigerNY

I bring nothing to the table
Feb 28, 2007
2,429
369
50
Upstate NY
✟48,788.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
They must have been using the war on Christmas as a smokescreen to get this one introduced. I just don't get what it is about some people being bent on making sure the government affirms their faith for them. Isn't faith stronger than that? Doesn't faith run deeper than that? There are so many things I'd very much rather see our elected officials spend time on than this.

Linked again for clarity.

Craig
 

Thirst_For_Knowledge

I Am A New Title
Jan 20, 2005
6,609
340
41
Michigan
Visit site
✟8,524.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's one of those bones Republicans throw to their base, to keep them quiet, while they do absolutely nothing about the issues that their base cares about, because, well, they can't, and even if they could, then they would lose the things that keep getting them voted in.
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Good move. Let's see who votes against it. Certainly not Nancy Pelosi and the 54 Catholic House Democrats who, with her, signed a letter saying how important their faith is to them. Important to do this as Pelosi is working with Jim Wallis and Clinton's pollster Stanley Greenberg, to reaffirm the left's connection with faith. That is why Obama and Clinton are talking up God so much. Polls show Democrats must make inroads into the "go to church once a week" demographic.

So if they believe it, they should have no problem voting for an harmless little resolution which does nothing but affirm our history. They vote for hundreds of other meaningless little resolutions every year.

Let's see who gets edgy over this one.

heh...heh....
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Whoever authored this piece of legislation don't exactly have their facts straight:

Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

As this was before the Constitution was ratified, I don't see how this has constitutional bearing on our nation today.

Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;

A practice that was unconstitutional and rightly ended.

Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature's God'), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'), and the Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence');

There was no mention of Jesus, no mention of the Bible, no mention of specific religious beliefs.

Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';

And this proves what, exactly?

Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';

Was this before or after the ratification of the Constitution? Because religious belief and the acknowledgment thereof is the responsibility of the single citizen and his or her respective conscience - not the government.

Whereas in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin declared, `God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? ... Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel';

One man's opinion does not change the reality of church/state separation.

Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention concluded their work by in effect placing a religious punctuation mark at the end of the Constitution in the Attestation Clause, noting not only that they had completed the work with `the unanimous consent of the States present' but they had done so `in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven';

Was it not common to write years out in that way at that time?

Whereas from 1787 to 1788, State conventions to ratify the United States Constitution not only began with prayer but even met in church buildings;

Does the fact that the founders celebrated the ratification of the Constitution by going to a bar signify that we're a nation of drunks? Didn't think so.

Whereas in 1789, the first Federal Congress, the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, appropriated Federal funds to pay chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions, a practice that has continued to this day, with Congress not only funding its congressional chaplains but also the salaries and operations of more than 4,500 military chaplains;

Chaplains that minister according to their own beliefs - not the official beliefs of the government.

Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching education, declaring that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged';


We have church to "teach" religion. We have school to teach academic subjects.

Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor';

The government endorsed no religious beliefs in doing so, and as such, did not violate the Constitution.

Whereas in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday;

Conspicuously missing from these regulations is a requirement for anyone to attend such religious meetings, which would be unconstitutional.

Whereas in 1800, Congress approved the use of the just-completed Capitol structure as a church building, with Divine services to be held each Sunday in the Hall of the House, alternately administered by the House and Senate chaplains;

Using the Capitol building as a church does not necessarily mean that this is a Christian nation, but simply that the Capitol was being used as a church.

Whereas in 1853 the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers `had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ... they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy';


That doesn't mean that the founders would have wanted the government to control and acknowledge religion, thus destroying religious liberty.


Whereas, in 1864, by law Congress added `In God We Trust' to American coinage;

A meaningless phrase that changes nothing about the nature of our country.


Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;

Again: Just because some of the above were "men of the gospel" does not mean that they would agree with Congressional fundamentalists with an agenda to limit religious freedom.

Whereas in 1870, the Federal government made Christmas (a recognition of the birth of Christ, an event described by the U.S. Supreme Court as `acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries') and Thanksgiving as official holidays;

A holiday that is not compulsory or one that the entire populace celebrates.

Whereas beginning in 1904 and continuing for the next half-century, the Federal government printed and distributed The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the use of Members of Congress because of the important teachings it contained;


Doesn't mean that the government endorses those beliefs.


Whereas in 1931, Congress by law adopted the Star-Spangled Banner as the official National Anthem, with its phrases such as `may the Heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation,' and `this be our motto, `In God is our trust!';

The national anthem has no bearing on the nature of our country. Its lyrics could include "the world is made of snow". That wouldn't mean that that phrase is true.

Whereas in 1954, Congress by law added the phrase `one nation under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance;

Another meaningless phrase that has no bearing on the nature of this country.


Whereas in 1954 a special Congressional Prayer Room was added to the Capitol with a kneeling bench, an altar, an open Bible, an inspiring stained-glass window with George Washington kneeling in prayer, the declaration of Psalm 16:1: `Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust,' and the phrase `This Nation Under God' displayed above the kneeling, prayerful Washington;

A kneeling bench for those Congressmen and women who believe in God. The government endorses no beliefs by the existence of such a bench.

Whereas in 1956, Congress by law made `In God We Trust' the National Motto, and added the phrase to American currency;

If our money had 'Lead can be turned to gold' printed on it, would that make it true?

The answer is no.

Whereas the constitutions of each of the 50 states, either in the preamble or body, explicitly recognize or express gratitude to God;

Constitutions that have nothing to do with the Constitution of this country. Not to mention the fact that no specific religious beliefs are mentioned or that neither the state nor federal governments have the authority to establish religion.

(1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;

One doesn't have to use the Bible. They can use a Q'uran, the Torah, a book of John Lennon quotes - whatever they find holy.

(2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!' to the oath;

A meaningless phrase.

(3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;
(4) religious content in the inaugural address;

The content of which applies to the President's personal religious beliefs, as the government can have no religious beliefs.

(5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgement of God;

Civil leaders can acknowledge God. The government cannot.

And on and on it goes. If you're going to introduce legislation, you should have your facts straight. It says a lot that a twentysomething college student can outclass Congressmen twice his age on church/state issues.
Ringo
 
  • Like
Reactions: craigerNY
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Good move. Let's see who votes against it. Certainly not Nancy Pelosi and the 54 Catholic House Democrats who, with her, signed a letter saying how important their faith is to them. Important to do this as Pelosi is working with Jim Wallis and Clinton's pollster Stanley Greenberg, to reaffirm the left's connection with faith. That is why Obama and Clinton are talking up God so much. Polls show Democrats must make inroads into the "go to church once a week" demographic.

So if they believe it, they should have no problem voting for an harmless little resolution which does nothing but affirm our history. They vote for hundreds of other meaningless little resolutions every year.

Let's see who gets edgy over this one.

heh...heh....

"Heh heh". Anyone with a desire for true religious freedom in this country would get "edgy" over a piece of legislation that doesn't even have its facts all in order.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

kermit

Legend
Nov 13, 2003
15,477
807
49
Visit site
✟27,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Republicans block nearly every piece of meaningful legislation from even being voted on and then they waste taxpayer money with meaningless resolutions. It's abundantly obvious that they are more interested in power and political posturing than doing what they are paid to do, govern.

IMO, the Republican minority is moving from being the most obstructionist minority party in US history to becoming down right criminally negligent to their duty.
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Ringo,
THe bill doesn't specify any religion, just acknowledges
religion played a part in the founding of our country.
(The Pilgrims fled Europe, why?)
IMO, the Republican minority is moving from being the most obstructionist minority party in US history to becoming down right criminally negligent to their duty.
So, was the Democrats obstructionists, and are they criminal negligent?
Both sides are blocking the majority of bills, but only Republicans are obstructionists?
And Democrats offer meaniless bills too, and both offer everything with an extra heaping helping of Pork.:sick:

We have every other "history week", why not a week to
look at all the religions that helped to create the USA?
Like it or not, alot of US history is based on religious freedom, and created by religion.

RIngo: the offered history lessons show the mentality of our founding fathers and shows their intent of the Constitution. Basically they are legal arguements for supporting a religious stance.
And one persons take on the Constitution is dependant on his role in its creation.
...Founding Father who is a signatory of all four of the major documents of the founding of the United States: the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Alliance with France, and the United States Constitution.
He helped to pen most of our founding documents. So his views are a sign of the thinking of one member of the writers.
 
Upvote 0

kermit

Legend
Nov 13, 2003
15,477
807
49
Visit site
✟27,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, was the Democrats obstructionists, and are they criminal negligent?
Both sides are blocking the majority of bills, but only Republicans are obstructionists?
And Democrats offer meaniless bills too, and both offer everything with an extra heaping helping of Pork.:sick:
The democrats didn't even come close to the number of obstructionist tactics that the current minority is using to render the majority impotent.

For all the Rep claims of Dem obstructionism they have far outdone them. The hypocrisy is staggering if not unsurprising.

The reason that I say that their behavior is borderline criminal is that they are using to obstructionism to make the Dems look bad so that the Reps can retake the majority in 2008 which makes the tactic a campaign strategy. Campaigning from their offices is illegal and so is campaigning from the floor.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
(The Pilgrims fled Europe, why?)


To flee religious persecution. Knowing that, would it not make sense that our founders would want a religiously neutral government, having witnessed firsthand the persecution that can happen when religion and government are mixed?

RIngo: the offered history lessons show the mentality of our founding fathers and shows their intent of the Constitution.


History that is either taken out of context or doesn't tell the whole story.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

NeTrips

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2007
6,937
460
.
✟9,125.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The democrats didn't even come close to the number of obstructionist tactics that the current minority is using to render the majority impotent.

For all the Rep claims of Dem obstructionism they have far outdone them. The hypocrisy is staggering if not unsurprising.


How many judicial nominations were blocked by Republicans since the 2006 elections? How many were blocked by Dems from 2004 to 2006?


The reason that I say that their behavior is borderline criminal is that they are using to obstructionism to make the Dems look bad so that the Reps can retake the majority in 2008 which makes the tactic a campaign strategy.
The dems don't need help making themselves look bad, there goes the motive.

Campaigning from their offices is illegal and so is campaigning from the floor.
Wasn't it Obama with the first hand experience regarding this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟11,457.00
Faith
Christian
Good move. Let's see who votes against it. Certainly not Nancy Pelosi and the 54 Catholic House Democrats who, with her, signed a letter saying how important their faith is to them. Important to do this as Pelosi is working with Jim Wallis and Clinton's pollster Stanley Greenberg, to reaffirm the left's connection with faith. That is why Obama and Clinton are talking up God so much. Polls show Democrats must make inroads into the "go to church once a week" demographic.

So if they believe it, they should have no problem voting for an harmless little resolution which does nothing but affirm our history. They vote for hundreds of other meaningless little resolutions every year.

Let's see who gets edgy over this one.

heh...heh....
Yes, I'm sure that was the concensus among the Republican caucus as they dreamed up this important legislation. Like you, they have nothing better to apply themselves to.
 
Upvote 0

SaintInChicago

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2007
884
35
41
✟1,228.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
The government endorsed no religious beliefs in doing so, and as such, did not violate the Constitution.

Ringo the reason for your strife is your inability to comprehend elementary concepts such as 'religion'. Belief in God, Providence, and the belief that God is almighty and has a will, and that we should obey it, are all religious beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ringo the reason for your strife is your inability to comprehend elementary concepts such as 'religion'. Belief in God, Providence, and the belief that God is almighty and has a will, and that we should obey it, are all religious beliefs.
Generalities. The Constitution never went into specifics regarding belief.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which specifics in the bill upset you?
Who said I was upset? I'm simply standing up for the Constitution and the principles of religious freedom.

I'm confident with my position because the alternative - government interference in religion and vice versa - are more harmful to religious freedom than anything else.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NeTrips

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2007
6,937
460
.
✟9,125.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Who said I was upset? I'm simply standing up for the Constitution and the principles of religious freedom.

I'm confident with my position because the alternative - government interference in religion and vice versa - are more harmful to religious freedom than anything else.
Ringo
So you are opposed to the general nature of the bill and none of the specifics. Good to know.
 
Upvote 0

kermit

Legend
Nov 13, 2003
15,477
807
49
Visit site
✟27,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
How many judicial nominations were blocked by Republicans since the 2006 elections? How many were blocked by Dems from 2004 to 2006?
That's a meaningless question. There is no political reason for Reps to block the nominees of a Rep president. On that note, Bush has had one of the highest judicial appointment rates in US history; considerably higher than Clinton's. Just another example of Reps disrupting governmental functions for political gain.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So you are opposed to the general nature of the bill and none of the specifics. Good to know.
I'm opposed to the history included in this bill which is taken out of context or is flat out wrong.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

craigerNY

I bring nothing to the table
Feb 28, 2007
2,429
369
50
Upstate NY
✟48,788.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
So you are opposed to the general nature of the bill and none of the specifics. Good to know.

I am opposed to both. The general nature of the bill is a demonstration of poor focus on behalf of our legislators in that they should have better things to do. For that I am opposed. Specifically it smacks of divine providence and a monotheistic foundation upon which the U.S. government sits. That is not something to be endorsed by the state.

The real crime is what is usurped by these efforts, the exposure and education of religion in a genuine manner. There is no use for resolutions to certify the existence of deity based faith. The real losers are us. Things like this are done to backdoor faith into the lives of Americans. It is a knee-jerk reaction to things like the removal of mandatory prayer from schools. Schools could be teaching about religion, they could be teaching about the huge influence religion has had on the social evolution of this country and the world throughout history just as some have said here which this resolution by the way does not do. Every supreme court ruling to my knowledge has explicitly said you can teach about religion in school. When I went to high school here in NY we learned about the religion of every culture we studied and I feel fortunate for it. Unfortunately this is not an issue worth preserving for some. For them the only fight worth fighting is to have each and every citizen branded as a Christian beit literally or through national association. This resolution explicitly promotes a deity, it cites the trinity and the holy bible. This forcefulness creates another knee-jerk reaction. The reaction of those that wish that religion never be spoken of. This resolution and others like it perpetuate the controversy of the separation clause by being a major element of said controversy.

Who wins in the end? Who wins when the government and religion get in bed together? My guess is you don’t trust the government as custodians of your money, why would you trust them as custodians of your God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ringo84
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums