in god we trust

[luke warm]

every monetary note in american currency has the words "in god we trust" on it. Our pledge of alegance has the words, "one nation under god", in it. Many military ceremony's are started with a prayer. How many times have you heard, "god bless america". I do not know if it is better to remove these sayings from american culture or to begin a crusade to try and reform the nation. How can we litter our culture with godly jargon and not uphold his law. Aren't we being hypocrites? I could go on and on about the things that are legal in this country that are obviously wrong according to the law, but that would take forever. So i'll just name one. God is a jealous god. He is the only god and he gets upset with people who worship anything but him. So why is there religous freedom in a country that supposedly "trust's in god".

 

[feral]

every monetary note in american currency has the words "in god we trust" on it. Our pledge of alegance has the words, "one nation under god", in it. Many military ceremony's are started with a prayer. How many times have you heard, "god bless america". I do not know if it is better to remove these sayings from american culture or to begin a crusade to try and reform the nation. How can we litter our culture with godly jargon and not uphold his law. Aren't we being hypocrites? I could go on and on about the things that are legal in this country that are obviously wrong according to the law, but that would take forever. So i'll just name one. God is a jealous god. He is the only god and he gets upset with people who worship anything but him. So why is there religous freedom in a country that supposedly "trust's in god".

This is an interesting point. First off, since we are a democracy and not a theocracy, we would be better off to remove religious propaganda from our money and our government. Having those words printed on money is amusing, since money is the god many people trust. However, it's really pointless and I agree that it cheapens the religion by giving it lip service and nothing more. I abhor the idea of theocracy, but I don't think it helps to play at Christianizing the nation without serious intent.

This country doesn't trust god (presuming you mean America). There is a definate majority who claim Christianity, but the votes and the polls indicate otherwise. Islam is fast growing here, Wicca is becoming more popular, and all of those things need to be taken into account as well. Unless we're going to make the jump to a religious state, which will never happen, we would be better off avoiding superficial use of religion in government. Religion and faith are personal, private matters, shared with those you trust, not imposed on others and not used as country slogans. I could say a lot more about the ridiculous post 9/11 patriotism bandwagon, but there isn't space.

 

[gladiatrix]

every monetary note in american currency has the words "in god we trust" on it. Our pledge of alegance has the words, "one nation under god", in it. Many military ceremony's are started with a prayer. How many times have you heard, "god bless america". I do not know if it is better to remove these sayings from american culture or to begin a crusade to try and reform the nation. How can we litter our culture with godly jargon and not uphold his law. Aren't we being hypocrites?

The phrase "one nation, under God, was ADDED to the pledge of alligance at the behest of the likes of Joseph McCarthy in 1954 (got to counter those "evil, Godless commies, don't you know!) . The phrase "in God we trust"http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html did not appear on a LIMITED set of coins until the mid 1860s (it didn't appear on the same coins in a consistent fashion, either). It didn't appear on the paper currency til 1957 (again as a counter to all those "evil, godless commies! Better dead than atheist-Red!)

How did Christianity contribute to the writing of the Constitution , especially in light of the fact that some Christains are alway trumpeting that this is a "Christian nation founded on Christian principles". But it that really true? Let's look at:

• A = Constitutional principle
• B = What the Bible says on the subject

Adapted/Quoted FROM Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A

Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.

Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.

(A)FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech.
(B) On the contrary: "he that doubteth is [condemned](NOTE: CF automatic sensors banned word for condemned found in Bible)" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

(A)RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:
(B) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

(A)A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it.

(B) On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. NOTE: For an interesting view of this go HERE (libertarian)


(A)"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though:

(B) "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). [However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). [Those born out-of-wedlock] (NOTE: CF automatic sensors banned word found in Bible for the illegitimate) may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.


(A)SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise"

(B)Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:

Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.

In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!


(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................

(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

(A) WOMEN'S RIGHTS Not mentioned by the author of the previous website is women's rights which are ignored by the Constitution......

(B)The Bible is very clear on their inferior status as reinterated in these articles:
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558)

A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women(yes, you see correctly 1993, in the 20th Century and then there's the SBC's (Baptist) notion of "freedom" for women { their "all people are equal (men,women), but some people (men) are more equal than others (women)" Orwellian Newspeak)}

Looks like the "Christian" contributions of slavery and discrimination against women and minorities did indeed get into the Constitution. NOTE:Of course, Christians are not the only religious group with adherents guilty of promoting the slavery or discrimination. Not all Christians now support the submission of women and /or slavery (views of Randall Terry, a Christian Reconstructionist) And yes IMO the views of such Christains are totally inimical to freedom in any shape, form, or fashion.

The bottom-line here is that the Constitution is a SECULAR document (begins with "We, the people, NOT We, the Christians), containing no mention of God or Christianity. There is even a provision outlawing religious tests for holding office.

As much as you may hate the thought, the US is NOT the Christian fundamentalist theocracy you seem to wish it to be.

I could go on and on about the things that are legal in this country that are obviously wrong according to the law, but that would take forever. So i'll just name one. God is a jealous god. He is the only god and he gets upset with people who worship anything but him. So why is there religous freedom in a country that supposedly "trust's in god".

So how do YOU KNOW that

• There is a god(s? why not creation by DC™ or Divine Committee™)?
• That the "god" is the Christian God
• That your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?
• How do you "know" what's on God's mind or what He wants ("he gets upset with people who worship anything but him")?

Are you one of those who agrees with Falwell?

Falwell Blames Feminists, Gays, Others for Bombing

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

This was nothing but blatant attempt by to stir up hatred against feminists, gays, liberals (the usual "suspects" on the Religious Right's hate list), groups that they have not had a lot of success in vanquising. Just like Hitler did with his little propaganda film the the The Eternal Jew(Jews are responsible for all your woes!...sound familiar?). Scapegoating at it's "finest"......

 

[Atkin]

gladiatrix

Your post provided good facts and is quite enlightening.

(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................

(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.


Regarding using the Bible, Christians are not authorised to drive out anyone since Christ's interaction with the human race POST HIS RESURRECTION does not differentiate between peoples based on faith. He would not encourage mixing with them a lot though.
Another thing people overlook is that the Israelites were not living side by side with God fearing nations or peoples OPEN TO THE GOSPEL as we have after Christ.

Some people have assumed they are Israelites of old when they may be descendants of non Israelites. The Indians may also be descended from Israel but again that is not the point.
Once Christ resurrected, He did not restrict His word to the Jews but the body of Christ was extended to all humans on Earth, that is, no one can use the Bible to subjugate anyone AFTER CHRIST instructed the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 Go baptise the nations. The apostles did not go about killing Canaanites etc after that order from Christ. They merely spread the Gospel. Hence that area has been misunderstood greatly.

Unfortunately, some have assumed that God's commandments since they are binding in some sense, imply that the bible can be used but the EARLY AMERICANS WERE NOT Israelites anyway and God destroyed old Israel when they sinned and God has NOT reconstituted Israel as a nation. It is dangerous to assume that heathen or non Christians are similar to old testament Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites etc who were KILLED by Joshua, King David etc

For all you know, Americans may be descendants of heathen non Israelites hence would be quite amusing to see some people going about deluding themselves that they are Israelites and killing Cannanites etc. Fantasy I'm afraid. Even if you think you are an Israelite, the Israelite nation was destroyed in 722BC and Judah later post 650BC

 

[Volos]

Take out a one dollar bill and flip it over. On “THE GREAT SEAL” of the United States (the pyramid with the floating eye on top) you find the words “Novus Ordo Seclorum” which translated reads “New Secular Order.”

 

[vajradhara]

it's funny how american's think that they live in an actual democracy. the idea is there, but in practice it's a Representative Republic wherein people are elected to represent the citizens interests during the law making sessions and so forth.

democracy, as an ideal, can only be implemented on a small scale.. for the issue of scale is the problem. in a town of 100 it's reasonable to assume that each person would be able to vote on an issue, have input into the issue and so forth. that process cannot happen on the scale of 50,000 people, let alone a country of 100's of millions..

oh wait... that's not what this thread was about, sorry about that

it is, i think, an interesting question. in a certain sense, i find it almost offensive that God is associated with money in america. and i do wonder... which God are they talking about when the Pledge is recited or an oath is taken.

 

[Siliconaut]

vajradhara:

it is, i think, an interesting question. in a certain sense, i find it almost offensive that God is associated with money in america. and i do wonder... which God are they talking about when the Pledge is recited or an oath is taken.

I guess you gave the answer already...

At last, the existance of a veritable deity has been proven! Hooray for moneyism!

 

[Ojuice5001]

Well, since this thread seems to be about all church-state issues, let me say what I think about the Ten Commandments on school walls.

I really don't see how someone could consider all ten of the commandments and consider this constitutional. If they started with the Fifth Commandment, it would be fine to tell them to everyone, but the first four are quite distinctively Judeo-Christian.

1. How can it be constitutional to endorse the First Commandment? There are tens (or hundreds) of thousands of American pagans whose faith involves worshipping other gods. I would also count the Hindus under this category; they often worship their gods, and those gods certainly aren't Yahweh. This means that the government is taking the side of one religion, which the First Amendment was meant to prevent.

2. I'm not completely clear on this, but it seems that not many Christians really believe this. Right? I mean, I seldom hear someone claiming that all pictorial representations of God are wrong. So if you don't think that commandment is still relevant, why put it on every school wall?

3. I agree that taking Yahweh's name in vain is a bad idea. But what's the justification for making it only Yahweh? For someone who believes in other god(s), isn't it wrong to take their name(s) in vain too? So the Third Commandment, as a government-endorsed statement, is like making the Eighth Commandment "You shall not steal from Wal-Mart." That would imply that Wal-Mart is the most important store, and the Third Commandment implies that Yahweh is the most important god.

4. The Sabbath. It might be all right, but I have to ask, which Sabbath? Christians, Jews, and Muslims all think the Sabbath is a different day. And if the government gives the Christians Sunday off their weekday duties, and the Jews Saturday off, but not the Muslims Friday off, they probably shouldn't be saying that the Sabbath is holy. Because the Muslims can easily tell which Sabbath the government prefers.

I do think it might well promote morality in the world, and is worth a try in that sense. But why not the Golden Rule instead of the Decalogue? The Golden Rule has been advanced by any number of sages in different societies--it is not distinctive to a small number of religions There are far fewer people who disagree with GR than there are worshippers of a non-Abrahamic god. And it is more all-encompassing. It's really a better idea.

(BTW, Jesus was not the first to phrase it positively rather than negatively. One second-century historian says that when asked, "How should we behave to our neighbors," Aristotle responded "As we wish our neighbors to respond to us.")

You could even attribute it to Jesus; it's not necessarily wrong for the government to quote him. And you could use any Bible translation you wanted, including the inaccurate "Do unto others" version.