Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Woodruff]

magna carta....wrong country/ wrong time/ wrong discussion I dont care. I swear you say dumb shit on purpose

You don't believe the Magna Carta is at the root of our country's laws?

If the founding fathers had intended ultimate separation of church and state

You don't believe there was an intention to separation of church and state?

Uber-Tolerant Christian nation. End of story. If the haters are going to take our tolerance and shove it in our face, then they do not deserve tolerance.
Tolerance of others is the price we pay for others toleration of ourselves.

You have pretty much defined lack of tolerance here. If you're only tolerant when it's easy, that's not tolerance.

Just let me say it this way. (skip over all the side stepping issues). S of CnC people are going way too far and have been for a while now. Dismantling Manger scenes on Christmas or getting a Cross removed from a freeway memorial, or dropping Creator in quoting the Declaration...It's just too far.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way. There are millions of others, and we can not wait to be heard at the ballot box.

Why would you bring this up? It doesn't at all have anything to do with the issue we're discussing. You're not even saying anything that I disagree with, though you seem to believe I do, for some silly reason. By the very same token, people like you are all upset over what is essentially nothing.

[Phatscotty]

...or, you just trying to make a mess...

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

You don't believe there was an intention to separation of church and state?

I would certainly doubt that the founding fathers, even Jefferson who appeared to be the least religious, had in mind a situation in which there are law suits to remove a cross from the middle of a desert 8.5 miles from the nearest major roadway. I think that it's not so much separation of Church and State as the attempt to remove religion from the public square altogether that people find objectionable.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which was never intended to carry the force of law, mentions separation of church and state. It was included in a 1946(?) Supreme Court case and became the precedent for separation of church and state. Jefferson, himself, two days after writing that letter was in attendance at church inside the Capitol building, and he made several other public buildings available for church services. Jefferson was undoubtedly interested in preserving liberty; yet I can’t see, from his actions in office, that he was in any way interested in curtailing the influence of churches.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

So yes, I believe in separation of church and state, but I think we might disagree with the form that separation should take. There is a problem with the complete separation of church and state based solely upon Jefferson. He advocated using federal funds to support Christian missions in the Treaty with the Kaskakian Indians including $300 to build a Catholic Church, and advocated similar support for the Moravian brotherhood among the Cherokee at New Echota.

[Woodruff]

You don't believe there was an intention to separation of church and state?

I would certainly doubt that the founding fathers, even Jefferson who appeared to be the least religious, had in mind a situation in which there are law suits to remove a cross from the middle of a desert 8.5 miles from the nearest major roadway. I think that it's not so much separation of Church and State as the attempt to remove religion from the public square altogether that people find objectionable.

Perhaps you're unable to read, but you're arguing a position that doesn't need arguing. If you have paid any attention at all, I'm in agreement with this.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Well, insults aside, what form should separation of church and state take, in your opinion?

[Phatscotty]

Well, insults aside, what form should separation of church and state take, in your opinion?

jumping in here - Government should not endorse nor prevent any religion, unless it infringes on the rights of others. Then, the courts should look at it.

"Creator" is not discriminatory, it as acknowledging in it's own broadness the many religions that the statement may be applied to, no matter what you believe or what you call your god, you are born equal here.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Should "infringes upon the rights of others" be used to circumvent the legislative branch in the form of legislating from the bench?

Where do you draw the line between tyranny of the masses and inordinant influence being granted to special interests?

[CouchSerf]

Phatscotty, I'm curious as to how you might feel about the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified with a unanimous vote of 339 votes taken, and signed by John Adams (one of the more moderate Founding Fathers in the context of religious views). It states pretty explicitly that the United States is not in any sense premised on the Christian religion, and when it was released to the public, there was literally NO objections to what it said.

Also, the United States legal principles were initially grounded in Anglo-Saxon common law (I say initially because contemporary jurists rely on legal positivism), not Christianity.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, I'm curious as to how you might feel about the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified with a unanimous vote of 339 votes taken, and signed by John Adams (one of the more moderate Founding Fathers in the context of religious views). It states pretty explicitly that the United States is not in any sense premised on the Christian religion, and when it was released to the public, there was literally NO objections to what it said.

Also, the United States legal principles were initially grounded in Anglo-Saxon common law (I say initially because contemporary jurists rely on legal positivism), not Christianity.

I see the importance of declaring that. However, I feel like I'm being pulled into defending some kind of statement like "American gov't is and should be christian" whic I totally disgree with.

I am only acknowledge our founding, our law system, and the fact that there are far more Christians in America than anything else. I can define my country as such, just as much as you can define my political ideologies. Sure, you might be wrong about me in a few areas, but overall, you can definitely say I am a conservative. One thing you can not do, is go around saying I am not a conservative because I lean center/left on 2 or 3 issues. You can say that, but you would be wrong.

It is what it is. I am not offended one bit by a Manger scene, or a cross on a memorial. That is "normal" in America. I am a believer of separation. I just already think it is separate, and it seems we are moving closer and closer to "godless" generations. You can imagine that generations morals.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

It seems pretty clear that the intention was not to reverence the Christian God specifically in the Constitution and there really is little doubt that the founding fathers didn't intend for the US to be a theocracy of any type. Article 11 of THe Treaty of Tripoli states pretty clearly that the US was not at war with anyone over the issue of religion and would not go to war with a Muslim nation over that issue. "The US is not a Christian nation" however has a greater context though since we are a nation made up predominantly of Christians and have been so since our inception. President Clinton claimed "The US is a Muslim nation" citing our sizeable Muslim population as evidence (tried to find the link there and filed utterly so take it for what it's worth, not much). In a political climate in which litigation is carried out over some pretty silly things, it shouldn't be too hard to see why a Christian might take exception to the first statement even if its technically true. I'm of the opinion that we are a Christian nation, and a Hindu nation, and a Muslim nation, etc. The whole idea of a representative form of government is that is represents its populace as much as possible.

[tzor]

As I mentioned above, can you give me a single example where the US “embraced” a non Judeo-Christian religious notion in either law or custom?

Well, now you're changing the topic. Originally it was just Christian religions, but now it's Judeo-Christian religions, so I see what you did there...

No I was not, in fact you just changed the topic. I merely refined my topic. Most Christian religious notions (note the use of the word) were derived from notions within the Old Testament. I am also looking at the country since its founding; there is a significant period in the 20th century where progressivism and secularism erased a lot of centuries of tradition. Sometimes this was a good thing; just because I argue that a thing existed does not mean I particularly am fond of it.

So you want examples?

Marriage is one of the best examples; strictly following the Christian model. See The Utah War

Likewise the model for divorce is based on the Protestant model, the predominant Christian sect in the country.

The notion of the week and the "day of rest" as so called "Blue Laws" were enacted in most states until well into the 20th century.

[Woodruff]

Well, insults aside, what form should separation of church and state take, in your opinion?

I don't give a rat's ass about some quotes or commandments on old buildings (they're historical buildings, after all), nor do I care at all about things like Christmas manger scenes on government lawns. In my view, those things are meaningless and don't affect government at all.

Religion should be uninvolved in the conduct of the government. I don't believe that prayer belongs in public schools or at public school events (outside of the fact that anyone can pray at any time in a school...they just do it privately).

I'm actually having a bit of difficulty coming up with any other particular church-and-state issues off the top of my head. Got any for me?

Oh...I don't happen to believe that churches should continue to hold tax-exempt status, though that's more of a tangent and not really involved in the separation of church and state issue. Or perhaps I would state that after a certain income level, a church should lose that status...I absolutely believe that there are some churches that really and truly are businesses, not as much what I would consider a church in the sense of taking care of the community's needs.

[BigBallinStalin]

As I mentioned above, can you give me a single example where the US “embraced” a non Judeo-Christian religious notion in either law or custom?

Well, now you're changing the topic. Originally it was just Christian religions, but now it's Judeo-Christian religions, so I see what you did there...

No I was not, in fact you just changed the topic. I merely refined my topic. Most Christian religious notions (note the use of the word) were derived from notions within the Old Testament. I am also looking at the country since its founding; there is a significant period in the 20th century where progressivism and secularism erased a lot of centuries of tradition. Sometimes this was a good thing; just because I argue that a thing existed does not mean I particularly am fond of it.

So you want examples?

Marriage is one of the best examples; strictly following the Christian model. See The Utah War

Likewise the model for divorce is based on the Protestant model, the predominant Christian sect in the country.

The notion of the week and the "day of rest" as so called "Blue Laws" were enacted in most states until well into the 20th century.

Well, if you're going to ignore the rest of my post, which provided more clarification, then I've nothing to gain and much to lose by talking with you any further.

Good day. *tips hat

[tzor]

Phatscotty, I'm curious as to how you might feel about the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified with a unanimous vote of 339 votes taken, and signed by John Adams (one of the more moderate Founding Fathers in the context of religious views). It states pretty explicitly that the United States is not in any sense premised on the Christian religion, and when it was released to the public, there was literally NO objections to what it said.

This is the exact quote. Text without context is without meaning. See WIkipedia

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

We can get into the odd points as how this article only appears in the English copy of the treaty, but the operative word is "founded." It was indeed founded on the principles of democracy and the republic, not on a religion. This does not mean that it was infused with religious notions from the Christian religion. But it does mean that there was flat out no chance for any "religious war" between the nations as a result of the fact that Tripoli was not a Christian nation, but an Islamic state.

Also bear in mind, John Adams' views on established religion ebb and flow with his experience with established religion. (Similiar to his attitude towards the Catholic Church which was the most favorable when French Nuns taught his son without imposing their religious views on the boy.) His attempt at getting a freedom of religion clause in his state's constitution left him bitter and angry towards "Christians" in general.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

I don't give a rat's ass about some quotes or commandments on old buildings (they're historical buildings, after all), nor do I care at all about things like Christmas manger scenes on government lawns. In my view, those things are meaningless and don't affect government at all.

I think we're in agreement there; certainly there are those that do take serious exception to even the slightest evidence of religion in a public building. So I had no idea what your stance was on that issue.

Religion should be uninvolved in the conduct of the government. I don't believe that prayer belongs in public schools or at public school events (outside of the fact that anyone can pray at any time in a school...they just do it privately).

That depends on what you mean. There are plenty of school groups that organize and invite kids in to have prayer and hymns, etc. I see no problem with them; nobody is forced to come, nor is anyone shunned for not attending.

Oh...I don't happen to believe that churches should continue to hold tax-exempt status, though that's more of a tangent and not really involved in the separation of church and state issue. Or perhaps I would state that after a certain income level, a church should lose that status...I absolutely believe that there are some churches that really and truly are businesses, not as much what I would consider a church in the sense of taking care of the community's needs.

That's a tough call, churches are certainly small businesses with employees, etc. Some states offer tax exempt status and others don't. I'd say that that if tax exempt status is given for one then it has to be given for all (obviously). I'd ask though, if a church can fit the definition of a "not for profit" organization then why deny it that status when secular organizations get it?

I'm actually having a bit of difficulty coming up with any other particular church-and-state issues off the top of my head. Got any for me?

I think it depends a great deal upon personal perspective. Any of the following could be considered separation of church and state issues depending upon how far a person on either side of the argument is willing to push (this is just a list of possible topics, I am not declaring that I'm taking the absolute most conservative stance on any of them).

Abortion
"One nation under God" in the Pledge
Prison ministries
stem cell research
funding of faith based initiatives
Chaplains in the military, legislature, etc.
same sex unions

Religion's presence is 100% immaterial to morals. I am absolutely not religious at all, and my morals are those which I believe you would agree with quite strongly. I am not in any way unusual in that regard among the irreligious, either. I would also point to the many religious folks who seem to have rather weak morals.

I'd disagree here, religions tend to all have some form of moral code so they are not 100% immaterial. For instance if I'd agree quite strongly with your morals then you are embracing a set of morals that are loosely in agreement with Judeo-Christian values. There is no causation there but you can see how we're both coming to the same conclusions about morality from different institutions. For you to say that religion is 100% immaterial is analogous to me saying that societal norms and institutions are 100% immaterial. Now that's probably not what you meant, but I wanted to address it anyway to clear up any confusion.

[Woodruff]

It is what it is. I am not offended one bit by a Manger scene, or a cross on a memorial. That is "normal" in America. I am a believer of separation. I just already think it is separate, and it seems we are moving closer and closer to "godless" generations. You can imagine that generations morals.

Religion's presence is 100% immaterial to morals. I am absolutely not religious at all, and my morals are those which I believe you would agree with quite strongly. I am not in any way unusual in that regard among the irreligious, either. I would also point to the many religious folks who seem to have rather weak morals.

[Woodruff]

I don't give a rat's ass about some quotes or commandments on old buildings (they're historical buildings, after all), nor do I care at all about things like Christmas manger scenes on government lawns. In my view, those things are meaningless and don't affect government at all.

I think we're in agreement there; certainly there are those that do take serious exception to even the slightest evidence of religion in a public building. So I had no idea what your stance was on that issue.

I take it then that you disagree with the rest of my thoughts on the subject?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

sorry, I'm getting to it, I'm just trying to navigate the quote function.

Wow, that took a long time.

[Woodruff]

Religion should be uninvolved in the conduct of the government. I don't believe that prayer belongs in public schools or at public school events (outside of the fact that anyone can pray at any time in a school...they just do it privately).

That depends on what you mean. There are plenty of school groups that organize and invite kids in to have prayer and hymns, etc. I see no problem with them; nobody is forced to come, nor is anyone shunned for not attending.

No, that's private...as I mentioned, I don't mind it being private. I'm speaking more of it being done at public school events.

Oh...I don't happen to believe that churches should continue to hold tax-exempt status, though that's more of a tangent and not really involved in the separation of church and state issue. Or perhaps I would state that after a certain income level, a church should lose that status...I absolutely believe that there are some churches that really and truly are businesses, not as much what I would consider a church in the sense of taking care of the community's needs.

That's a tough call, churches are certainly small businesses with employees, etc. Some states offer tax exempt status and others don't. I'd say that that if tax exempt status is given for one then it has to be given for all (obviously). I'd ask though, if a church can fit the definition of a "not for profit" organization then why deny it that status when secular organizations get it?[/quote]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

Abortion

I don't really see this as a church and state situation, because it falls under the right someone has to control their own body (up to the point where the baby has brain activity).

"One nation under God" in the Pledge

This is definitely another issue that I don't find important at all. I chalk it up right next to the religious words on old buildings and Christmas mangers on government building lawns. I think it's a part of the historical perspective of the pledge and is valid for that reason, completely ignoring the religiousness of it. Same with "In God We Trust" also.

Prison ministries

I've never heard this brought up, actually. I guess I would say that no prisoner should be REQUIRED to sit through a prison ministry, nor should there be favors given for attendance. It should be free choice with no impacts otherwise.

stem cell research

I don't get this one from the conservative standpoint, to be honest. I fully support stem cell research.

funding of faith based initiatives

I'd need some specific examples...I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

Chaplains in the military, legislature, etc.

As a military individual myself (retired now), I absolutely see the need for chaplains in the military. It doesn't make any sense at all to me that there would be any question of that. I don't really understand the need for chaplains in the legislature...can't those guys just go to church?

same sex unions

To me, this isn't a religious issue at all, and I don't understand the conservative approach to it. It's a human rights issue.

Religion's presence is 100% immaterial to morals. I am absolutely not religious at all, and my morals are those which I believe you would agree with quite strongly. I am not in any way unusual in that regard among the irreligious, either. I would also point to the many religious folks who seem to have rather weak morals.

I'd disagree here, religions tend to all have some form of moral code so they are not 100% immaterial.

Still irrelevant. That religion (pick any one) having a particular moral code does not make the adherents to that religion any more "moral" than someone who is not of that religion. The person is as moral as they are going to be, with or without the religion. Using the religion to "crutch" your morals simply means that you don't trust yourself. But if you are going to break your morals, your presence in that religion will have no bearing at all on it.

[jonesthecurl]

it won't change who we be yo.

I've read countless posts by you, and I never realised you were black.

Oh, and read some more history so you know the facts.

haha i wonder what would happen if a conservative said this

yup, more hypocrisy from the left

That's your contribution is it?
Imagaine what some vaguely-defined person might have said if someone else had said something different, and respond to that imagined comment?
I bet you have some wonderful debates on your own at home.
I bet you win them all too.

[Night Strike]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

ACORN. A non-profit group that actively supports and campaigns for Democratic candidates when supporting candidates is against the rules for non-profits.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

ACORN. A non-profit group that actively supports and campaigns for Democratic candidates when supporting candidates is against the rules for non-profits.

A lot of NPOs do that for both parties, yet the FEC and the judicial branch turn a blind eye.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding though. A not for profit organization isn't one that doesn't operate on money; it's one that doesn't operate to turn a profit. Those mega churches are probably shelling out a lot of money for those operating expenses, salaries, and probably other outreach ministries. The Red Cross, likewise, is a not for profit organization that brings in tons of money every year and pays its operating expenses, employees, and director. It's not there to turn a profit for it's board of directors, stock holders, or owner though. Churches in my experience opertate the same way. Granted I can't sit here and speak reliably about the financial practices of all churches. I can tell you from experience, sometimes as a leader, what the financial practices of a few small churches are. That's the extent of my experience though, but like I said if a church can qualify as a not for profit organization (and every one I've ever attended could) then what's the problem with tax free status?

[Woodruff]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding though. A not for profit organization isn't one that doesn't operate on money; it's one that doesn't operate to turn a profit. Those mega churches are probably shelling out a lot of money for those operating expenses, salaries, and probably other outreach ministries.

No, it's not a misunderstanding...that's precisely what I am saying. I am absolutely in favor of ministers making a reasonable living...but when the salaries reach a certain figure, churches cease to be not-for-profit agencies in my opinion.

[john9blue]

That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.

I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding though. A not for profit organization isn't one that doesn't operate on money; it's one that doesn't operate to turn a profit. Those mega churches are probably shelling out a lot of money for those operating expenses, salaries, and probably other outreach ministries.

No, it's not a misunderstanding...that's precisely what I am saying. I am absolutely in favor of ministers making a reasonable living...but when the salaries reach a certain figure, churches cease to be not-for-profit agencies in my opinion.

what "figure" would you suggest, woody?