Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 115
  1. #41  
    Don't you mean "religion and politics do not mix because I BELEIVE nations are creations of men not god."

    Someone can no more prove that nations are created by god, than they can prove nations are not created by god.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Don't you mean "religion and politics do not mix because I BELEIVE nations are creations of men not god."

    Someone can no more prove that nations are created by god, than they can prove nations are not created by god.
    Interesting point, but God continues to be a part of what we are. It's one nation "under God" and "In God We Trust".

    The primary reason the Pilgrims came to America was because they did not have the freedoms granted to us under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    As to your comment about nations being created by God, well, that's why they call it faith.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  3. #43  
    All nations currently in existence have had their boundaries defined by treaties drawn up by men. You may argue that god created the ground, but he didn't create the boundaries.
    Animo et Fide
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Are you referring to Kipling's Gunga Din?
    You're just soo smart!!
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #45  
    Interesting point, but God continues to be a part of what we are. It's one nation "under God" and "In God We Trust".

    The primary reason the Pilgrims came to America was because they did not have the freedoms granted to us under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
    "under god" and "in god we trust" (on currency) did not come into existence until the 1950's during our cold war against 'godless' communists.

    The Pilgrims were not seeking the freedom to practice religion in and of itself. They were fleeing oppression of THEIR religion by the MAJORITY religion. That is why the U.S. Constitution states:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    How you think putting "in god we trust" on currency is not supporting a particular religion is beyond me.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "under god" and "in god we trust" (on currency) did not come into existence until the 1950's during our cold war against 'godless' communists.

    The Pilgrims were not seeking the freedom to practice religion in and of itself. They were fleeing oppression of THEIR religion by the MAJORITY religion. That is why the U.S. Constitution states:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    How you think putting "in god we trust" on currency is not supporting a particular religion is beyond me.
    Normally I agree with you on things, but now I am way confused.

    Your second paragraph is a restatement of my point. If you are being repressed due to your religion, then having the freedom to practice it would be a principal reason for fleeing that country.

    "In God We Trust" implies NO particular religion. Christians have God, the Jews have Yahweh, and the Muslims have Allah, to name just a few.

    The beauty in the motto is that it favors no particular God, but leaves it up to the person reading the motto. If your background is Western European, you will view it one way. If you are of Middle Eastern descent, you will view it quite another way.

    Didn't mean to offend you ...
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  7. #47  
    The beauty in the motto is that it favors no particular God, but leaves it up to the person reading the motto. If your background is Western European, you will view it one way. If you are of Middle Eastern descent, you will view it quite another way.
    It's still exclusionary. What about Buddhists, Atheist, Agnostics? The point of the Founding Fathers placing the above in the Constitution was to keep the gov't out of religion period. Why is this so difficult for people to accept?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's still exclusionary. What about Buddhists, Atheist, Agnostics? The point of the Founding Fathers placing the above in the Constitution was to keep the gov't out of religion period. Why is this so difficult for people to accept?
    Hey, I want to keep religion out of government as well.

    If we want to change the label from God to a Supreme Being, then the Buddhists have Buddha and the agnostics (from dictionary.com: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.) aren't quite sure.

    This leaves out the atheists. So I guess you're right ... I'm just trying to keep an open mind to the opinions of others.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  9. #49  
    "Under god" should be removed from the pledge, it was not in the original.

    "In God We Trust" should be removed from currency.

    It's kinda a no-brainer but people who believe in a god get offended by this idea. For some reason they find it threatening to their beliefs so they are more comfortable allowing the minority belief to be made uncomfortable.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Does the candidates stance on religion affect who you will vote for?
    Absolutely.

    There is a clear difference between the two. One would use the power of the state to enforce his morality on the rest of us; one would not. I think that most of us have a clear prefence for one of those over the other and will vote accordingly. Which side are you on?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Absolutely.

    There is a clear difference between the two. One would use the power of the state to enforce his morality on the rest of us; one would not. I think that most of us have a clear prefence for one of those over the other and will vote accordingly. Which side are you on?
    When reading this for the first time, I felt it was the clearest delineation on this subject yet.

    After a few moments of thought, I need to ask you exactly what you mean by using the power of the state to enforce his morality on the rest of us?

    Are you talking about using laws and amendments to the Constitution to enforce morality (like Prohibition) or are you saying that one feels morality is a personal issue and one's personal beliefs should not be forced on others?
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Are you talking about using laws and amendments to the Constitution to enforce morality (like Prohibition) or are you saying that one feels morality is a personal issue and one's personal beliefs should not be forced on others?
    I am saying both of those things. One candidate believes the former and the other believes the latter. If elected, each can be expected to act in accordance with his beliefs.
  13. #53  
    Sorry if I wasn't clear in my last post. I was not making a positive declaration, i.e. nations are created by God nor in anyway attempting to argue that point. I was simply pointing out that the statement "nations are not created by God" is implicitly a matter of belief.


    You made the statement -- nations are creations of men not a creation of god.

    Note: my comment on the last part of your statement was not a challenge to your first part. I could make the statement -- god creates nations through men and all nations therefore have eternal and religous implications. PLEASE READ: I'm not making this argument and just presenting another view.



    The last part of your statement is a belief and it seems as though this belief is presented as fact in order to counter another world view (belief) -- a religious world view.

    Your statement has two implications that I can think of, I am not trying to be insulting I'm just taking them to their logical conclusion:

    men create nations, god does not because I know all things pertaining to the universe and god, and therefore I know god does not create nations.

    men create nations, god does not because a) I believe god does not exist or b) I believe god exists but I do not believe god creates nations.


    As for faith, all people have the burden to answer this question and its implication on their lives. Does God exist? Either and all answers are a matter of faith, not just the religious. However the amount of faith varying world views require is not equal.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Under god" should be removed from the pledge, it was not in the original.
    Originally, there was no pledge and that was OK. Then there was a pledge; that was OK. Then 'under God' was put in and that was OK. Then it was made mandatory. That was OK. Then a court was asked to rule on it. Even that was OK. Then a court agreed to rule and all hell broke loose. If I had been on the bench, I would have refused to rule on the basis that it was not material and courts should not rule on trivial issues.

    However, as soon as a court agreed to rule, by definition, it was material. To rule that it should be kept in is to say that it is appropriate to use the coercive power of the state to enforce religious conformity on little children. Of course, that is exactly what many people want to do and others fear.

    The Supreme Court found a loop hole that permitted them to escape ruling on the substance of the issue. That is OK. Now, for God's sake, let's all leave this sleeping dog alone.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/11/2004 at 03:23 PM.
  15. #55  
    So what you're saying is this:

    You believe Its wrong (moral statement) for a politician to enforce their beliefs on you.
    Candidate A personally holds this belief
    Your voting for candidate A because he will uphold this personal belief as policy.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    So what you're saying is this:

    You believe Its wrong (moral statement) for a politician to enforce their beliefs on you.
    Candidate A personally holds this belief
    Your voting for candidate A because he will uphold this personal belief as policy.
    I thought that I had been silent on what I believed and which way I would vote. What I said is that I believe that most people believe one way or the other and vote accordingly.
  17. #57  
    That is OK. Now, for God's sake, let's all leave this sleeping dog alone.
    No. It's NOT ok. It's a step towards becoming the Taliban.

    One of the greatest aspects of our Country is the deperation of religion and gov't. You advocate simply letting it be chipped away at. I can assure you the Founding Father's would be aghast.
  18. #58  
    I was just pointing out that I don't see the previous argument as anyway logical, people say they don't want the Constitution and Laws to enforce morality, but that is their main purpose. Yes the amendment concerning prohibition was a moral judgement but so is the one concerning slavery. Therefore I don't think you agree the fact that the Constitution espouses a moral position is bad.

    Surely, the mere fact someone makes a personal belief law is not bad, especially if one believes murder,slavery and rape are wrong.

    So I'm not sure what you're really saying. Every politician is going to have personal beliefs that they believe should be "imposed" (I don't think any politician believes all their beliefs should be imposed).

    Surely no one believes John Kerry would appoint a prolife judge anymore than W would appoint a pro choice. Both decisions have an imposition of belief.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    "In God We Trust" implies NO particular religion. Christians have God, the Jews have Yahweh, and the Muslims have Allah, to name just a few.
    But it does imply ecclesiasticality. Further, "In God We Trust" doesn't make a distinction between what is secular and what is not - and that's really the problem. One the one hand, we're looking for the separation of church and state and, on the other hand, we have phrases like such that blur the line.

    Everyone already understands that morality underpins fundamental law (e.g. human law - don't kill, don't steal, don't harm, etc.). This is not a culturally relative concept - it permeates all cultures, races, etc. So why must we be reminded that religion is the source of these laws, these principles? Ego. Power. (See Roman Catholic church, Church of England, Islamic law, etc.)
  20. #60  
    Every politician is going to have personal beliefs that they believe should be "imposed" (I don't think any politician believes all their beliefs should be imposed).
    Kerry impressed me with the statement, "But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."

    He's not stating he won't apply morality to his decision making, he's telling you he's not going to apply the specific beliefs of His Faith to decisions which affect everyone. I thought he answered that question quite eloquently.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions