OUR COUNTRY IS HISTORY!

[Morel42]

Originally Posted by camper

Why, oh why doesn't this belief of the democratic party translate to anything besides religious expression?

Can we go through the list of things the democratic party wants everyone to pay for regardless of any opposition on the subject? (healthcare, welfare, social security, etc)

The "don't want to be forced to pay, nor force it upon our children" argument kinda loses effectiveness when compared to how the party wants to pay for its social programs many conservatives do not support.

Seems a little...inconsistent...to say that the democratic party wants to exclude religious symbolism because they don't want to pay for it is all, and then force-feed numerous other social programs to other americans who don't want to pay for them, etiher.

camper

Are you really trying to equal teaching a child what religion to practice to a health care system, or Social Security?

Yikes.. lol

[chucksniper]

What is God. Look around you man. Get real. You know in your heart Who God is.

[bogey1]

Originally Posted by chucksniper

Whatever you believe, this country was founded on universal principles. The Bible reflects some of them, but that may be pure coincidence...?????coincidence...?????my foot



“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” Patrick Henryt

"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
Partrick Henry

Why look... what I found...
How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.
Benjamin Franklin


"It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being... [that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations... [and that] He would take this province under his protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of danger.

I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter.

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Ben Franklin


Franklin was an agnostic... but still believed in God.
Washington was a Deist.... but still believed in God.

My point is... These men, wheather saved or not, whether deists, anostic, cathoilc, purists, etc.. they had a reverence for God. Obama? Does he? No.

The constitution is eroding, due to God being taken out of the picture, from money, from schools, from the home, especially from the home, from the gov't...

The gov't is our children...this country is our children, hence the home is crucial to the future of this "ONCE" great nation, but is eroding due to this claticismic downturn of a people that only care about themselves.

I will not see the destruction, but at least our fore fathers didn't want to see it... and sacrifced to set in place with the divine direction of God.

great post chucksniper!

[camper]

Originally Posted by Morel42

Are you really trying to equal teaching a child what religion to practice to a health care system, or Social Security?

Yikes.. lol

How does seeing a cross on public property immediately equate to telling a child what to religion to practice? That would be like arguing that your husband got shot by a lunatic with a gun, so therefore you should setup a foundation in his name to eliminate guns from society because you believe owning a gun will tell children to commit crime.

The point was me calling you out on the comment of "I don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't believe in" (crosses, religious expression) being valid while another person saying "I don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't believe in" (social security, government health care) being invalid.

It's a double standard, no more no less. You really don't see that? Or is it because you see religious symbolism as egregious and healthcare as a mandate?

Look at it objectively, that's all.

camper

[chucksniper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-0m...eature=related

here's to our heros.

[mjfletcher]

If it was a religious memorial I'd be behind the ACLU on this, but its a memorial to our TROOPS!!!!!! That cross is not a government sponsorship of religion, it is a privately erected memorial to those who've served AND MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE to protect us and our rights. The ACLU should be out there everyday saying Thank You!

[1861]

Originally Posted by camper

How does seeing a cross on public property immediately equate to telling a child what to religion to practice? That would be like arguing that your husband got shot by a lunatic with a gun, so therefore you should setup a foundation in his name to eliminate guns from society because you believe owning a gun will tell children to commit crime.

The point was me calling you out on the comment of "I don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't believe in" (crosses, religious expression) being valid while another person saying "I don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't believe in" (social security, government health care) being invalid.

It's a double standard, no more no less. You really don't see that? Or is it because you see religious symbolism as egregious and healthcare as a mandate?

Look at it objectively, that's all.

camper

Almost everything the Gov't . wastes money on I don't want my tax money spent on . Not that it makes a bit of difference .

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by chucksniper

What is God. Look around you man. Get real. You know in your heart Who God is.

Yeah, its Ketanëtuwit.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by chucksniper

What is God. Look around you man. Get real. You know in your heart Who God is.

I do look around. I am real.

"Who" indicates anthropomorphic beliefs, which are common in Christians, Jews and Muslims that believe in the Lord described in the Bible or equivalent. Some people, like me, on the other hand believe in a God that does not suffer from human emotions, needs and desires, and which is indifferent to the fate of any single human or other being. My God has no use for worship and does not meddle with the physical universe any more.

Some people of faith seem to have an interesting lack of faith. They talk about an infinitely wise, infallible and omnipotent God and then imagine that God to create a world that is so imperfect and full of flaws that it needs constant attention and corrections with all sorts of wonders and magic. I simply cannot imagine that. My God is infinite. That is the only God possible because nothing short of infinite can create itself out of nothing. An infinite God is DONE and no longer needed after having created the Universe in exactly the way that it had to be created. I suggest reading Ethics by Spinoza if you are interested in further details why this is and must be so.

However, this is getting off topic because the thing discussed here should not be if the God of the Bible is real or not, but if the removal of religious signs (not just crosses) from public land is appropriate or if religious signs like the one at hand should rather be protected by the first amendment.

I for one think the latter. I also think that the removal of a cross from a classroom is stupid. If someone wants, they can add a Buddha or a star of David or whatever they need to the classroom. But it's interestingly seldom people of other faiths that ask for the removal. These idiots that ask for removal are wannabe atheists that feel offended by religion. Real atheists aren't.

And as stated, in the case of the ACLU all bets are off anyway, because the ACLU is just a suing club camouflaging as civil rights defenders.


Jan

[Lysander]

I would feel better disposed towards the memorial had it been kept up; in reading up on this situation, a number of sources pointed out that the original memorial was a roughly built wooden one, replaced several times only when the previous one was in severe disrepair, and, from one of the sources, no actual plaque or description of the memorial for visitors (that source said the original was lost or stolen, mentioned a replacement once, but gave the strong impression that there was no such plaque there immediately prior to the lawsuit.) The present memorial is described as welded steel tubing painted white.

Now, a solid memorial (since Arlington was mentioned, a memorial similar to one finds there, or perhaps at Gettysburg) was built or even haphazardly maintained, that would show continuity. What has been described as the Mojave memorial sounds closer to a few guys on a weekend and a couple of bucks. I'm not saying it should have been an elaborate, expensive affair, but perhaps more than was done.

Getting into "who believed what" at the founding of this country is a distraction from this point: many of the *states* had state religions (Maryland and Catholicism, for example) that were removed after the formation of the US under the Constitution.