We have never and will never advocate the establishment of a state religion. The founders of this nation specifically wanted America to be free of the problems of state religions and the ludicrous notion of the "divine right of kings." Instead they desired to establish a nation "under God" in which the rights of man were understood to come from divine inspiration instead of an all powerful and intrusive government that could revoke those rights at any time it wished.
[Emphasis my own.]
37 comments
why is this quote here?
he didnt really say anything stupid, thats basically correct.
or maybe im just reading way too much into that. either way, i really dont care about that, anymore than i care that the money in my wallet says "in God we trust"
under god didn't show up until the 50's
Before that it was "One nation, indivisible", but I'm sure you've been told that at least 100 times.
If you were to say it's "one nation under Allah" this guy would have a conniption fit. But Allah of course is simply the Muslim equivalent of "God", and is just as much a non-name as God is. Yet using "Allah" actually implies all of the Muslim beliefs about the supreme deity, just as much as using "God" implies all of the Christian beliefs about the supreme deity, as "Yahweh" implies of the Jewish beliefs about the supreme deity.
So, Marrik, the use of "God" is not an innocuous and loosely defined concept that can mean anything you want it to mean. It very specifically means the Christian God.
Well, they're good rights, and they might be divinely inspired, but we don't have to buy into your religion just to get the morality.
Nice try, but no. You can twist the words, out of context, all you want to try to make them say and you are still a liar.
There was a time the motto was E Pluribus Enum, but a bunch of tard wanted that changed to pretend the US was a Xtian nation. Just like the "Under God" being put in the pledge of allegiance to smoke out "Those commie bastards". Waste of time and effort.
No our government was based on the idea that the smaller the government the more freedom people had, and that people should decide who their leaders and policy maker should be, and finally that the church and state can only function as sepreate entities. They brought all these ideas together and called it The Constitution. Read it sometime.
Marrik: you have to really stretch the definition of God or worship for you to even remotely make sense. I'm talking Mr. Fantastic chewing bubble gum stretch.
The possibility that it could LEGALLY mean one nation under money, sex or (best of all) MYSELF would turn the entire phrase into an absurdist non-sequitur.
When the matter of your first two sentences collided with the anti-matter fail of your third sentence, the whole weak little proposition evaporated into thin air.
Now, do I really have to say it?
Of course--EXPELLED!!!!eleventy-onE!
"We have never and will never advocate the establishment of a state religion. "
"establish a nation "under God""
Which god is that? The catholic god? The southern baptist god? The mormon god? The sunni god? The shiite god?
Are you starting to understand the problem?
"The founders of this nation [...] desired to establish a nation "under God""
America was only established in the 50s? Dude, you owe the UK 200 years of tea tax!
So they don't want a state religion.
They do, however, want the state to base it's self on a particular religion.
Gee, semantics much?
Instead we took over and desired to establish an all powerful and intrusive government that could revoke those rights at any time it wished with one nation "under our God"
it is a win win situation. Evil triumps agian.
"We have never and will never advocate the establishment of a state religion."
- I agree completely. Maybe you and I can find common ground here.
- Wow, you know your stuff. I want to hear more about your position. Maybe you and I can work together.
- Forget everything I said
I really wish you shits would understand why your earliest lawmakers created a secular country. They knew the history of the church, that if you give them an inch they'll take everything. You fought for independance from the King AND his church. Remember your Bible and many of todays churchs insist otherwise.
The goverment that was created allowed for freedom of religion, the deal was clear, the church could exist freely within perimeters of the law, and the church had no political or governing status. The church had the same rights as any other peaceful assemblies.
You know you're not in a Christian ruled nation or you'd be pulling a plow for your local church today instead of typing paranoid bullshit.
Sorry, this is not a fundie material in the slightest, but the posting of this quote is more of FSTDT's crypto-leftist indoctrination program. Read your own damn declaration of independence once in a while guys before you go shooting off your mouths again:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Look, the point is not to create a theocracy, the point is that there are certain unalienable RIGHTS. i.e they're not up for debate. They aren't "granted by the government", they are above government.
I'm not a religious person at all myself, but I can at least see the benefit of this line of thinking. It's good to see these rights as 'sacred' in some way (i.e. beyond the power of government to take away), even if you're atheistic.
Secondly "creator" is pretty generic. Even "God" is rather generic so there's no need for comments like "what if it was Allah?"
@ #1583977
Oh my, where to begin? First of all, the Deceleration of Independence isn't the law of the land, The Constitution is. The purpose of The Constitution is to spell out the limits of government. Had you ever read The Constitution, you would have seen that the document clearly shows that invoking mythology is unnecessary for that purpose. Once you start involving mythology though, you leave the door open for (largely) self-appointed "men of god" to put a theocracy in place.
While the word "god" may be generic in that there are lots of gods, the word clearly suggests a discrete entity with a directed will. Not everyone believes in the existence of such entities. If someone wants to say that rights come from a god or gods, or that they simply exist like the laws of the universe, that is up to the individual. Again, our ability to function as a nation does not require an oath, pledge or amendment to spell that issue out. There is nothing to be gained by invoking mythology.
Finally, what is this "crypto-leftist indoctrination program" of which you speak? Is someone forcing you to come here? Is ANYONE forced to come here? If you don't like coming here, take your paranoid allusions, your limited knowledge of the American system and your "I'm not religious but..." apologies and go somewhere else.
So, instead of the ludicrous notion of the divine right of kings, you want a ludicrous notion of the divine inspiration of god? Wasn't the "under God" put there in the fifties, as a comfy blanket against the Red Scare?
Only dictatorships are (almost) all powerful, silly. All governments can be overturn if enough people protest against them.
Edit"Look, the point is not to create a theocracy, the point is that there are certain unalienable RIGHTS. i.e they're not up for debate."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
