http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5020241.html
Yes, Texas students now have to say "One state under God."
Thank this person: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members...50/welcome.htm
As for my thoughts, I am outraged that the State of Texas would waste its time on this instead of dismantling North Forest ISD or establishing health care for the uninsured (or any other real issue).
Outstanding. After all this nation was founded on the principal that all men are CREATED equal with certain inalienable rights endowed by their CREATOR. Belief in the Almighty is the VERY basis for our Constitution's Bill of Rights. They're your rights and no other individual nor a 99% majority of society can take them away. Why? Because they were given to you by GOD. This is great. Makes me proud to be a Texan. If you don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers.
The concept of individual rights is based on natural law, not god. You don't have to believe in a god to recognize the loose societal axiom that "my rights end where yours begin."Originally Posted by drycreek
The concepts of natural law rights -- which the Declaration of Independence captures indisputably -- were very much social concepts, not religious ones. Still, it may be worth mentioning that this ethical behavioral system began with the stoics and pagans (only to be adopted by Christians later).
Regardless, the founding fathers were mostly irreligious deist revolutionaries separating from an intertwined church and state. The phase 'endowed by their creator' was much more a term of art (and a beautiful one at that), illustrating the immutability of rights. They exist whether we write them here or not.
It most certainly wasn't the governmental resolution recognizing the existence of god, that many religious right-wingers make it out to be. Recasting history in that sense requires forgetting the context of the document all together.
The Declaration of Independence wasn't about bringing church and state together in the slightest. It was a big bad ass F$^@ YOU sent to King George's church and state rule. If you take any theme away from the Declaration of Independence, obviously, it should be one of individuality and freedom.
That people actually use the DOC to support a case for government sanctioned religion, is so full of incomprehensible irony, that my mind throws an exception. Cannot divide by zero. Invalid Expression. And with my brain derailed... all I'm left with is an ominous sense of fright. A sense that soon, things might not be so good for us.
It scares me. It scares me that we have so little respect for the thoughts, ideas and traditions of others (and their children), that we inject religious rhetoric into our fascist religious mottoes and attempt to prescribe religious ideology through the the school system. It scares me how we boast that this legislated group think, this top-down "take it or leave it" governance, is what makes us great.
Last edited by incrediculous; 03 August 2007 at 01:47 PM.
I'm sorry but adding that to the pledge when it wasn't there in the first place is just a blatant attempt to shove Christianity down the throats of people who may or may not want it. Not to mention, it's likely some kind of ploy to gain hardcore conservative support in a waning conservative era. With the country becoming less and less religious (save the more fanatical religious extremists), it's only a matter of time before nonsense like this is eradicated. I'm not one to say I don't believe in god but one thing I know is that to add that is disregarding everything this country was founded on. It was completely unnecessary.
why add it now. Is it going to stop the war in IRAQ. lol
I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I very much disagree with your point. There is a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary. Take a look at the writings of most of the framers and a unique personal relationship with the Almighty is seen time and again.Regardless, the founding fathers were mostly irreligious deist revolutionaries
Maybe Jefferson fits your description above to a degree but even he said this...
The simple fact of the matter is this nation was founded on a belief in the Almighty. I've seen atheist and other intellectual bullies try to twist and contort this truth to the best of their ability but while they can frame their argument however they want it does not change this truth.Taken from A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1777. The last sentence is taken from a letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?
Here's another good quote from Jefferson, that as a Christian I am very much in agreeance with.
It is my belief that this is the true meaning behind the seperation of church and state. It was not intended to abolish God from the state but rather to keep the state from interferring from the personal beliefs of any individual whether they be a Christian, Atheist or anything else.Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.
While an Atheist should be able to believe whatever he/she choses to believe and live a life free from persecution that does not mean that the state being founded on a belief in God cannot recognize the very basis of its foundation.
"While an Atheist should be able to believe whatever he/she choses to believe and live a life free from persecution that does not mean that the state being founded on a belief in God cannot recognize the very basis of its foundation."
The United States didn't see a resurgence of Christianity since the U. S. Revolution until the Second Great Awakening.
Anyway, I started a discussion about this on a forum about Kingwood (a suburban area within the Houston city limits - no, I do not live there) - And it seemed to strike a nerve with some pro-put the "Under God" in the pledge camp: http://www.kingwoodunderground.com/t...picId=11070259
Read through the entire discussion (Yes, a year or two ago I made a post advocating bringing the Houston city limits under one school district, but that did not need to be brought up on THAT discussion) - If you want an example of a lack of civility in political discussion, this thread is a good example.
Drycreek. Yes, Jefferson referred to God. He was a deist, after all. Deists tend to do that. And in that quote, he attributed the source of rights to this god. And he did so in the same spirit of natural law that I described in my earlier post. Yet you're still managing to emphasize the wrong theme from the point he's making.
I've been through these debates about our founding fathers a million times, and they no longer interest me. Instead of volleying back and forth on broad historical points that aren't entirely clear, I'll only ask that you show some decency and respect for your fellow man and recognize the undeniable value of freedom.
Please don't relish so much in the legislated group think. It's unbecoming of you, and it's unbecoming of our nation.
Will this concept apply when we begin to colonize Mars?
After all, NASA personnel, and people from other space agencies, will be the founders.
Well said sir, well said.
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
A few comments:
incrediculous said that the Founding Fathers "...were mostly irreligious deist revolutionaries...." He did not say that they were Atheists. I interpret his post to mean that they believed in God, they just didn't belong to any particular religion.
I saw nothing in the wording to suggest that "one state under God" is meant to refer specifically to the Christian God. It could just as easily be interpreted as the God of any other faith which refers to their deity as "God." Granted, the author of the change most likely was thinking of the Christian God when she proposed it and pushed it through, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be interpreted another way. There's also a legal provision allowing students to opt out with a written note from their parents, so no one will have Christianity shoved down their throat.
Sir, is this not what I have done?I'll only ask that you show some decency and respect for your fellow man and recognize the undeniable value of freedom.
Also,Here's another good quote from Jefferson, that as a Christian I am very much in agreeance with.
Quote:
Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.
Look, I'll be the first to admit, I'm not an itellectual. I'm sure you could run circles around me, I'm not a especially smart guy. But I don't understand how Jefferson can refer to God as the bestower of our rights and law and yet some would argue that that's not really what he was saying?Drycreek. Yes, Jefferson referred to God. He was a deist, after all. Deists tend to do that. And in that quote, he attributed the source of rights to this god. And he did so in the same spirit of natural law that I described in my earlier post. Yet you're still managing to emphasize the wrong theme from the point he's making.
I may be simple but perhaps you've overthought the matter and constructed an arguement that reinforces your previously held beliefs?
Also, I just want to say I very much respect you and your right to your opinion and in no way mean to trivialize or dismiss you. It just seems to me that some in your camp are simply reaching here for answers that fit their ideology.
The first amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No obscure quotes are required. This country was not founded upon Christianity or any religious belief.
I'm constantly amazed by how people preach on and on about how this government is based upon religion when religion is specifically banned from the government in the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights.
No. You have not.Quote:
I'll only ask that you show some decency and respect for your fellow man and recognize the undeniable value of freedom.
Sir, is this not what I have done?
You've promoted a state-sponsored religious rhetoric in our government and schools, which is incredibly disrespectful and intolerant to those who aren't religious, obviously. Then you've bragged about how this religious like-mindedness is supposedly what makes us great.
That's rubbish, "sir."
Yup. That's me! Stickin' to those silly beliefs of mine, again.I may be simple but perhaps you've overthought the matter and constructed an arguement that reinforces your previously held beliefs?
Words have different meaning to different people, especially across different cultures and time, obviously. When Jefferson says, "god" he means something very different than you do. Read up on Deism. Read up on Natural Law.But I don't understand how Jefferson can refer to God as the bestower of our rights and law and yet some would argue that that's not really what he was saying?
Besides, if you're looking for a proof that this is a "Christian Nation" -- some belief-based theocracy of sorts -- you're looking in the wrong place with the Declaration of Independence. It's not a constitutional document.
Funny you should mention that. My camp and I were just sitting in our tents earlier today, appreciating how the establishment clause of the constitution puts every religious philosophy on an even playing field in the marketplace of ideas. But apparently we were wrong, or something.It just seems to me that some in your camp are simply reaching here for answers that fit their ideology.
All this time we thought freedom of religion meant something great, like equality unencumbered by government. We thought freedom of religion meant the state could not sponsor religion. Because that would be... like, theocracy or something?
But apparently (since the 1950s or so), freedom of religion just means you must pick what religion you belong to -- and that if you don't pick one that worships "god," you and your kids must file paperwork to opt out.
Yeah! We can opt out. That's fantastic. We have the option of freedom, we just need to file the paperwork. Go Freedom!
Last edited by incrediculous; 04 August 2007 at 01:39 AM.
As a very strong and devoted follower of Christ, I'm not for this. I don't see what this proves to those who voted this in? Does this make their faith feel more valid? Maybe it does, but to me it only is the pushing of faith without any concern for the well being of the people in this state. I would rather see that christians are known for giving of themselves than imposing on others.
No, I don't like this at all.
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
F4shionable, Religion wasn't banned from the government. Nearly all of the original colonies had constitutions held religious wording.
However, times change and christians should realize that our faith isn't a political agenda. All christians should live in more humble and caring ways that don't impose religious beliefs, but embrace people as equally worthy of value, whether atheist, buddhist, poor, rich, or any color.
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
First of all, why do kids have to say a pledge to the Texas flag anyway? Talk about a waste of valuable school time. Forcing children to say "under God" is very contrived in the Texas pledge.
Second, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Instead, it was simply a statement of independence by the colonies.
Drycreek, some of the quotes of Madison and Jefferson are good evidence of those men's individual beliefs about God and government. However, if they intended the "true meaning" of the Constitution to include those words quoted above, the Constitution would have simply included those words.
You must remember that Madison and Jefferson were not the sole constructionists of the Constitution. It was written by many different men to satisfy many different interests. Their own individual beliefs about God and government are just as relevant as Nancy Pelosi's individual beliefs about the Iraq war. What an individual thinks who voted for a law is irrelevant to what is actually written in the law. After all, laws do not have a single author. And individuals change their minds over time.
Our nation was founded by men who could fit the liberal definition of a Christian. But they did not found a "Christian Nation." For instance, simply because all of the lawyers in my law firm are Christians does not mean we intended to form a "Christian Law Firm." It just means its a law firm run by Christians.
The Founders created a very secular state. It is undisputed that these were brilliant men. If they intended to found a Christian State, they would have said so. However, they chose the language that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." These brilliant men could have simply stated "no state sponsored church shall be allowed." They could have said that any "displays of Christianity are lawful." But they did not. They were well aware that religions other than Christianity existed, but they still chose that the government "should make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It was therefore, their intent to segregate all religion. Not just non-Christian religion. If the collective Constitutional Convention intended otherwise, they would have said so in the document.
Last edited by hamiltonpl; 07 August 2007 at 11:00 AM.
DAGNABBIT!
1. Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. They can not pass a single law that promotes religion. Seems like a pretty clear mandate to me. Of course, this has been completely ignored over the past two hundred years, but still it's stupid for anyone to make an argument that this nation was somehow founded or based upon religion. It just doesn't hold up.
2. What the original colonies had in their constitutions does not matter.
Religious wording is quite different than saying that the nation was founded upon religion. It wasn't founded upon religion. Even today the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts still hold religious wording. But do you hear about it? No. Just because the word Christian is in their constitution doesn't equate to being founded upon religion. However, other colonies, like Delaware, did have specific religious word that required people to believe in the Trinity, but was fairly quickly changed.
I'm not arguing against you. I've learned a ton from atheist and they have challenged me far more than many christians actually have.
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks