God Bless America

Well, if there is a war on God in Washington I really don't see it. For each example of God being marginalized you give there are ten times as many examples of God in Washington. What you don't do in your article is separate what politicians *say* about God versus references to God being enacted by law, which is the real issue with the Constitution, which says Congress shall not enact a *law* respecting the establishment of religion. Politicians can say whatever they like, can even call for God to come down and protect America. But you cannot put into law references to God since that respects the establishment of the Judaeo-Christian religion.

What I have seen is arguments confusing these two and you do it here. What Eisenhower said about God is not an issue. What Congressmen say on the House floor is not restricted. Is all about putting God into LAW. So when Kentucky passes a LAW saying God protects Kentucky, then that is a real constitutional issue. When South Carolina passes a LAW requiring an "I Believe" license plate with the christian cross, that is a constitutional issue. Putting a speech into stone with references to God is not establishing religion as long as the speech is historically relevant.

Speeches are not laws. We need to be clear about this since it is the source of much confusion. Quoting speeches into monuments are not laws as long as the speech is deemed appropriate. If you are so paranoid that God is being erased in DC, visit the Jefferson memorial and read the following engraved in concrete: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." and consider that this quote, one of many referencing God, being engraved in this federal monument, is not establishing religion through law, just quoting great words of a great man. Then walk to the following places and see more references to God: the Lincoln Memorial, the National Archives, Senate and House office buildings, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress.

Your paranoia is misplaced especially as laws are being passed at federal and state levels respecting the establishment of religion, which is truly unconstitutional. That is where your paranoia should be.

What everyon needs to understand is EVERYTHING BELONGS TO GOD-HE CREATED IT ALL

I am all in favor of removing references to God from public buildings and from the pledge. It is not the job of government to become God's ad agency. If people wish to have religion, I have no problem with that -- our government gives them that freedom as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to practice their religion or lack thereof.
If a President or any other individual wants to refer to God, that is his/her right, but Government buildings and oaths should not contain a reference to a God that not all citizens believe in.
Part of the desire to remove the word "God" from public buildings is a backlash against the pressure by the religious right to force religion into the government.
I hope all will enjoy the freedom to practice what they believe and will grant that freedom to others.

totally agree with bevjims1. We don't have enough to worry about than whether or not In g-d We trust is on the edge of the coin instead of the face? And then we're going to spend money to retool its production because someone complained? But shoving g-d in everyone's face is the wrong thing to do- we forget "in the year of our Lord" was a convention of speech of its times. We don't use it today when someone asks you the date.

Instead of reinforcing the secularist/constitutional basis of our government, we are (still) pandering to the religious right. It has nothing to do with our history. teach it in school. But wasting time, money and breath on such foolishness in the face of terrorism, a financial meltdown and the religious culture wars is irresponsible beyond beleif and only reinforces the anger and resentment of those of us who have endured this deconstructing of our Constitution for the last 8 years.

That it is Gov. DeMint leading this enterprise speaks volumes.

Should people have God in their hearts, and act like Jesus would, there would be no need for these concerns. Those of us who believe in the separation of State and Church are sharing the same beliefs of our founding fathers when they wrote our Constitution. Perhaps if folks read it and knew the history of things like the Pledge of Allegiance, they might be able to spend more time communicating with their God.

LDTRPT25 crystallizes the debate, I think, by saying "What everyon [sic] needs to understand is EVERYTHING BELONGS TO GOD-HE CREATED IT ALL." Those who promote the public mention of God are motivated more or less by precisely this sentiment, I would guess (not being one of them myself).
Those who disagree with placing God's name on government property might respond to that sentiment with a simple question: Why? Why does everyone need to understand that? Why is it so important to believers that everyone else must also believe? I am comfortable enough with my faith, incomplete and flawed though it may be, not to need the validation of everyone else agreeing with me. I would not insist on my beliefs being inscripted on public buildings and currency. Why must I accept that others can and do?

The bureaucrats simply removed what isn't true and shouldn't have been inserted into official language, where it has long violated our First Amendment right not to have our govt promoting religion.

There's no more "War on God in America" than on Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster. Official language shouldn't refer to what isn't known to be real. That's called lying.

We're not a nation under God,. We'd be fools to trust in God. Religion is so far from necessary to our government as to be denied a role by law.

Ridding our official language of words inserted in violation of our Constitution has been too long in coming.

Good article.

The references to "God" on our currency, in our state buildings, on memorials etc, by no means indicates that anyone has to believe in God nor does it force religion on anyone. Who is twisting your arm to believe in God? I'm not sure but what I am sure of is that it is not the state twisting your arm.
Since when does anyone have to believe in God? Since when has our government(State) forced anyone to believe in God? Since when has anyone in our nations history(since the implementation of our constitution) been condemned and or imprisoned by the gov. because they simply do not believe in God or that they refuse to agree with "In God We trust"?
For one to argue that having "In God we Trust" on our currency is mixing church and state , to argue that any mention of the words "God" & "Faith" in our Gov buildings has but one agenda and one agenda only. To imply their own views that there is no God in a covert manner.

It seems to me that the non-believer works harder to convince people that there is Not a God than the believer who tries to convince the non-believer that there is a God. That is arguable of course..

Both arguments have merit. To believe in God is about faith and cannot be proven just as the non-believer bases his/her belief on science/theory but yet cannot prove that there is no God. The "Big Bang" haha Prove that that was not an act of God.

My point is simply this. Not one mention of God in our history has forced anyone to believe in God therefore there is no mix of church and state and THAT is the merit of the speration of church & state. However, the non-believer and evil doers will do all they can to rid the mention of God in any place of the public view. First, the attempt is to get it out of the government buildings, off our currency and then it will be to keep the word "God" from being visible anywhere that is within public view. These atheist(not all) & evil doers will stop at nothing to rid our nation of the very existence of the word "God".

Meanwhile, Satan laughs and spreads his wings.

bevjims1 :

You wrote, "When South Carolina passes a LAW requiring an "I Believe" license plate with the christian cross, that is a constitutional issue.".

I could be wrong but when I read the article about the SC tag, it said that it would be a vanity tag which is not only not required but has to be requested and someone would also have to pay extra for it.

It would be a constitutional issue if someone would be denied their right of free speech and/or their freedom of religion.

You also wrote, "That is where your paranoia should be.", it seems to me, he was mostly talking about people taking the "liberty" to falsify historic documents for "politically correct" reasons.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"However, the non-believer and evil doers will do all they can to rid the mention of God in any place of the public view. First, the attempt is to get it out of the government buildings, off our currency and then it will be to keep the word "God" from being visible anywhere that is within public view. These atheist(not all) & evil doers will stop at nothing to rid our nation of the very existence of the word "God".

Meanwhile, Satan laughs and spreads his wings."

You just blew your entire argument out of the water with the eqating of atheists and evildoers. As if removing G-d from governemnt buildings is an act of evil. So much for the fake dialogue you were just having.

In fact putting G-d on governemnt sanctioned buildings and in print is not separating church and state. It's passively sanction religion and implying that atheists and tose who don't have monotheistic faith are also evildoers. exactly why it's so dangerous- it isn't the atheists, or agnostics, or people who believe in different faiths- it people like drumsalot who do the damage.

Fundamentalists/extremists = terrorists. Why? Because they never known when to stop or when to shut up.

Thomas, I take your point. But changing documents to reflect changing times is not the same as falsifying them. We do this all the time when we rewrite laws, or modernize logos or dress for fashion. We changed the look of our paper money-taking G-d out of the government equation is meant to render it more inclusive. There are millions of people for who the phrase "under G-d" excludes them from feeling part of this country. It's more psychological than anything else, but is removing G-d politically correct or is leaving it in mean the government is pandering to the religious right?

SPARROW4

You wrote, " But shoving g-d in everyone's face is the wrong thing to do- we forget "in the year of our Lord" was a convention of speech of its times. We don't use it today when someone asks you the date."

If something is presented as a historic replica rather than a "politically correct" historic replica shouldn't that something be as the original rather than what we say the "original" should have been?

Then you wrote, " But wasting time, money and breath on such foolishness in the face of terrorism, a financial meltdown and the religious culture wars is irresponsible beyond beleif and only reinforces the anger and resentment of those of us who have endured this deconstructing of our Constitution for the last 8 years."

Seems to me that foolishness is trying to cowtoe to the "political correctness" of the day and try to rewrite the past because it might upset someone.

If they want to call it a replica, then it should be a replica.

The time and money that may have been wasted was wasted because someone thought it was "wise" to falsify historic documents, didn't the Soviet Union attempt to change their past?

I can't say what the thoughts and beliefs of the founding fathers of this country were but by what is in some of the founding documents, I would think that at least some of them thought that there was more to humanity than meets the eye.

Does it ever seem that the "shoving God in everyone's faces" and the "shoving no god in everyone's faces" is two sides of the same coin?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SPARROW4 WROTE:

You just blew your entire argument out of the water with the eqating of atheists and evildoers. As if removing G-d from governemnt buildings is an act of evil. So much for the fake dialogue you were just having.

In fact putting G-d on governemnt sanctioned buildings and in print is not separating church and state. It's passively sanction religion and implying that atheists and tose who don't have monotheistic faith are also evildoers. exactly why it's so dangerous- it isn't the atheists, or agnostics, or people who believe in different faiths- it people like drumsalot who do the damage.

Fundamentalists/extremists = terrorists. Why? Because they never known when to stop or when to shut up.

.......................

You would like to think I blew my argument but that is hardly the case. I did not equate Atheists and Evil doers as the same except in one common principle they have which is to ban the word GOD from our currency and gov buildings.
Did you miss the part where I said Atheists(NOT ALL)& Evil Doers? I guess you just see what you want to see and nothing else.

The placement of the word GOD(a word that you seem to refuse to spell out for which This helps my case about atheists(Not All) and evil doers) on our currency and in Government buildings does not imply that you are an evil doer if you donot believe. That statement is laughable at best.
Drumsalot is not the problem. The problem is people such as yourself who fail to realize their is no harm done and no foul committed to anyone through out our history and even to this day by having the word God on our currency and in gov buildings.
To have church & State seperated by your defintion and others would mean any person working for the government and or making decisions for the good of the people would have to be atheist?

"Fundamentalists/extremists = terrorists. Why? Because they never known when to stop or when to shut up."

That is absurd.

Terrorism by definition- 1)The act of terrorizing or the state of being terrorized. 2)Unlawfull acts of violence committed in an attempt to over throw a gov.
3) A system of gov that rules by intimidation.

A "Terrorist" is the person involved in the above acts.

By this definition, wouldn't anyone be considered a terrorist that partakes in the acts defined by "Terrorism" and not just the fundamentalist/extremist? wake up man.

Is it your belief that all fundamentalsts should shut up and not practice their freedom of speech? Well, that would be the reasoning of an evil doer for sure.

Your rebuttal to my previous post has no merit is nonsens.

Thomas- changing documents to reflect the present day doesn't mean changing the constitution or rewriting it- but why does it have to be on money (filthy lucre!) of all things. C'mon! Why is E pluribus unum - much more descriptive of what this country is supposed to be- objectionable to any American? and its what we should be promoting, instead of fighting religious wars over this and promoting the wants of religious folk over all the rest of us who simply want good government.

First of all, drumsalot let me lift the veil of your incredible ignorance. I was raised to write G-d that way as a gesture of respect for His name- in Hebrew school. Conservative Hebrew school, you complete ignoramus.

And then you reiterated your statement"I did not equate Atheists and Evil doers as the same except in one common principle they have which is to ban the word GOD from our currency and gov buildings.
Did you miss the part where I said Atheists(NOT ALL)& Evil Doers?. Everytime you put Atheists and evildoers on the same side of anything you equate them. Maybe its just your lousy command of english- I can't say. But this is exactly what you are saying.

you then wrote:"To have church & State seperated by your defintion and others would mean any person working for the government and or making decisions for the good of the people would have to be atheist?"

What definition is that? I don't mind a little hyperbole now and then but transcendental fantasy is not my thing. I happen to believe in freedom of religion- but religion does not have to be in your face 24/7 on everything associated with the government. It shouldn't be. but boy- that's some conclusion you come to- my guess is you would like it if no atheists or gays or pagans have any rights, too.

"Is it your belief that all fundamentalsts should shut up and not practice their freedom of speech? Well, that would be the reasoning of an evil doer for sure."

Ah- typical fundamentalist thinking. Your freedom of speech has never been undermined. that of others most assuredly has. Isn"t it you fundamentalist Chrisitans who think gays are evil and should not have the same rights as every other (straight) American? Isn't it your happy little group who don't believe in women;s right of choice or birth control? that the rest of us are going to hell because we don't believe as you do? I'm the evildoer? All I can tell you is your road to hell is paved with "good" intentions. See ya there.

Its all about the "pretty, wingie thingies"!!! Put these creatures on the myth pile and Judaism, Christianity and Islam and their omniscient gods will stress-fracture into the mumbo-jumbo they always were.

Redefining God as god, allah, zeus, jupiter, "et al", athena, singularity, a handsome man, and/or father/mother nature would also help.

Wow, if even someone from the Washington Post is writing in defense of those concerned about the proactive removal of historical references to God, those concerns must have at least some merit.

Thank you, Mr. Waters. God bless you.

As a devout Catholic I think we should keep 'all' references to God out of all politics or government identified objects. There is no assault on God there is however an assault on Government by religions, most noticeably Islam on their governments: look what that has brought them.

Sparrow4,

Ahh...I didn't realize that about Hebrews. Okay, so I got that wrong. Ignoramus? wow, I must be touching some nerves here. haha

I see your point about about the equation but you are missing the point. I said that "Atheist(Not all) & Evil Doers". How in the world do you interpret that as me calling ALL Atheists Evil Doers? I need english studies? Look in the mirror pal.

Who is putting religion in your face 24/7? It is not the state for sure. Because you don't want to look at the Word God, this means nobody has the right to look at it in the Gov building and on our money? This is offensive to you? Well, Not to be able to look at the word God on our currency and in buildings because people like you don't want to see it is just as offensive to me. So, why change what has not hurt anyone? It's better to offend a christian then it is to offend a atheist or just a person who does not want to see the word God? Again, you are talking nonsense..

You keep mentioning Seperation of Church & State? If you are so bent on that , then how is it possible to vote anyone in office whom is not an atheist? Any person who believes in a God will be influenced by their beliefs in their God when making certain decisions.

Gays and Atheists have rights? Oh, that's right I forgot, they are people to (Notice the sarcasm).
I believe people live their lives the way they choose, choose to believ in what they believe and in the end, I am not the judge. We all have rights. Just like the right that we have to not change our currency and have the word God removed from anything that represents our government just because you don't like our history of having the word God on our currency and in the gov building.

You assume that I am christian. You assume that I am a fundamentalist(I don't believe every single word of the bible). Your assumptions are the mother of your screw ups.
Have I called you an Atheist? Have I called you an evil doer? Have I called you any deplorable names as you have towards I?

Who amongst the two of us is the calmer and more rational person recognizing both of our rights? Who amongst the two of us would like to change history instead of preserving it?

hrmm...well, I have alittle league football playoff game to attend.

The same religious zealots who worry about the Christian gods popularity and name recognition are the people who despise gays, and don't believe women should have a right to their bodies.

I despise seeing and hearing about their invisible all powerful deity who never does anything except everything. I thought the Constitution protected me from having to worship him.

All the bulleted examples you give? I think the government was right the first time.

I am an Ameican. I love my country. But I don't believe in "God" and I resent having to see references to a myth on my money, on seals of my government, on monuments in my country's capital.

Yes, I WOULD like to erase all mentions of God from the public square. I think the Constitution was written to separate church and state and to assure that no one be required to take oaths to a religion that is not their own.

I am old enough to have learned the Pledge of Allegiance before the religionists usurped my Constitutional rights and inserted THEIR God into MY pledge.

Consequently, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the country for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice FOR ALL. (NOT just for those who believe in God.)

I would have tosay that anyone who thinks people who want G-d taken off of anything are evildoers is a very far stretch. again- you associated them with atheists but as far as I know evildoers aren't spending time worrying about where "G-d" is printed. so you sound a lot like the fundamentalists who associate those who are atheist or agnostic or different religions with "evildoers". And reread this sentence:" These atheist(not all) & evil doers will stop at nothing to rid our nation of the very existence of the word "God".

Meanwhile, Satan laughs and spreads his wings."

First of all , all you are saying is that not all atheists will stop at nothing, but in such a way as to imply only a few. And there is that same atheist & evildoers. then your last sentence- Satan spreads his wings. I'll give you the benefit of the stylistic doubt- you wrote what you meant poorly (so yeah, get a copy of the Elements of Style.)

Not to mention "Satan spreads his wings?" sounds like fundamentalist speak to me. For someone who claims not to believe a word of the bible? Looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck but its a puppy? Don't think so.

Offend christians? That is so funny- you're talking so someone who had to sing Christmas carols every year in school and had to rtake 2 days off from school for the High Holy Days but got 10 for Xmas and Easter (too bad about Passover). Who got told at Ground Zero I wasn't "Christian" enough to be working there. that those who died on 9-11 without accepting Jesus were now burning in hell (and this only a few weeks after 9-11), that it was ok to use the term "jewing" someone down because all Jews have money-(and there is plenty more what that stuff comes from. Yeah....Christians have had it so tough.

Frankly, if you can't handle not seeing in G-d we trust on your money I guess you need that constant reminder. Your problem, not mine. My faith is strong enough without it. And so is my belief in the Constitution. E Pluribus unum- that I also believe in.

If there is any one thing besides getting George out of Washington; it is getting Christianity back into its dark caves of ignorance and superstition! Dobson, et al have been a terrible force for evil, ineptitude, malfeasance, and stupidity; our current crop of Christian politicians AKA as Republicans are retrograde idiots of hypocrisy and destruction; they musy all be reputedated and removed from all halls of governance!

Conditions here are worsening with the weather so I won't be going to the game.

Southerncalgal wrote:

"I am an Ameican. I love my country. But I don't believe in "God" and I resent having to see references to a myth on my money, on seals of my government, on monuments in my country's capital."

I respect your opinion here and am sorry you feel so resentfull. However, the very thing you are resenting has been there for longer than you have been alive.. You claim "God" as a "Myth". If you can prove that to me, I'll prove to you that God exists.
Who is forcing you to say the pledge of allegiance in a manner that you don't want to?

"Yes, I WOULD like to erase all mentions of God from the public square. I think the Constitution was written to separate church and state and to assure that no one be required to take oaths to a religion that is not their own."

Wow, erase it totally from the public square? So, you feel only your rights should be respected?

Seperate Church & State? Does this then mean that nobody involved in State can believe in God?
Does this mean that nobody involved with State can say "God Bless America"?

I think the fallacy in your arguments, drumsalot, is that evil-doers want to remove the word God from government.

There are plenty of overtly pious evil-doers. The worst evil-doers in history, including the Nazis and the villians of 9/11 believed in God. The Spanish Inquisition was in the NAME of God.

You might try reading your own holy text, in which your living God (Jesus) told people NOT to pray in public, but to keep their faith privately.

It is a simple constitutional issue.
Let us make necessary amendments so that God is not disgraced.

drumsalot, you brought up "God Bless America"

That's another injection of God where it doesn't belong. I resent having to stand and sing a song I don't believe in at a baseball game.

Who required me to say the Pledge? Every teacher I ever had in my public school career, that's who.

As to God being a myth, I suggest you look up a definition of myth. Encarta defines myth as "a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior."

How is your God not a supernatural being? Everyone who EVER believed in a god believed in a myth.

BTW, did you know the Egyptian god Horus was born on December 25, of a virgin, was killed and rose again from the dead three days later? So perhaps in is not Jesus who is a unreal, but he sure looks like someone YOU would think looks unreal.

So now that I've proved God is a myth, I'm waiting for your proof that God is "real."

And no, it's not only MY rights that would be protected if God was removed from the government square (OK, I'll concede no need to remove from the private public square. I thought it was evident that the term "public square" referred to government.) It is the right the Constitution grants to ALL Americans. It is those who want to inject God into the government that do not have the right to do so, at least not unless they amend the Constitution.

sparrow4 wrote :
"I would have tosay that anyone who thinks people who want G-d taken off of anything are evildoers is a very far stretch. again- you associated them with atheists but as far as I know evildoers aren't spending time worrying about where "G-d" is printed. so you sound a lot like the fundamentalists who associate those who are atheist or agnostic or different religions with "evildoers". And reread this sentence:" These atheist(not all) & evil doers will stop at nothing to rid our nation of the very existence of the word "God"."

Man, you really don't understand english do you?
Atheist(NotAll) & Evil Doers. With that very statement I am seperating the two classes of people. Note keysymbol "&"

Drums wrote: "Meanwhile, Satan laughs and spreads his wings."

Sparrow wrote: "First of all , all you are saying is that not all atheists will stop at nothing, but in such a way as to imply only a few. And there is that same atheist & evildoers. then your last sentence- Satan spreads his wings. I'll give you the benefit of the stylistic doubt- you wrote what you meant poorly (so yeah, get a copy of the Elements of Style.)"

You are trying to make something out of nothing.
This is the fact right here: I do not think that all Atheists are evil doers. I simply said the Atheist(Not All) & Evil Doers have one thing in common. Now, you can make what you want out of that but I am telling you how I meant it so, if you want to make a fool out of yourself and keep implying that I meant soemthing that i didn't by all means continue to act like you know what i am thinking because I donot know how I can explain it any further as I have in the most elementary way possible.

Sparrow Wrote: "Not to mention "Satan spreads his wings?" sounds like fundamentalist speak to me. For someone who claims not to believe a word of the bible? Looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck but its a puppy? Don't think so."

LOL, again, you choose to toss my statements around and are proving that you either don't understand english or only see what you want to see.
If you look at my previous post that you are incorrectly quoting me on , you will see that I said" I don't believe in EVERY SINGLE WORD THE BIBLE SAYS" Does my statement translate as not believe a word of the bible?

In case you donot understand what the definition of Fundamentalist is I'll give it you.

Fundamentalism- 1)The belief that all statements in the bible are to be taken literally. 2)In The US, a movement among protestants holding such a belief.

A fundalmentalist is the person who believes in the above definition

Sparrow wrote: "Offend christians? That is so funny- you're talking so someone who had to sing Christmas carols every year in school and had to rtake 2 days off from school for the High Holy Days but got 10 for Xmas and Easter (too bad about Passover). Who got told at Ground Zero I wasn't "Christian" enough to be working there. that those who died on 9-11 without accepting Jesus were now burning in hell (and this only a few weeks after 9-11), that it was ok to use the term "jewing" someone down because all Jews have money-(and there is plenty more what that stuff comes from. Yeah....Christians have had it so tough."

Hey man, sorry you had such inhumane treatment put on you by having to sing christmas carols, sorry you were'nt christian enough to work on the 9/11 site, sorry that you sat there and listen to somebody telling you that non-believers would burn in hell when they died, sorry that you allowed someone to tell you that the term jewing was okay,.
From the sound of it, you have had such a horrible life. (Notice The sarcasm...
well, you could be starving in Africa right now but hey, they have no problems compared to yours...

Sparrow wrote: "Frankly, if you can't handle not seeing in G-d we trust on your money I guess you need that constant reminder. Your problem, not mine. My faith is strong enough without it. And so is my belief in the Constitution. E Pluribus unum- that I also believe in."

I don't need to have to see the word God. The issue here is thast it is a part of our history and for it to be changed for people such as you and others like you because you are offended by it Is a baseless aregument due to the fact that changing history will offend just as much people if not more than those offended by it.

Again, I see no valuable argument here that merits history to be changed. The site of the Word "God" is of no harm to anyone.
Again, you areguing to change history as to not to offend people when changing what has always been there will offend people. The argument is hypocritical at best.

I have an idea. Let's issue you Bible-thumping freaks each a spray can of paint and you can scrawl your superstitions all over the entire area. Would that satisfy you? Or do you demand that the powers that be do the ramming of your religion down our throats instead of doing it yourselves?

Religious people are silly. Each religion thinks they are right. Is something wrong with this picture? How can each one be correct? If a distant civilization from another solar system came to study us, they would say that "Humans still believe in deities". Religion will fade away if the zealots do not ruin the earth first.

I used to think that the problem was solvable by simply saying "creator" instead of "God". Now I realize that the universe may be infinite, and timeless, so that there was no real beginning, and hence no creator as such.

Religious people are childish. They want all of the products of science and the modern world, but they selectively insist on ignoring data that they do not like: viz EVOLUTION. Reminds me of spoiled children, or lazy pseudo intellectuals who master one book and think they have it all figured out. What a cheap joke that is....

Someone needs to round up ALL RELIGIOUS people and quarantine them till their troubling devisive notions are no more: Islam, Christian, Judaic, Native American, etc etc. All spoiled dummies.....

Realcalgal: 911 and the Inquisition were indeed atrocities in the name of Allah/God (Nazism, hardly). So what? The fact that a name can be misused and abused isn't logical or valid justification for striking that Name entirely from the historical public record, or allowing it to appear in clearly non-violent public contexts.

"God (Jesus) told people NOT to pray in public, but to keep their faith privately."

In your reference (Matthew 7), He wasn't proscribing any public prayer or reference to God; He was invalidating prayer done solely for the sake of appearing externally pious.

A bit later He said, "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs."

SouthernCal,

I never said who the evil doers are did I?

Evil doers are just that to me. Evil doers claim to be christians, muslims, athesit, ermm...whatever.

So, From what I gather it is that the majority of the people who want our history to be changed and have the word God removed from our currency and out of state buildings comes from mostly athesists and certainly the evil doer for whom ever that is.

Have I made an argument that the schools should force everyone to say the pledge of allegiance or that the word God shouldnot be taken out of it if the school is gonna make the student say the pledge? No, i have not.

Who makes you stand at a baseball game?

while you are defining Myth, you should define all the ways it is used? One definition for the word is-An imaginary or ficticious person, thing, event or story.

With that definition of Myth, It is impossible to prove that Gos is a myth just like it is impossible for me to prove that He is not a myth ;-)

So, your standing for your argument is Seperation of Church & state is it not?
If so, then tell me, how can we have anyone in power of church and state for the people who believe in God? Is the next step on this agenda to seperate Church & State to hire only atheist?
I mean, people who believe in God will make decisions that are influenced by their religion.

drumsalot- what? Strayed home to see what I said next? I think this sentence says it all "I do not think that all Atheists are evil doers. I simply said the Atheist(Not All) & Evil Doers have one thing in common. "

Usually I find that the most bigoted, intolerant people completely blind to the fact of their bigotry. I could put the many things religious fundamentalists have in common with evildoers and be far more correct than your statement. And as I said , evildoers aren't worrying about where g-d is in print. They could care less.

As for the things that were said to me- number one. I didn't take it lying down. after the conversation we have been having I can't imagine you'd think I would but character analysis doesn't seem to be your strong suite.
Number 2- My life is far from horrible - Christian bigots don't have that kind of power no matter how much they think they do.

As for the definition of a fundamentalist- people who talk about Satan spreading his wings (especially because atheists and evildoers want to remove G-d from building facades), are pretty much fundamentalist.

So what if they changed the replica to be more aligned with the country we are? E pluribus unum. That's what we really need to be reminded of.

Blues,
call the police on the person painting the entire place with words of God and have them arrested for vandalism. That should help remedy that situation.

Spearburning,

I believe in God but I don't believe in every word the bible says. I choose what I think is right...simple
I believe in science and I believe science was established by God himself. I dunno...Go figure..

I do believe that the Catholic, Christian, Muslim, judaism religions amongst the others all believe in the same God but just sperate themselves over all the small details? Which one is right and which one is wrong? I'm not sure so I don't get caught up in all the small crap.

I guess you don't belong amongst those tied up now do you? You express the different ideaologies of the religions but fail to express the difference of your ideaology. Your Ideaology is right and everyone elses is wrong?

I'm all for historical accuracy.

But God is not under any real threat in Washington.

What we seem to have is an over-reaction to blasphemy - having God's name taken in vain to brand everyone's own political projects as holier than thou. DeMint seems to be one of the main blasphemers.

I am sure that one could still find numerous references to God in our national monuments, historical sites, government buildings, etc. The author is using a common conservative tactic - cherry picking a disparate number of instances as proof of an trend or policy.

Sparrow4,

You are simply a moron and your arguments are baseless.
I was not gonna resort to name calling but I cannot resist myself because you fail to acknowledge my forthecoming attempts to explain what I meant and how i explained what I meant.So, from this point forth, I will not acknowledge your presence in this blog.

May God Bless you ;-)

fine with me drumsalot- I take responsibility for what I write- you obviously can't. On top of that you crow about your lack of maturity as you can't resist name-calling. So tell me why I should accept your poor attempt at backpedaling? (by the way, you seem to have gotten a few comments from other posters regarding that. I'll repeat: Strunk and White- the Elements of Style. Great book, a basic for speaking and writing English clearly. I'm sure were we all psychic we could have ...er...properly interpreted your writing but as it were......Nah.

thanks for promising to ignore me from now on- it's much appreciated. :-)

when there was nothing, then God existed;
if nothing existed, then God would exist.
'being' drowned me;
if I did not exist, then what would exist?
- Mirza Ghalib (India, 1800s) as translated at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/032/index_032.html?

According to Wikipedia, the legal term "ceremonial deism" refers to "nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage".

The significance of the development being discussed might lie in an apparent breakdown in the ability to maintain a consensus that would allow such gestures on that basis.

Why are the comments on a Religion Blog so vitriolic? It's not just athiests calling Christians stupid, although that isn't helpful, on some comments I've seen Christians telling other Christians that they're going to hell!

I guess the WWJD thing is over.

We should go even farther and erect public apology plaques stating that we are ashamed and sorry we ever even hinted we believed in any sort of religious fairy tales, remove all tax exempt status for any sort of religious organization, and label all such activities as anti-human, anti-life, dangerously criminal cults.

The United States was founded as a Christian country. Let me prove it:

1. Nothing in the bible condemns slavery.
2. Women were not considered as worthy of being permitted to learn to read or write and could have no voice in politcal matters.
3. There were "Founding Fathers" but no "Founding Mothers".
4. Most of the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners.
5. The United States was a country for a hundred years, before the slaves were freed.
6. Women were denied the right to vote until 1915.
7. "All Men Were Created Equal" was ignored until the recent Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Laws of the mid-twentieth century.

Yep, this Country was indeed founded on Biblical, Christian principles! Let no one deny this!

yes, LATELY, (very lately) he's BEGINNING to think they have a point. Perhaps when the pseudo-science writers LATELY start BEGINNING to become cognizant of the erroneous data and misinformation surrounding 'global' warming, (the freaking THERMOMETER was stuck!) they will start writing similar pieces. But alas, too late. Credibility gone many moons ago. Politically correct was factually incorrect and the public finally heeded the advice to seek alternative viwpoints. Grey lady down. And on the issue of zealotry, pot calls kettle colored.

"Why are the comments on a Religion Blog so vitriolic?"

Because, from the religious, you have commentors who have been taught that their beliefs are the only true beliefs and everyone else is damned.

And, from the non-religious, we are thoroughly tired of hearing it, and getting angry that the religious think everything should just be fine and hunky-dory if we all let them put their "God" in everywhere.

Why does the WaPo even HAVE a blog on religion, that's what I want to know.

Atheists are the last minority in America that it is fine to call names and exclude from public office. When is the last time YOU remember anyone running for high office saying they didn't really believe in "God"?

Oh, and drumsalot? Your attitude about people being told that they couldn't work on 9/11 and that they were damned is snotty. Maybe YOU should go to Saudi Arabia and try to practice your religion. That might make YOU appreciate a country where religion is NOT, according to the Constitution, the business of government.

drumsalot, you keep making a BIG point about "changing our history."

Both "In God we Trust" on money, and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance came in about the same time. The late 1950s if I recall.

So it is you 'God' fanatics who changed history.

We realists just want to get back to our REAL history as a country with a religion-free government.

I would think that those who are concerned with maintaining or ostensibly restoring the place of their god in American life would be more concerned about the contents of Americans' hearts and souls than the contents of their purses and wallets.

"In your reference (Matthew 7), He wasn't proscribing any public prayer or reference to God; He was invalidating prayer done solely for the sake of appearing externally pious."

How do you know? You cite another contradictory verse, but that just shows that the Bible says contradictory things. Hard to think that God may not be able to make up his mind, isn't it?

BTW, the Nazis were VERY religious.

RealCalGal, you wrote,

drumsalot, you keep making a BIG point about "changing our history."

Both "In God we Trust" on money, and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance came in about the same time. The late 1950s if I recall.

ME: Drumsalot is a pain, isn't he? Actually, you are partially incorrect about the dates of 'In God We Trust' on money. It first appeared in 1864 on the 2 cent coin. But the 'under God' did get put in place in 1954.

Arminius, realcalgal- I just came from a VFW party Catholic veterans held for currently serving military men and women.So we had Iraq vets, Viet vets, WW II and Korean vets- it was wonderful. But the best part- a young Chinese-American woman who came to this country I think about 7-8 years ago and immediately joined the Navy because she wanted to show her love of this country. I nearly burst into tears listening to her story. she's married to a young Navy vet now. she also had a slew of ribbons on her chest.All I could say to her was thank you- you are what makes this country great.

Hi, Sparrow,

Damn, I wish I had been there. Would have meant a lot to this old vet. You have my heartfelt thanks for going and appreciating it.

Vietnam? My brother was there. And you know you have my gratitude for your service. I do what I can as a volunteer and never feel like its enough.

Realcalgal, you say contradictory, I say complimentary. I "know" because of the context - Christ in that specific passage was condemning the Pharisees who were experts at outward religious observance, but were inwardly unspiritual.

And some Nazis adhered to occultism, but to say it was even remotely related to any recognized form of Christianity is revisionist history.

Central 1942: "1. Nothing in the bible condemns slavery."

1Timothy 1:9-10 - "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"

I'm all for the secularisation of government, but I think there are alot more people in this country that object to having God removed from things like this post talked about than there are people who object to having them there. Religion is part of our nation's history, both its brightest times and its darkest hours. I think it does a disservice to history to pretend that religion did not have a part in it.
People object alot more to obnoxious atheists than they do obnoxious christians. It's not because they're offended by the challenge of the status quo, as many atheists would proclaim. It's because in taking their stances, many atheists talk to people like they are children and proclaim that anyone who disagrees with them is a naive, stupid tool of the establishment. People can take being called unvirtuous, because many know they are. They don't like being called stupid.

If atheists want to gain any ground, they need to do so by keeping the ground they already have. Protect their own rights to have their views instead of trying to impose their ideas on others. Because the only thing more annoying than a proselytising Christian is a proselytising atheist.

Redefining God as god, allah, zeus, jupiter, jehovah, "et al", athena, singularity, a handsome man, and/or father/mother nature would help.

And the end of slavery and oppression of women in most countries shows that humankind's evolution still progresses to the bright side!!!

Politicians are some of the worst 'Sunday Christians'. When it comes to God, they are the last people that should give advice.

This nation was founded on the beliefs of religious freedom, so practice (or don't practice). That's what is great about this country but don't fault others for not 'seeing' or believing the way that you may believe. It's a choice.

And no, God is not under attack here...use your common sense.

Prepare to be marginalized into insignificance, you stupid evangelical knuckleheads. God is dead. Raise your goblets and salute the new century!

Christians and religious folks are a pampered lot in this nation. I have to see the word GOD all the time, on bills, monuments, coins, hearing it from elected officials ad-nauseam. But take the word off one or two things and Christians get all wiggy and start talking about a war on god.

Two things: If Atheists really wanted to wage a campaign like that, the words would not omit god, but say "One Nation, Without God". We just want it to say One Nation. Period.

Two, Atheists can't wage war on god since they don't believe he exists. It would be like waging war on the tooth fairy.

You can't reject what isn't there.

And to the person who said most people like obnoxious proselytizing religious person than an obnoxious proselytizing Atheist. When was the last time anyone came to your door and told you not to believe in God. We not only get the annoyance and disrespect of the door jammers, but are forced to hear your religious belief every-time we hear the pledge.

I'm a patriotic American. I raise my family. Pay my bills. Mind the law and serve my country with honor. I am over being told to hold my tongue and "respect" religion. There are millions of us and we won't be quiet anymore.

The first sentence says it all: keep church and state out of each other's business as much as possible. BTW, that means we don't put references to god on money, statues, and government buildings - so you had me at hello but lost me with the rest of essay which is totally inconsistent with what you start out with. Worship your god at home and at church. Let's keep gov't for governing, not prosthletising.

I will write quickly that I am as devout a Christian as any one I have met, then hope you will understand that I am not bragging. The atheists I have known were more moral than the so-called Christians I have known. The more such Christians claim their rightousness, the more I think: there goes a Pharisee (I know my scripture.)
Further, without exception, the more that religion has been tied into the government, the more there was tyranny. Why else did so many of our ancestors leave Europe?

I've never seen so many miss the point: "Separation of church and state is vital to our liberty. But trying to scrub from American history or public life every reference to God or faith isn't just silly. It's inaccurate and misleading."

No one is asking atheists or other assorted Anti-God Nazis to tolerate historical references, because it isn't their place to erase them. Revisionist history is the epitome of ignorance.

Hm, the government I learned about in civics class is special in part because it is secular. Everyone talks about the Christian roots and the role of it in this country's history, but nobody gives examples. A smattering of symbolic references to a creator do not indicate that God has had a significant role in our history. Let's trust the wisdom of the founders on this one. Keep religion and government separate. A government that does not endorse a god isn't anti-religion, it's just doing its job.

I personally am far more into my own religous/cultural background than a lot of people I know. But my religion is not that of the mainstream here in the US. So, at every complaint about these issues by mostly Christians I cringe. Is that something an American citizen should have to do? I think the concept of G-d should be left out of our public life altogether. These people complaining about the lack of mention of "God" have no idea how offensive they are to others, nor do they care, since they are sanctimonious creepoids. It simply dosen't matter what the historical role of belief was in our country. That's the past, and we need to grow, evolve to a better society. For example, some religions practiced here in the U.S. are racist, or homophobic. Maybe we should spend more time in our public discourse addressing that? I have no trust, absolutely no trust, in people who think they know the spritiual truth. Such people are dangerous, since they take action based on myth, tend to be sactimonious which makes me sick, and they're often the worst sort of hypocrits. I take serious offence at the way many of these comments mention "atheists". "Atheists" are the best kind of Americans, in my opinion, since they don't presume to know some overiding spiritual truth that somehow permits themselves to lord themselves over others. I think in our public discourse we should be paying much more attention to the bad things religions have brought to our society, and should be spending time fighting for the rights of atheists. I think it makes great pratical sense that on our money we should print "In no God do we trust". For if there is a G-d, he, she or it would I'm sure prefer that we try to do things on our own, like good children trying to grow up, and not trust in something or someone else, especially not in something that is very possibly a myth.

Drumsalot says:
"It is impossible to prove that Gos[sic] is a myth just like it is impossible for me to prove that He is not a myth"

You're conflating unlike premises. It is *always* impossible to prove something's NON-existence. Prove that there are no unicorns. One fundie nutcase insists that there are still living dinosaurs (and every other species that we consider to be extinct) living in perhaps small numbers *somewhere* in the world, because God doesn't make mistakes and wouldn't create something just to have it become extinct (!!!). No one can *prove* him wrong, although it's a bit hard to hide things as large as some dinosaurs in our ever-shrinking world.

The burden of proof is always where it can only be - on those who claim the *existence* of something.

Science has proven the existence of thousands of invisible, or otherwise inapparent things. There are ways to do this. I'll give you a clue - it has to do with *evidence*.

Unfortunately for you, evidence for the existence of God is severely lacking - which is to say, nonexistent - leading to the conclusion that God is the same.

Keep the imaginary figures outta the government.
There is too much B.S. as it is.

god told me you guys are retarded.

Jesus was pretty clear on what His followers should do when they come under persecution: Rejoice. Leap for joy. I'm pretty sure whining and/or calling in the lawyers wasn't mentioned in the gospels as his instructed response. The kingdom of God is a perfectly safe place to be. I'm not worrying.

I think Mr. Waters has a point, but only a very weak one. He is, of course, talking about the very same reasons why getting rid of Christ (such as Nativity Scenes) from Christmas displays, or removing God from the Pledge, is somehow an aweful wrong.

In some way, it is wrong, but not the aweful wrong he is talking about.

I'm talking about wasting tax payer's dollars to even debate and execute the issue of removing something that was long removed in spirit. Stop wasting expensive government money on this issue! It is a non-issue! The kids have no freakin' clue what pledge they are saying in class! Why bother?

Sure, if it is a new construction of a building or a plaque, I could care less. Put it in if you want viewers to see it; take it out if you don't. I just don't want it to cost a penny more of my tax dollars if you do or if you don't.

Hell, if you Christians want the Alabama court house to have 10 Commandments engraved on some piece of rock, have at it! Go to town with it!

BUT ...

YOU pay for it! Don't use MY tax dollars to pay for it. YOU maintain it! Don't use MY tax dollars to clean bird poop from that statue! Let's see how much long term conviction YOU have!

I can easily figure out that this country was started by a whole bunch of religious bigots of a certain type. I actually understood my textbook in American History class.

By the way, if you keep calling my "evolution theory" a religion, then I want the same TAX BREAKS your church gets!

What about the quotes from the indians, from who you guys rubbed the land! Or is that something we should not talk about? Using there holy names for military equipment like the Apache or Tomahawk. Come on. Get real.

In a democracy, the majority rules and decides what taxes are going to be used for. Deal with it!!!!

Examples: Childless couples and singles help pay for the public education of children.

The majority of citizens have trees in their yards. Tax dollars pay for leaf collection, composting and recyling thereof even though apartment renters (tax payers) have no trees.

This has nothing to do with godliness. Forging replicas and amendments is just plain... well, forgery. "In God we trust" may not be universally true, but if you make a replica of something where those words are actually in place, you can't just delete them.

In order to do that, you will have to go through the process of deleting them in the actual world first.

There is nothing scientific or rational about faith. Faith means believing in something when your rational part tells you it is nonsense. How else to get to where you want to go? There is no evidence for an afterlife. God does precious little speaking to little us except through his intermediaries such as priests and holy books. Of course, it is dishonest to make a replica of something and leave out a part of it because that part supposedly offends people. There always have been people who hold an abiding faith and who were important leaders in our country. That is historic fact. Leaders will go so far as to impose religious ideas on money and monuments, just in case it would please God, and to stick it to people whose faith is a little less well established. If one looks intently upon what is going on in the minds of the faithful, one sees the wheels going round as they try to outsmart God and those people that they feel superior to because, evidently, lesser people are going to Hell because their worship of God is faulty. Things not going your way? Why, of course, it's not your relationship with God that is the root cause of the problem. It's the relationship that foreign-looking fellow down the street has with God. In fact, he may be worshiping a whole nother God completely, in which case we may as well shoot him. Christian charity works well in homogeneous communities.

Does the First Amendment restrict Congress or does it establish the separation of churches and states?

Everyone should be treated and represented equally under our government. Only one group ever seems to have a problem with that.

We must protect the rights of those want to make America godless and secular. They must be allowed to say that they want this. However, they are far from success.

The "separation of church and state" is not a principle found in our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Government is limited from establishing any _specific_ religion. In fact, this amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from denying free religious exercise.

Secularist special interests try to turn these words on their head. They suggest that any public religious expression is unconstitutional, and that the Constitution creates "the separation of church and state."

This opposes its intent. If anyone wants to sanitize our Government from religious expression and create a secular state, let them amend the Constitution to demand such.

If the religious folks agree not to pray in our schools or government, the rest of us will agree not to think in their churches.

Ok -- just a joke, but seriously I really do not see why a simple policy of keeping your "beliefs" to yourself or your church just like you keep all your personal ideas / traditions to yourself will not work for all. We can look around the world and see that trying to push any religious views on others clearly is not a path to success.

Man, That would be heaven.

Can I hear a big R'amen?

(a la the flying spaghetti monster)

'Secularist special interests try to turn these words on their head. They suggest that any public religious expression is unconstitutional,"

Not true - secularists want to keep government neutral among competing religions. "Secularism" is not quite the right word - a better word would be "nonsectarianism." There's no issue with politicians talking about their own religious faith, as long as they offer nonsectarian arguments for law and policy. Official endorsements for "God" (such as in the Pledge and on our money) constitute favortism toward monotheistic religions at the expense of all other types of religious beliefs - the message is that non-monotheists are less patriotic than monotheists. Government should be agnostic on whether there is a single god, many gods, other types of supernatural beings, or no supernatural beings.

Since "In God We Trust" was created as a reaction to the godless Communists and support for our capitalist system, can one assume that the god being spoken of here is the golden calf?

Are you not preaching in the school of Greed and not spiritualism when the United States Government goes about preaching one thing and conducts its business in another?

If we are a Christian nation, why are the majority of our poor women and children? Why do we conduct torture? Why do we refuse to sign international treaties to ban anti-personnel bombs and another to ban cluster bombs that mostly kill civilians and that most of the civilians killed are children?

If this is the God that is missing in our visitor center to the Capital, God bless us. Everyone.

The 1796 Barbary Treaty states, in Article 11, that "The United States is not a Christian nation." This Treaty, during the Adams Administration was unanimously ratified by the US Senate without any debate or issue with the language pertaining to America's religious identity There was similarly no public dissent reported in the leading daily newspapers of the day. An official government document in the era of the Founding Fathers shows the clear, explicit intention of their view on the subject of religion's place in a public capacity.

While many secularists point to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and its reference to a wall between church and state and Christians point to the same author's language in the Declaration of Independence, one must recognize that neither has legal effect. Jefferson's letter to the church group, while written while he was President, was simply a correspondence, not official policy Similarly, although the Declaration of Independence was a critical document in our nation's history, it is not legally binding as it is merely a statement created before the nation's institutions were established. The Constitution, by comparison, makes no reference to God or Christianity at all.

It seems like the real revisionists of history are the evangelicals who insist on inserting religion into the historical record where it clearly never existed. It proves, yet again, that ignorance is the only result for people who only read one book.

As was said in Roman times: "The wise find religion false, the poor find it true and the rulers find it useful."

Despite religious propaganda to the contrary, the founders of this country went to great pains to keep religion out of our constitution and the declaration of independence. They had seen the effects of religious groups in Europe and the beginning excess of puritans and others here. Our country was founded on the ideals of the french enlightenment and some ideas from the Iroquois. Most of the leaders were deists or skeptics, not Christians

Early presidents went to great lengths to avoid funding "faith based initiatives," but the assault on our religious freedom has been relentless since our founding, by religious revisionists chipping away. From trying to change our motto to inserting god into the pledge of allegiance, blatantly unconstitutional changes are made, hiding under the tyranny of majority. The attempt to make our country into a theocracy, where one must swear allegiance to Jupiter [public religion] and the emperor or be put to the sword continues.

Several other quotes come to mind here: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." And "We shall not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." These remind us that our freedom is under continual assault by creeping religion.

And yet, our official motto, not in god we trust but "E Pluribus Unum" = from many, one - was reaffirmed in the last election.

The sooner we rid ourselves of this "god" nonsense and embrace rationality, the better off we will be. The only references to the so-called deity in the Center should be derogatory.

"What everyon needs to understand is EVERYTHING BELONGS TO GOD-HE CREATED IT ALL"

Just because you believe something doesn't mean *everyone* needs to "understand" it...I promise you I don't need to "understand" something I don't believe, and our Constitution gives me not only the freedom not to believe it, but the right not to be made a second-class citizen because I don't believe it.

"Does it ever seem that the "shoving God in everyone's faces" and the "shoving no god in everyone's faces" is two sides of the same coin?"

Most emphatically *no*. The absence of any reference to God is just that, the absence of any reference, nothing more. It is *in no way* an affirmative statement that God doesn't exist, or that the government approves of or supports a belief that no god exists. On the other hand, an explicit reference to God in a governmental context *is* a positive statement that God exists, and that the government, which is supposed to be neutral on religion, approves of and supports a belief that God exists.

I prefer reason to superstition, but I'm not tremendously bothered by references to god in the public square.

Sometimes god is all some politicians have to keep them on the straight and narrow. I would prefer they see the benefits of doing good without the need for an invisible friend, but whatever gets you through the night.

What really bothers me about the debate is the consistent misrepresentation of the intellectual origins of the United States, which, of course, are in the enlightenment and hence in pagan (specifically Greek) culture. I think it is outright unpatriotic and offensive to lie about our history.

Freedom from religion is freedom of religion.

Those that complain about no God in America or removing God from America are the ones that usually have no true belief in God.

It is best to let God be God and keep the fundamentalists and evagelicals away from it.

Wow! I made the mistake of reading the other comments. Amazing how someone could be so clear in his writing and most people miss the point.
Call me a Waters disciple but his message: Anyone posting, replicating, restoring, quoting history, should remain faithful to the "quote". Just because you don't agree with the "quote" or it's place in history does not give license to edit.

Wow, I could not disagree with the author more.

Regarding religion, the rewriting of our nations history was done back in the 1950's when we added "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, and "In God We Trust" to our money. It has continued ever since with the incessant claim by evangelicals that we are a "christian nation". We are NOT a christian nation!!! The constitution explicitly states that congress shall make no laws regardng religion. Nowhere in any law or offical state document does it state that we are a christina nation. Millions of non- christians are law-abiding tax-paying citizens, and it is a slap in the face to all of them to say we are a christian nation.

The issues the author cites, are simply examples of righting some of the wrongs of the past 60 years. There's a long way to go. Unfortunatley too many of our elected officials, such as Jim DeMint, are too poorly educated about our nations history and lack even the most rudimentary understanding of our founding principles, that we keep sliding toward some type of quasi-theocracy.

I wasn't aware that God belonged to any church so when we expunge Him from public life how does that serve the principle of separation of church from state?

No, I'd say it's something more, something the Founders, who coined the doctrine of separation of church and state while invoking God's name repeatedly while conducting public business, knew full well. Freeing ourselves from the evils of organized religion doesn't mean cutting our nation off from divine help.

What we might expect from Fox News. Great companion piece to your "why does Obama keep hiring smart people nonsense. have you checked your demographics lately? Your readers deserve better.

the Visitors center is not a museum- its an infomercial. The emblem is a replica, but a replica that represents the overall idea of what our government is about. It's a logo- and logos change. The Visitors Center was never meant to be a history museum, and the "replica" is not a historical artifact.the center is about our government- what it is, how it works, the principles it was founded on. Democracy is not in the bible. The Ancient Greeks (pagans, horrors!!) created a democracy. The Iroquois Confederacy, the oldest participatory democracy in existence inspired the Founding Fathers. The magna Carta, John Locke- all provided inspiration and structure. Not the bible, not Christian principles.

If anything, In G-d we Trust is a prayer or an amen, if you will, but E Pluribus Unum is our motto, and the true founding principle of our government. It is far more relevant and important, and if more of us abided by it these discussions would be moot.

Something that has always bothered me... The motto "E pluribus unum" is essentially turned turned into "E pluribus unum, e unum pluribus." by the addition of "In God we trust," and "One nation under God." Because I don't trust in God it's intended that I be cut out of the population of "good Americans." Prior to injecting God into our government we were united under our flag, but this hijacking of our secular government by the excessively religious has the clear and intended effect of making second class citizens of those of us who believe differently. They somehow seem to think that the omission of "under god" and "in God we trust" were just details the founders of the country somehow simply forgot about. The more rational explanation is that they simply understood that "E plurbis, unum" was more important than injecting divisive opinions into our beliefs about governance. With "one nation, indivisible" we are all able to enjoy freedom in our personal beliefs.

That's what I think.

I have no problem in recognizing the divine and godly aspects of this world or in our history. My issue comes with WHICH god(s) we are going to be promoting in the public sphere. As long as everyone's spirituality (or lack thereof) is represented in a government-funded monument or building then there isn't an issue. It's when the State promotes one person's God over another's that difficulties emerge. Our founders recognized this, and forbade the State from favoring one view of God over another. The fact that most of the founders were deeply religious men should make their warning & admonition to us all the more poignant. Separation of Church and State did not sneak it's way into the Constitution. It was put there intentionally by God-fearing, wise, and devout men who feared what State-sponsorship would do to the republic.

Demint has one agenda that determines what he says, winning the next election. If he has to appeal to evangelicals of course he will go on and on about more religion everywhere in public places. I guess he forgot the main principle of the founding fathers, individual freedoms for every American. There is a reason the word god in not in our Constitution and Demint should learn why. We don't have a king or anyone telling us what religion we should adhere to and we don't need Christian slogans written all over our public places. The reason they are everywhere now is because of Communism. Russia was an atheist country and Americans thought we should show them that a great county is also a relgious country so we plastered in god we trust all over the place, it had nothing to do with the founding fathers or the Constitution.

Mentioning God, babbling about God doesn't make him exist.

It may work as a rallying cry, but there is no war on God and never has been. If a conflict exists, it is between people who reject the bullying of the religious right, and the demagoguery of those who carry its torch. I applaud and join the majority who want to push religion back into peoples' souls and the houses in which various groups worship. If it takes violence to do so, all the better.

Could it be that militant contributors and commentators to this site are seeking to silence or marginalize religious believers because they are unable to silence their own inner spiritual hearts? If not, I wonder why so many of you continue the non theist rants day after day when only a small club is taking note of it.

I think that regarding religion and government, the most important part of this opinion is that the separation of Church and state is "mostly to protect religion from government intrusion and idolatry, but also to protect us from zealots who think Jesus wears an American flag lapel pin."

Other than a common use to mark the year (A.D.), is there a mention of God in the Constitution? Is there anything that says we must have God's name on our money? To me, associating God with Mammon flies in the face of one of Christ's most important statements, "Render to Caesar..."

Everywhere I go, I see churches, synagogues and even a mosque. I see Jehovah Witness meeting halls. There is no threat to freedom of religion in this country and no 'war on God'. There is a resistance to "christening" the public square.

We have a de facto test for office, i.e., candidates must declare their faith in God, preferably in Jesus with appropriate references to the wrath of God from the Old Testament thrown in. And what we get as a result are frequently hypocrites or, worse, individuals who believe God is picking sides and always favors the leader of the free world.

Let God be God...the One beyond any human's ability to comprehend, or to appropriate. I think God is not threatened by quotes invoking the secular nature of government, nor is God made any larger by being referenced on our nation's money. Given Jesus' approach to money, it might even be offensive to refer to God on currency.

I'm still not convinced that the terms "War on God" or "movement" fit. One can now manage to offend some evangelicals merely by forgetting to mention God at every expected opportunity? Wouldn't this same type of person be too busy fighting "Happy Holidays" right about now to care about the John Quincy Adams Dollar? This is hyperbole, but I do rather it to the the times a few years ago when there was a considerable push to rename everything after Reagan.

If we were to say that the founding fathers cobbled together our Republic (not a true democracy) without religion, we would be woefully neglecting in our histories. However, that religion was personal, unassuming and to themselves. True, a majority of them had faith in common and felt comfortable to practice it there in the public forum. They took steps to keep it from becoming government doctrine for a reason.

E Pluribus Unum is a fine motto. It allows those who choose to bring their god - whatever they call it - to the table, and does not pressure those that do not (or have none to bring) in to feeling excluded from the discussion.

Those whom are quick to argue, "But God doesn't have a name, so we aren't referencing any particular god, and should be allowed to keep it!" are not listening to your own statements. YOUR god has a name. God. Other people's "gods" go by Hashem, Mithras, Odin, Krshna, Shiva, Buddha, Athena, Allah, etc. Their gods have proper names and use them. Those without religion - whether they view it as a crutch or just simply have none - are excluded entirely. Their input guided by the secular and temporal is just as important as those who find inspiration in the ephemeral.

-Robert Gandy www.bobcatarts.com

The author says, "Separation of church and state is vital to our liberty. But trying to scrub from American history or public life every reference to God or faith isn't just silly. It's inaccurate and misleading."

I say; "So when are we going to have separation?"

We can can't have separation because historically we haven't, and we need a history lesson everywhere we go all day every day? This makes no sense. Let's have the separation. The religious nutties can publish Americn Religious History magazine and send a free copy to every home in the USA at their own expense.

Time is against the evangelical christians: with each passing year, their numbers and their political influence wane, as their theology alienates more Americans who instinctively understand the values upon which the United States was founded. My only hope is that, with Democrats finally in charge of the executive and legislative branches, there will be fewer reversals of good secular policy decisions because of evangelicals' complaints. We should see a rolling back of the last decade's efforts to establish a theocracy in this nation.

The constitutional right of freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. Regardless, revisionist history (if that's an accurate assessment) is just as undesirable.

In a democracy, the majority rules and decides what taxes are going to be used for. Deal with it!!!!

Examples: Childless couples and singles help pay for the public education of children.

Certainly scrubbing words from the past is dangerous since we can lose valuable context of the situation.

For example, I think this country would be at a disservice if all references to slavery were removed from the Constitution and other documents so that people in the future never even had an idea that there was slavery at the time of the founding fathers.

However, going forward, if we want to keep God out monuments and addresses made today, there is no problem with that, it just reflects different views and values.

We Need God more than ever. If this nation doesn't turn back to God in repentance I believe the existence of this nation is numbered. We have to learn the lessons from Sodom and Gahmorrah. We need to learn the lessons from Nineveh during Jonah's time. God has an important roll of the foundation of this country. Lord Jesus save us. Deliver us Please.

"war on God"?
Hardly.
Militant atheism is almost non-existent and the self proclaimed persecution claimed by the religious is just the standard martyr fantasy. As far as government buildings, schools etc. keeping them "god" free when everyone knows about religion all around them is the point and the civics lesson in itself.
Render unto government that which belongs to government. Of course there should not be editing of historic text either and that is also a lesson.
Lets not fool ourselves, those always trying to insert religion into government are not doing it for democratic reasons they are theocrats and subversive.

If the judeo-christian god actually existed, you'd have to conclude he was a real pr*ck. Saddling everyone ever born with a dirty slate, which if not cleansed by selecting correctly from among the hundreds of theologically divergent sects, will result in you being thrown into an everlasting stir-fry for your soul. What a guy! Disease, pestilence, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, soft rock, Michael Jackson, the Hyundai, the BCS, the list of crimes is almost endless.

Far from eliminating him from monuments, we should be memorializing how much he s*cks. And don't even get me started on his worthless son.

A founding principle of this country was religious tolerance, something that the religious right has forgotten. And, keeping religion out of government was an effort of design, something that the religious right has also forgotten.

This great country is now the home of many religions, some Christian and some not. But, our basic governing philosophy is that all are welcome, and all have equal rights under the law. Thus, we should recognize and honor our history..........our roots, but, we should also be looking forward, not living in the past.

Whether or not there is a God is debatable...a matter of opinion it seems, and always will be.
The indoctrinated are sure there is; skeptical folk doubt this and many believe God is just made up...and exists only in the mind of believers.

The fact that our ancient ancestors had hundreds of gods from Apollo to Zeus, which we now know were all invented - should persuade us that the current God also is invented, as is Allah and Shiva and Hanuman the monkey God and Ganesh the elephant God - worshiped by millions in India...all made up and driven into the heads of the very young, who then go through life fully persuaded that such a being actually exists...and unable to consider that they may have been duped in childhood.

Common sense tells me there are no gods. Until I see one for myself, I will continue to doubt very much whether they exist.

Why does the term "God" have to mean an exclusive Christian God ready to smite false and non-believers? If Pikachu is your God, surely seeing the word God would make you think of him and not Jesus' father, whatever he may look like. Seems the anti-Christian crowd here can't make their point without descending to backward stereotypes and their own propaganda.

Sure edit the past, claim the Declaration isn't relevant, believe yourself to superior to those before you because your modern enlightenment has led to you the epiphany that there is nothing beyond your own will to consider.

I think Christianity's biggest problem is that its gets in the way of human selfishness and the aggrandizement of personal importance. Hence the desire to re-write or at least edit history, but having your head in the sand doesn't mean the sky has gone black.

First off, God, being God, can't be erased from anywhere.

Secondly, what this really is, is another attempt to inject religion into secular activities.

God save us from this evangelical crazies.

Considering that there is no god and that the bible is clearly an EVIL book that endorses slavery and other despicable acts, I say fair-riddance to the foolishness of these ignorant superstitions.

Religion is for those who can't handle reality, the mentally crippled. We should be seeking mental help for these people rather than humoring them with articles like this!

The only difference between today's organized religions and the witchdoctors of old Africa, is the invention of the printing press.

Evolve or get left behind! "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." (1st Cor 1:11; Occasionally, these sexist, racist, delusional men who wrote the Bible, slipped in a few truths here and there for good reading.)

ThomasBaum wrote: "I could be wrong but when I read the article about the SC tag, it said that it would be a vanity tag which is not only not required but has to be requested and someone would also have to pay extra for it. It would be a constitutional issue if someone would be denied their right of free speech and/or their freedom of religion.

Well, you should read a little more, especially HOW this tag came into being, and read what the Lt. Govenor of SC, Andre Bauer, had to say about it. His article should become exhibit A in the pending lawsuit against the legislation creating the tag since in his article he basically says the government is respecting the establishment of the christian religion, which is unconstitutional. His article shows some misplaced notions of the constitution and confusion between enacting laws establishing religion, and free speech, essentially equating the two. He is a bit of what he says in defense of the tag:

>>>"I am proud and unrelenting in my support of the Legislature's unanimous enactment of this plate. Why? Because the "I believe" plate reflects core values that are meaningful to our society, promoting love, joy and comfort in our spiritual lives, and accommodating to every citizen's right of free exercise of any and all religions."

In this paragraph he indicates the source of the plate: legislation. He also says that "I believe" reflects "core values". If that is not enacting a law respecting the establishment of religion I don't know what is. He is saying christian core values are respected and now established by the state of SC.

>>>"Every time I have taken my oath of office as a representative, as a senator or as the lieutenant governor, I have done so by placing my hand on the Bible - as does everybody who testifies in our courts, including those who may be called in the "I believe" license plates lawsuit."

This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Constitution. We see references to God in many speeches. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. But enacting laws respecting religious establishment is a constitutional issue, which the SC legislature did by legislating this tag.

>>>"Is the logic behind the "I believe" license plate any different from the logic behind those adopt-a-highway signs supplied by the state recognizing a church or Sunday school class for adopting the public highway and keeping it clean?"

Well, yes it is since those signs are not enacted individually through law but are given out to any group that asks for the sign and commits to cleaning up the designated highway. What SC did with the I believe plate was go around the normal vanity plate process, where a group can request a plate and specify a logo, motto, etc. In this case the legislature ordered the license plate and specified its logo and motto. If the plate had been ordered by a christian group through the normal process, there would not be this controversy.

This is why I think the legislature did this, to get votes, and for no other reason. Are there less than 400 christian souls in SC who would come together to ask for this license plate? Why did the legislature have to order the tag and not a christian group through the normal process? I believe this is nothing more than local SC politics, acting as though they are defending the christian faith against those secular judges. The news media really needs to explain the Constitutional issue here and why this plate, the way it came into being, is unconstitutional. Its not the tag, its the legislation creating the tag that is unconstitutional. This needs to be clearly understood since the misinformation the Lt. Governor talks about is what is driving the controversy.

Unfortunately, when the courts rule that this is unconstitutional, many SC christians will scream discrimination and the legislature will scream discrimination. No one will simply go through the normal vanity tag request mechanism since the tag is not the issue, its the legislature appearing to defend christianity and nothing more since this tag could have been made legally. Their plan, unfortunately, will work well.

I stopped listening to what god wants after he destroyed New Orleans to punish us. Then, he turns around and gets his @ss kicked by Allah in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We ought to eject at a worthless turd from all public monuments.

To Fixitj:
Since you dare to put down people who follow Christ and make the world better, but yet want to quote Scripture when it suits you, something you probably accuse us fools of doing, here's one you could memorize to describe yourself:

He (God) said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
--Isaiah 6:9-10

So is the Bush administration deliberately removing references in the public record to God and religion? Something fishy about that allegation. Why not run at least ONE of these stories to ground and find out what happened and who did it and why..I can't find a tin foil hat that fits.

"There's a terrible movement to rewrite our history and obscure our faith," J. Randy Forbes, a Republican congressman from Virginia, told the National Review this week.

---

'J. Randy Forbes' needs to get out more. Rewrite history? Thou doest protest too much. It's a shame he and the like minded are so weak in their faith that unless they wear it on their sleeve for all to adore it has no worth.

This "War on Faith" is nothing more than the manufactured outrage of a small number of very loud, very childlike, self-appointed 'christian' leaders who are throwing a tantrum because someone finally told them, "no."

The mention of religion in the public square is very often an exercises in raw political power, a statement that one religious or ethnic group has power and those who oppose that group do so at their peril. Our history and culture are replete with instances of both promotion and suppression of religious speech. When the Pope donated a block to be placed in the Washington Memorial, while it was under construction, anti-Catholic mobs threw it in the Potomac. When Irish Catholics want to express their political power they March on St. Patrick’s Day with Irish Cops, Irish Firemen, Irish Regiments, politicians, schools, unions and county organizations. When Jews in Brooklyn want to show their power, they raise the world’s largest Menorah with Jewish Congressmen, Judges and Politicians in attendance. In a democracy this is to be expected. But in a constitutional republic, where liberty and freedom of conscience are paramount, it should be resisted. Religion is personal and the fact that some patriots were religious is no more important a fact then the lack of faith of other patriots. What maters is personal devotion to country and to the principals of ordered liberty under a constitution.

To erase God’s name in the capital you must have the approval of the Architect of the Capital (Stephen T. Ayers) and/or the Director of the National Park Service (Mary A. Bomar). One can only assume that in their effort to be non-confrontational they have discovered the pendulum of political correctness now swinging the other way. I would like to believe they’re not intentionally being historically vogue just to keep the guest lists flush with ignorant celebrities. However, to cut off the end of Eisenhower’s speech on D-Day is to remove what those of the generation that fought that war believed. All you god-smite folks out there are simply living an extended adolescence rebelling against your parents if you think otherwise.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANY REFERENCE TO GOD ESPECIALLY JESUS TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF ALL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS,LANDMARKS AND MONUMENTS... WHY? BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THE ONE AND ONLY GOD (JESUS) ALLOWING ATHEIST AND OTHER RELIGIONS WITH THEIR PAGAN gods TO TAKE HIS PLACE. AMERICA IS GOING DOWN THE TUBE AT A FAST PACE SO WHY NOT SPEED UP THE PROCESS AND REMOVE HIS NAME COMPLETELY. THAT WAY AMERICAN WILL HAVE NO BLESSINGS. THIS IS JUST WHAT THOSE THAT ARE NOT CHRISTIANS(BELIEVERS) WHAT TO SEE HAPPEN TO AMERICA....COMPLETELY DESTROYED...OBAMA ISN'T THE ANSWER... ONE NATION UNDER GOD IS.

If Pikachu is your God, surely seeing the word God would make you think of him and not Jesus' father, whatever he may look like.

Using your hypothetical example, A Pikachu worshipper in America would use "Pikachu" and not "God," since our culture defines that word to mean the Abrahamic deity. It's common for deist belief to be misunderstood as being Christianity lite.

Thank you, eprocker and WEBTV, for proving the point of rationalists everywhere. Religion has become an intellectual poison.

Sparrow4 said; "Democracy is not in the bible. The Ancient Greeks (pagans, horrors!!) created a democracy. The Iroquois Confederacy, the oldest participatory democracy in existence inspired the Founding Fathers. The magna Carta, John Locke- all provided inspiration and structure. Not the bible, not Christian principles."

Great points worth repeating. Christian religious ideas on God did not play a greater part in our history than other ideologies. Evangelicalism is just sh*t on the public shoes. It needs to be scraped off.

NO RELIGION, NO GOD IN GOVERNMENT. EVER. What is is so complicated about that idea?

eprocker;

I agree with you that it would be better if references to God and Jesus were removed from government buildings etcetra; but my reasons are different from yours.
I believe that there are no gods and never were...just as there is no supernatural world of gods ghosts and devils and fairies. There is only this real world that we live in everyday...all else is fantasy...created by our ancient illiterate ancestors who (in their incredible ignorance) believed in all kinds of spooky thingies.
We know better now, and its time we grew up and put aside such foolish fancies.
9/11 showed the horror of superstitious beliefs.
The 19 college educated terrorists were devoutly religious young men who were sure they would go to Paradise for their heroism in smiting thousands of infidels while sacrificing their lives...for the one true God.
This is religion. This is where it can lead.
It is no more irrational than what you and other supernaturalists believe.
Religion is foolish, dangerous and irrational.
As far as we know there are no Gods, except the ones we make up.

To expand on my point about deism, it's a mistake to assume that the word "God" encompasses all religions. That excludes Shintoism, most of Buddhism, animistic religions, Wicca, and American Indian religions. Confucianism has no doctrines about the supernatural at all. Sure, most Americans are Christians, but religion is not about majority rule, and viewing all religions as versions of monotheism does a disservice to both non-monotheistic religions and their adherents.

The Bible shows God is pretty pro-active in exterminating people who are insufficiently dedicated to smoking his metaphorical pole. Unless we all want to be again drowned like sewer rats, it's probably best not to go out of our way to p*ss him off. I say keep God on our monuments.

Lots of really good information from the posters here. Maybe the replicas should be reproduced accurately with an explanation why and when the references to god were added to public artifacts. I'm sure lots of people are unaware that any mention of religious beliefs were specifically omitted from the Constitution by the founders.
Whether the founders had religious beliefs or not, I'm thinking that avoiding the horrors of the inquisition or witch hunting was the intention of the separation.

Keeping in mind that the love of money is supposed to be the root of all evil, I don't understand why anyone thinks that God wanted his name on it in the first place, much less complain about proper placement.

Thanks to the sexual and every other revolution to happen in the sixties and seventies we now argue over trivial matters like this. It's kinda fun though. As long as we don't hurt each other it's not a big deal. If some religious folks wanna make sure we put GOD on a podium, and they don't threaten anyone's life, so be it. In a hundred years it won't matter, we'll be living in our own virtual reality suits.
I was a environmental vegetarian for 11 years and I thought everyone was crazy but I realized later that although people are still crazy, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. People just don't give a damn about certain things and unless your going to force people to comply which is what government has to do sometimes, don't worry about it.

If the Government utilizes "God" for some pragmatic purposes (to justify a war, cults oppression or just to pump up popularity), the Government must clarify what particular Almighty it means.

The problem with definition of a particular divine patron was the main reason why our respected founding fathers preferred to go forward with make the Union.

This is a welcome development. I have no idea what the author here is going on about "God in our history." Why don't we then include the various gods of the American natives? They had a little history here also. For those who want to find out more about the supposedly vanishing God of the Jews and Christians, let them study and learn. As for the rest of us, good riddance. We will move toward reason, and if we're lucky not to lose our democracy altogether, we will move toward a secular constitutionalism. Now that's real history that we have all forgotten apparently.

I am among those Americans who have watched with dismay the gradual destruction of the barrier between church and state in recent years.

When one considers the role of religion in this planet one thing stands out -- the support rendered by religious bodies to justify wars, killings, inequality.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent the
bad things done in the name of god,but separation of church and state ought to be maintained more vigilantly than ever.

Scrubbing history since 1962? It is only recently that the evangelicals have "invaded" the Constitution. The fathers of this country remembered why the US was formed and separating church and state was one of the main reasons that people came.

Matthew 22:17--21 (KJV)

"17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought him a penny.
20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21. They say unto him, Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

PLEASE NOTE, Jesus did NOT say, "Why is my Father's Name not inscribed hereon?" Or some such.

I think it is a sign of the hypocrisy of so many leaders of the Christian faith that they demand that the name of God be on our money, rather than being content with praising God in their hearts.

To ecglotfelty:
replying To Fixitj:
Since you dare to put down people who follow Christ and make the world better, but yet want to quote Scripture when it suits you, something you probably accuse us fools of doing, here's one you could memorize to describe yourself...

I don't see how following Jesus (correctly...The Christ)has made the world better. I'm curious about the opinion of the victims of the Inquisition, the Hundred Years War, the Crusades and a bunch of other religiously inspired extermination and torture campaigns in Jesus' name. Sure, there are those who espouse 'love' but, as others have pointed out...Christians in this country have held slaves, were and are bigots and are intolerant of others' faiths and beliefs. None of the above makes the world better. Jesus' fault?...no, just those who pretend to believe in him.

Whoo boy - here we go again!

We persist in snarling ourselves in the endless host of arguments derived from religious belief. Let us get fundamental, let's dig down to the basis for this never-ending, nonsensical noise. Here are a few hints that may be helpful:

1. There is a profound difference between
knowledge and belief.

2. The attempt to force your belief on another
is immoral.

3. Because it would offend religious
sensibilities, our educational system fails
to teach our children to differentiate
their beliefs from their knowledge.

4. When you think you KNOW something, the
generous impulse is to share with others.

Get it?

j762 said: "I'm all for the secularisation of government, but I think there are alot more people in this country that object to having God removed from things like this post talked about than there are people who object to having them there... People object alot more to obnoxious atheists than they do obnoxious christians. ... Because the only thing more annoying than a proselytising Christian is a proselytising atheist."

First of all, Constitutional rights are ALL ABOUT protecting people from the tyrany of the majority. So your "alot more people" argument carries little weight.

As to people objecting more to obnoxious atheists than to obnoxious Christians, I don't agree. Obnoxious atheists are visible only on blogs like this. We're generally invisible in this "God"-crazy country. Obnoxious Christians are in everyone's face all the friggin' time in this country. Now it may be true that people don't object to them, and if so it's because they agree with obnoxious Christianism. Again, the tyranny of the majority doesn't make it "right."

That applies, too, to "proselytizing" atheists.
They're few and far between compared to Christianists.

Of COURSE you don't object to what you believe in. Neither do we. And although Christopher Hitchens is annoyingly overly full of himself, on religion or on politics, he doesn't hold a candle to the late Jerry Falwell, Dr. (of child development) Dobson, Pat Robertson, or many, many others I could name.

didn't we the people just decide to bring things back to normal with this last election?

first. this nation's founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate. we were never to be one nation under one god.

this nation was colonized by those seeking religious freedom to practice whatever they believed.

just because the evangelical's think they are right, and sarah palin is their master doesn't mean we should fall for it.

believe what you want, keep it in your house or your place of worship. stop trying to make those that don't believe what you think, the bad person.

"Gods" are fictional characters made up (usually in our own image) thousands of years ago to explain the mysteries of the universe. We have much better explanations today, and the sooner we dispense with invisible sky gods, the better off we'll be. Believe what you will, but keep your bizarre bronze-age superstitions to yourselves.

The truth will set you free.

These references to God in our public places, pledges and money were relatively late additions. What makes them historic or even accruate?

On the other hand, E Pluribus Unum had been our national motto since the founding of this country until it was replaced with "In God we Trust" in 1956.

No one is rewriting history, and in fact it is radical Christians who are trying to rewrite it. I heard some fundamentalist say that our proof our country is Christian is found in our tripartite government which is meant to parallel the tripartite God. How ridiculous.

What is being removed wasn't there to begin with. History is simply righting itself.

"I think Christianity's biggest problem is that its gets in the way of human selfishness and the aggrandizement of personal importance."

It is to laugh!

Just who is aggrandizing their personal importance more that leaders of so-called megachurches, or the Pope, who had declared himself "infallible."

Pretty selfish, too, in going on TV to get people to send them money or "God will call them home." Tele-evangelists get than money tax-free, too. They rival the head of hedge funds in their selfishness.

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Read it carefully, and "suspiciously", you will not find the word God anywhere in the document!

'The center identified "E. Pluribus Unum" (rather than "In God We Trust") as the official national motto.'

That is because the U.S. is indeed a country of people, not of God. Jesus even said, "my kingdom is not of this world." So why would God bless one country over another? Or one religion over another? Or one political party over another? Or one sports team over another? Or one...

"God helps those who help themselves."
That's why "E. Pluribus Unum" and not "In God we Trust" is our national motto.

"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."

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

Noun 1. creatorCreator - terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God
Almighty, Divine, God Almighty, Godhead, Lord, Maker, Jehovah
Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity, Sacred Trinity, Trinity - the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
hypostasis of Christ, hypostasis - any of the three persons of the Godhead constituting the Trinity especially the person of Christ in which divine and human natures are united

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

If there was a coin made to honor George W. Bush and "in God We Trust" was off to the side, I could understand, he is our preacher in chief, but the coin is not of Bush but John Quincy Adams, who was a Unitarian/Congregationalist, he also believed in God but not the standard God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He even founded the Unitarian All Souls church in Washington DC, so, if he were alive and saw the coin,I'm sure he'd get a kick out of the idea that someone is making a bre hah hah over this. Secondly, E plurbius Unum, is also our national motto and is also on coins and dollars, I as a citizen UU am quite please with the Capitol Visitor's Center and their design, its among other things, a vehicle to get to the real exhibit-the US Capitol. The Capitol has statues to white men who are from Congress. The CVC, has statues of Indians(Indians did not believe in the trinty), and since Indians are a minority in the US-because we Christians held the motto the only good Indian is a dead Indian , well we took their land and exterminated them, making them the minority, and democracy is about not just confirming the majority but protecting the minority, from Civil Rights to sufferage and their struggle to put the laws we now have on the books, is what our country is about. So, Jim DeMint can go to hell.

Here are all of the quotes on display at the US Capitol - taken together it is hard to complain that it is not a fair representation of core US values (note especially the Bates quote).

"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value." —Theodore Roosevelt

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." —Thomas Jefferson

"He that invents a machine augments the power of a man and the well being of mankind." —Henry Ward Beecher

"Labor is discovered to be the grand conqueror enriching and building up nations more surely than the proudest battles." —William Ellery Channing

"We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind." —Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Whenever a free man is in chains we are threatened also. Whoever is fighting for liberty is defending America." —William Allen White

"Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country." —Samuel Adams

"We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization." —Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." —Louis D. Brandeis

"Let us build broad and wide these foundations. Let them abut only on the everlasting seas." —Ignatius Donnelly

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." —Benjamin Franklin

"When tillage begins other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of human civilization." —Daniel Webster

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience." —Patrick Henry

"Our government conceived in freedom and purchased with blood can be preserved only by constant vigilance." —William Jennings Bryan

"Whenever a people or an institution forget its hard beginnings, it is beginning to decay." —Carl Sandburg

"Man is not made for the State but the State for man and it derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed." —Thomas Jefferson

"This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, has a just claim to your confidence and support." —George Washington

"We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution." —Rufus Choate

"Here, sir, the people govern." —Alexander Hamilton

"You are the rulers and the ruled." —Adlai E. Stevenson

"Liberty and union, one and inseparable." —Daniel Webster

"One country, one Constitution, one destiny." —Daniel Webster

"America! God shed his grace on Thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!" —Katharine Lee Bates

"A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful Land, traversing all the seas with the rich production of their Industry." —Thomas Jefferson

"Americans are westward pilgrims, who are carrying along with them that great mass of arts, science, vigour and industry." —Hector St. John de Crevecoeur

"Go west, young man, and grow up with the country." —Horace Greeley

"To venture into the wilderness, one must see it, not as it is, but as it will be." —Carl Becker

Too many people want to separate God from the history of this country. I happen to believe in God. I do not require that belief in others, nor do I feel compelled to "convert" them. I do recognize, however, that religion has played a role in most of this country's history. Denying that fact or trying to cover it up does not change it. Sometimes religion plays a positive role; sometimes it does not. A quote from a president acknowledging his belief did not establish a religion then, nor does it now. The quote only confirms our freedom to express our faith as individuals and should be celebrated not denigrated.

There is nothing wrong with the beliefs of the new testiment and the beliefs of god, all passages within the new testement are of love and kindness,people who adhere to its teachings are saintly people who dont are ungodly.There will come a time when the bible will be considered evil and evil will be considered good, this will be the end times,when lawlessness rules.To rid ones life of the creator will bring despair and a sense of hopelesness.We are all decendence of abraham.People who wish to devoid its people of the creator (god)do so at their and their countries peril.

ecglofelty wrote:
"Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,"

You believe that Jesus was God, right? And that God made (among other things) people?

So how come he didn't know that people understand with their brains and that the heart is just a pump made of muscle?

And before you start explaining about poetry and metaphor to me, understand (with your brain) that back then people really *did* think that the heart was the seat of reason. They believed a lot of crazy things in those ignorant days.....like that there was a magic man in the sky. Apparently Jesus (God) was no smarter than the rest.

replacing In g-d we trust with e Pluribus unum is reclaiming the heritage of this country, not rewriting it. It's reaffirming its roots as a nation, as a democratic republic, and an invention of Man. it is a government where those of faith and those without it join for the common good. Everyone is free to believe as he or she chooses, but not impose that belief on others. e Pluribus Unum is our national motto- not "in G-d We trust." If reworking the Speakers Rostrum means changing the replica to more accurately reflect what America is, then so be it. G-d shouldn't have on there in the first place. No religion in government.

Having God's presence being acknowledged in government settings is NOT the same as having God's presence acknowledged in each and every instance.
The religious right needs to understand that and let us get on living in our increasingly-diverse society.

Face facts, the first "pilgrims" from England and France who settled what would become the United States were NOT seeking a place where they would be free to practice their religion without persecution. They were looking for a place where they would be free to persecute others into practicing THEIR religion. This entire argument is just another example of certain groups trying to force their religion onto the rest of us. Here are some other examples:

1. Teaching creationism in school and trying to remove the teaching of proven science, like evolution.

2. Prayer in public schools. If you want your children to be taught prayer, send them to your church's school.

3. Having the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament plastered all over the Supreme Court. I don't recall the U.S. Congress ever enacting any legislation making the Ten Commandments the law of this land, nor are those Commandments mentioned anywhere in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is sworn to uphold.

4. Compelling people, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, to swear on the Bible in court. I have never heard of a case where a Hindu was permitted to swear on the Gita, or a Buddhist swear on no book at all.

There is nothing wrong with practicing a religion, but it belongs in your home and in your church...not in our public schools, national monuments, Congress, courthouses or other government centers.

MERRY CHRISTMAS. GOD BLESS EVERYONE.

jjorde1 wrote: "I was a environmental vegetarian for 11 years and I thought everyone was crazy but I realized later that although people are still crazy, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. People just don't give a damn about certain things and unless your going to force people to comply which is what government has to do sometimes, don't worry about it."

So when you get your license plates with a cross on them stating "I Believe", and you are asked at a job interview what your religion is, and your children in school learn that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is "only a theory", then you might start to worry about it. Its the Constitution that protects us from getting to that point. Read it, protect it.

So what happens if my Creator is Allah?

Have a pleasant Yuletide!

There is no god, there never was a Jesus, and the whole bible is a collection of lies that has been used to underpin social injustice for thousands of years.
Get real, get a life, forget about god(s)!
It is up to you not to perpetuate the lies by telling your children the real truth: USA is definitely NOT blessed, any any more than Nazi Germany was, and Americans cannot hide under an aegis of holiness that their treatment of others is and has been atrocious.

Every American is free to worship the God of their choosing or not worship-it's up to each individual. I don't trust politicians to deal with religious issues. I don't believe that politicians have God in mind when they make these protest, they have themselves and politics in mind. Americans have complete freedom to worship and should be thankful for that fredom. We should not mix religion with our business. We should note that where religion is mixed with a country's business it doesn't work that well.

Is Waters mentally ill? What a frigging crybaby! The 'pilgrims' were people that nobody in the 21st century would want around, unless perhaps the stinkin Taliban. Religion has played good and bad parts in our history, and deserves as much official recognition as guns, slavery and alcohol.

What was started as a "Godless, anti-Communist" effort in the 50's by groups such as the Catholic Knights of Columbus, should stop now.
This country is founded on principles by men who were deists, at best. They had no intention of making every public entity have the word "God" in front of it or behind it. I am sick of this attempt by fundamentalists to reinvent our history and create a Christian theocracy in America. Look what having religious fanatics running the show has done for the Middle East. Let's return to our secular roots again, America.

We are one nation under the CONSTITUTION. And we are a nation that continues to be one nation from many sources (expluribus unum). I love the freedom to worship as I see fit, and I don't want the government to ever be in my religion. In return, I'm happy to keep my religion out of the government. If the offensive "In God we trust" continues to be on our money, we would need bigger coins so they can say "In God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, et al. we trust"

When future generations see pictures of the Founding Fathers kneeling in prayer during meetings, liberals/atheist will explain that everyone was simply tying their shoes at the same time.

Whining intolerant white evangelicals are no longer politically irrelevant (thank God). They should go to Alaska with Palin and cast out witchcraft, gays, Halloween, TeleTubbies, science, evolution, sex-education, the Easter Bunny, the environment, human rights, Hostess Cup Cakes, Big Macs, Ronald McDonald, tolerance, diversity, Cubans, Communists, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Chinese, whales, moose, seals, polar bears, liberals, Democrats, Mexicans and Muslims with Rev. Mufee in Walsalia. Or build a bid spaceship with the Mormons and hie to Kolob where they can practice their mutually hateful neochristian theocratic agendas without free men objecting.

Go posture, pose, primp, pray and pretend with your own on Sunday and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

JMEROAUS: enjoy the eggnog this Christmas. It sounds as if you surely need it. God be with you.

bhuang2 Author wrote:

So what happens if my Creator is Allah?
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

You´re just sh*t out of luck in Dobson`s Jesuslandia.

I would be relieved to see "in God we trust" dropped from our currency, "under God" from the pledge, and "God bless America" from the end of every political speech of consequence. Official formulaic statements of faith such as these are devoid of meaning. They offended me when I was a believer, and they irritate me now that I no longer believe. Religion is purest when it is not worked into the official language. I don't understand why so many of the faithful angrily insist on adding God talk to governance. It's as if they believed in a petty God they fear would smite the nation if his name weren't mentioned enough.

This article proves one thing:
Christians like Jim DeMint are a bunch of crybaby whiners.
Stop trying to shove your magical, invisible friend down our throats, you infantile brats.

This nation can claim 2 fathers. George Washington, who was there to help it at birth, and Abraham Lincoln, who saw to it that the Union was not dissolved and that it emerged stronger both as a nation and a union after the Civil War that threatened to do away with this magnificent experiment that is the US. Neither man kept secret that they believed their God was an integral and important part of their duty and the fabric of the nation. Their quotes suffice to establish their beliefs.

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
George Washington

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln

Among the Founding Fathers, an equal bent towards attributing our freedoms as a gift from God was not unusual.

"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

"I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor."
James Monroe

And the children of the Founding Fathers, as shown by the words of the son of the father of the Constitution, shared for all time the lessons they learned from the struggle their parents led.

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
John Quincy Adams

And as we are still enjoying turkey leftovers from last week's festivities, let us not forget the origins of the celebration and why it is important, as marked by the words of our first President:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee 78 requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
George Washington

The point of these and som many more quotes that could be shared is not to pressume that teh US need be a theocracy. I do not believe that and neither did the men who uttered these quotes. Yet, many a Founding Father and their heirs believed that religion is very important to the enterprise of democracy. In fact, Washington himself considered religion essential for the virtue required of self-governing citizens. Religion as part of the structure of the nation does not mean or demand that religion will be imposed on non-believers or those of other religions.

Religion in the US did not enter the public discourse in the 50s and 60s. It has been with us from the moment of birth of the US. While Thomas Jefferson held views we all know today, his were not the only views that matter. Nor was he the "de facto" leader of the Founding Fathers. He was an important voice, but not the only voice.

If we are going to have a sane and proper discussion on the role of religion historically and how religion can be part of the fabric of the nation without imposing religion on others, let us acknowledge history. Do not white wash it.

bhuang2 wrote: "So what happens if my Creator is Allah?"
////////////////////////////////////////////

You will be accorded every respect and right due any citizen of the country inasmuch as you continue to live by the laws of the country as established by it legitimate government and the Constitution of the United States. Why would it be otherwise? How would being a moslem change that?

COMDIEN writes:

"E Pluribus Unum had been our national motto since the founding of this country until it was replaced with "In God we Trust" in 1956.
No one is rewriting history, and in fact it is radical Christians who are trying to rewrite it."
----------------------------------------------
I agree with your first statement (though it was the de facto motto, not the legal one - there was no legal US motto until 1956). I agree that "E Pluribus Unum" should be our national motto.

But it is not and the deliberate mis-statements by some pseudo-historian will not make it so.

The problem here has little to do with the separation of church and state - and much to do with deliberate "cut-and-pasting" of a few quotes in a manner that reads suspiciously as though they were sanitized, not to reflect the intent of the author, but to make things pretty.

That's one major point of Mr. Waters - and this part seems true.

god, allah, zeus, unicorns, ufo... whatever, it's all good!

Argie,
What these men said has nothing to do with how this nation is governed. The Constitution does not prohibit the speech of government officials. Bush can ask for God's guidance, Congress can ask God to bless America. None of this has anything to do with governance or the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution cares about is Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. If a law is not made to this effect, it is not prohibited by the Constitution. Please stop mixing up speech about God and laws establishing a God. They are NOT the same.

"I have great veneration and regard for Religion and sincere piety, but a hypocrite or a bigoted fanatic without reason I cannot bear."

--President James Knox Polk

Remind you of anyone?

My main gripe against religion is the fact that they are, by design, political. Jesus was political. So was Ghandi. And Buddah.
But this fact has been carried to an extreme these days in this country in that "recognized" religions are tax exempt.
Now that we've got the "hypocrit or a bigoted fanatic" on the run, I think it's time to at least look at the possibility of having all religious leeches file a tax return, with a handsome check enclosed.
Afterall, and as Obama has stated, it's one's patriotic duty to pay taxes. Of course, Saint Sarah begs to differ . . .

Many continue to use that line that the Founding Fathers were nothing but deists in their efforts to buttress their position that Christianity played no role in the founding of the nation. The quotes from many Founding Fathers prove them incorrect.

It is true, on the other hand, that the document to which we need to look for guidance in deciding government questions is the Constitution and not the Bible. Yet, to suggest that neither Chirstianity nor the Bible played a role in how the Constitution was crafted appears to be far fetched. John Adams, one of the most instrumental people in defining and seeing through the writing of the Constitution speaks volumes on the issue of the relationship between the US and God.

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” [June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” [letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [October 11, 1798]

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Again, neither the second President nor so many others today claim or want a theocracy in the US. But let us not forget the origins that tie our Founding Documents to the Christian God.

bevjims1 : I believe that you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my points. If it is the latter, I am at fault. All I tried to show is that the argument about the influence of Christinaity on the fabric of the nation and on how the founding document (the Constitution) came to be are not new. It was not the Knights of Columbus who brought it up. It did not start with the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Founding Fathers themselves acknowledged a debt of gratitude to Christianity and the value of Christianity in the manner in which they devised the US system.

John Adams himself, who birthed the Constitution, draws a staright line between the document and Christianity. So, what these men said, has a LOT to do with how the country is governed.

@FYIColubiaMD: It was fun reading through the quotes. I thought the most pertinent to this discussion was:

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." —Louis D. Brandeis

:
@FYIColubiaMD: Good quote from Brandeis, indeed. The matter, however, necessitates that we separate in this discussion the importance of religion on and the imposition of religion in the country. Arguments to acknowledge that Christianity played a central role in the founding of the country and in the shaping of the Constitution need not be associated with those who would impose Christianity at the expense of religous freedom. Being a religious does not equal being a zealot.

Believers should thank the atheists. Without them, the Bible becomes wrong. They fulfill the prophecies written in the Bible which says that in the end times, these unbelievers will be destroyed.

These people reinforces our faith in the truthfulness of the Bible.

I just don't care. Call on God, call on Satan to bless America. Just keep religion out of government, and government out of religion. Take "In God We Trust" off our coins and replace it with "E Pluribus Unum". All these politicians and activists and preachers that run around worrying about some fancied "war on God" that doesn't seem to exist except in their fevered brains are forgetting the real issues of this country: the economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the bankrupting of this country by a bunch of idiots that thought dragging God into every issue would make a difference. Well they were wrong. God could care less about this planet, since the human race has spent the last 2000 years showing God that it is not worth redeeming, and that includes all the self-righteous evangelical facists in the Republican party and their supporters all over the nation, who all supported the torture of their fellow human beings, a mortal sin for which there is no escaping the fires of hell.

"bankrupting of this country by a bunch of idiots "

Yup, most of these stock market speculators are unbelievers.

argie wrote: "bevjims1 : I believe that you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my points. If it is the latter, I am at fault. All I tried to show is that the argument about the influence of Christinaity on the fabric of the nation and on how the founding document (the Constitution) came to be are not new."

Actually, many were deists. But what they all believed in was the inherent evil created by religion influencing government and visa versa. They lived under a government like that. Deists had to pay taxes to the Anglican church by law. They understood the tyranny of religion having the reigns of government, even those who were fervent believers.

argie wrote: "It was not the Knights of Columbus who brought it up. It did not start with the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Founding Fathers themselves acknowledged a debt of gratitude to Christianity and the value of Christianity in the manner in which they devised the US system."

Acknowledging God's guidance is one thing, legislating God into law, such as with the pledge, is another. You are equating the two. There is nothing in the Constitution outlawing speech about religion, even within government. But pass a law respecting religious establishment, as did the law putting "under God" in the pledge, or making the national motto "In God we Trust", and you violate the first amendment. Speaking about God, any reference about God, is not making a law, and completely protected. Making a law respecting religious establishment is completely prohibited.

argie wrote: "John Adams himself, who birthed the Constitution, draws a straight line between the document and Christianity. So, what these men said, has a LOT to do with how the country is governed."

What they said has NOTHING to do with how this nation is governed since nothing they said respecting God has become law. What they specified in the Constitution was that no law shall be made by Congress respecting the establishment of religion. Referencing God on any subject is completely different from making law referencing God. The first is protected by the first amendment, the later is prohibited by the first amendment.

Look, I understand what you are trying to say, that Christianity influenced the founding fathers in many ways, including how this nation would be governed. But though some spoke of God, none wanted a theocracy, none wanted God in government, none wanted a national religion, none wanted this nation to establish a religion, even their own religion. So though many were fervent believers and saw God in the America they were creating, none wanted God established in the government through law, this is very clear. They understood the distinction between speaking about God and making laws about God.

Anyone using Jim DeMint as an arbiter of what's right or wrong is very suspect to me.
E Pluribus Unum is perfect. Can we leave the gods in the places of worship just this once, please?

jhsin23 wrote: "god, allah, zeus, unicorns, ufo... whatever, it's all good!"

//////////////////////////////////////

No, it is not.

spidermean2 wrote:
>>"bankrupting of this country by a bunch of idiots"
>Yup, most of these stock market speculators are unbelievers.

How did you learn this?

Senator DeMint is to be commended. And your comment, "But trying to scrub from American history or public life every reference to God or faith isn't just silly. It's inaccurate and misleading" is also to be commended. Every president when addressing the American people says either "God Bless America" or "May God Bless America." I stand with them. God Bless America.

Samuel Margolies -- Las Vegas

RE: "Yup, most of these stock market speculators are unbelievers."
-----------------------------
Based on what data? Is there some survey out there that asks stock traders their religious preference?

Typical nonsense from god-boy Spidey.

RE: "Believers should thank the atheists. Without them, the Bible becomes wrong."
---------------------
You're welcome!

fiveman3 wrote: "Every president when addressing the American people says either "God Bless America" or "May God Bless America." I stand with them. God Bless America."

And Rep. Keith Ellison of Minneapolis swore his oath to the US on the koran and I'm sure he might be heard asking Allah to bless America. All those who ask their God to bless America have a right to do so. But I hope that you would fight the inclusion of God in the laws of this land as you would likely fight the inclusion of Allah in the laws of this land.

Speech is not laws. Please stop confusing the two. Speech is free but laws cannot respect the establishment of religion.

Angie,
Some rich man said to Mark Twain once
'Mr. Twain, the USA is a Christian Nation!'
to which Twain replied
'And so is Hell!'

I seems only natural that there should be a war on god, as god has waged war on man, through god's various minions, from the beginning of time. The old testament is filled with stories, and they are just stories, of Moses and other characters, that were compelled by god to lead armies against their fellow man. If the worst that nonbelievers do is to protest the destructive merger of state and religion by preventing the etching of outdated dogmatic religious sentiment into our landmarks, then it seems to me that the non believers are a great deal less violent and less destructive to life than the god fearing people like those who carried out the Crusades and the Inquisition in the name of the all loving merciful god.
Thank-You
Collier

Argie and others post quotes from the Founders, to make a case ours is a nation based on Christianity. I cheerfully concede one point, since it‘s one I often make. The founders, reflecting their Age, certainly included many men of strong Christian faith. We can all cut-and-paste volumes of quotes supporting varying positions (theirs strictly Christian, mine a mix), but I don’t think that approach accomplishes much

The truth is, this country was founded by people of various and diverse beliefs, from near-atheistic deism (Jefferson) to modified Congregationalism (Adams), to ministers of various religions (Roger Williams, John Witherspoon etc.), to cheerful optimism and unspecified trust in a kindly Deity (Franklin, and he’s my favorite because he has so many quotes both supporting and refuting religion—no ‘foolish consistency’ for him!).

Of course these men reflected the common religious understandings of their time, but read some of the history of the drafting of the Constitution—there is no controversy at all that the goal of the Founders was to entirely eliminate the influence of religion from government (lessons-learned from the State Churches of Europe). It’s most telling to observe the many proposals to insert references to God, Jesus, and even “Divine Providence” in the body of the Constitution—all were voted down by these wise men, these, undoubtedly, Men of God.

Because of human nature—primarily the propensity of humans to see patterns and infer 'cause' where none actually exists— and experience born out by history, the nearly complete separation of religion from the government square (that is written into law or supported by government resources) is the only way to maintain both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. This was the view of our Founders—the authors of the Constitution—and the reason for the separation of church and state through the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

After the sheer audacity of conceiving a government formed by the common agreement of “We the People” rather than by the whims of Gods or Kings, the glory of the Constitution is the First Amendment and its ‘Five Freedoms.’ The most unique, original, and perhaps, yes, audacious idea in our country’s Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thereby assuring our society’s freedom both of and from religion.

marcedward1 :
That makes Twain very clever (which we all know he was, and I enjoy him probably as much as you do). It does not make him correct if he intended to deny the assertion to which he was responding.

malis :
I never in my comments advocated, supported, or spoke about doing away with the separation of church and state. None of the quotes that I used were intended for that purpose nor claim to support that position. I believe in separation as much as you seem to do.

ckaybee :
Don't blame God for the failures of man. If man corrupted religion, that's man's problem and issue.

Frankly I am tired of illiterate self-proclaimed Christians tacking God on public endeavors. READ the new testament, Jesus Christ respected all governments equally, that is as works of man. Today Jesus would make no distinctions between the USA and China. His only concern was about the actions of individuals, not government.

Those who would want the history of religion displayed in American public should ask themselves if they are willing to tell the many stories of a religious groups oppressing others in the name of biblical certainty. Slavery was defended by Protestants and Catholics, as well as continued racist theological ideology against the passage of the Civil Rights Acts. And need we bring up anti-immigrant movements like the Know Nothings who had religious roots? Much less the Ku Klux Klan? Ironically much of Protestant Evangelical history would have to be made public. But do they really want this cruel and ugly history of bigotry against Catholics, Jews, Blacks, immigrants, and now gays to be told?

josephpalacios : Most definitely

Argie, sorry I misunderstood you. I went back and reviewed your post and I agree—you were simply stating the Founders could not help but be influenced by their Christian religion, but this doesn’t mean our government can or should be either explicitly or implicitly religious.

It’s just that your approach is so often used by so many somehow trying to espouse the inaccurate assumption that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation. I’ll remember to try to read a little more closely.

malis : Thank you. For my part, I will work on clarity. There are too many knee-jerk reactions on both sides of the argument.

Why do Theist spend so much time and effort pushing their gods, devils, saints, angels and other polytheistic speculations down our throat? Why does "faith" means only blind belief in arbitrary theology, and clearly over-edited and mangled history from unverifiable long past histories? It is as offensive to those of us who see this as delusional, and our faith in this can be very strong indeed, as if we made them admit their religions were false. Push your unwanted religion into politics, deny us the chance to be "loyal" citizen, and I have to tell you your god is as dead and false as Zeus and all the other ones. It infuriates me that these people claim morality only comes from religion, which history clearly shows is not only false, but inversely related-there is no horror like a religious war and religious persecution. By thinking only they know right from wrong, they do the worst wrongs on the planet. A Christian fundamentalist, a Muslim one, or a Hindu one, is no friend of liberty but is equally willing to commit crimes against humanity when the victims are claimed to be not even human because they don't believe they same as the true believers. Why can't we all just agree to leave the matter open and not push all this religious hatred down the throats of those who see another vision of reality?

"But trying to scrub from American history or public life every reference to God or faith isn't just silly. It's inaccurate and misleading."
The first person who tried to scrub God out of public life was Thomas Jefferson when he wrote his version of the Bible and edited out all references to God and treated Christ as just a philosopher.
Too bad he did not succeed.

"E pluribus unum, Latin for "Out of Many, One," is a motto requested by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere (originally Pierre-Eugène Ducimetière) and found in 1776 on the Seal of the United States, along with Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum, and adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782. " (wiki)

the argument seems to be that there are those who claim this nation was founded on christian principles. IF that were true every church would be a democratic republic. People can't seem to separate their understanding of government from their religious faith. If christian principles are the basis of our government, how did the Greeks some up with democracy? How did the Iroquois condfederacy learn to practice democracy?

What monarchy- with all their Christian kings, ever gave it up for democracy? Is the Pope a practitioner of democracy? Did the Reformation adhere to democratic principles?

So exactly what christian principles are you claiming this country is founded on?

As a minister I am not too concerned about the issues cited in your article. A true faith does not need nor should relay upon a government to promote it's aims. I see no war with God. Politicians and presidents have used God-talk to advance their cause and curry favor with people not to promote any faith. If there is a war then perhaps it's with superficiality.

You are right, such phrases such as "In God we Trust" on our coinage and "under God" in our pledge tend to diminish religion. A faith so weak as to rely on government support is not truly under God or trusts in God.

By the way, if Congressmen DeMint, Forbes, et. al. take the time to read the Constitution, they will find no mention of God in there either.

Pattioriley says:
"When future generations see pictures of the Founding Fathers kneeling in prayer during meetings, liberals/atheist will explain that everyone was simply tying their shoes at the same time."

Not at all - we realize that the cameras used back then took such poor photos that it's impossible to be certain what they were doing.

sparrow4 asks, "So exactly what christian principles are you claiming this country is founded on?"

To render unto Ceasar those things that are Caesar's. That is about the only Bible reference I can find that fits with what the drafters of the Constitution were trying to do. They were basically saying that the government is the government and has nothing to do with any church. Just as Jesus was saying that the Roman government could do what it wanted with its own money, because God had absolutely no interest in such matters. To paraphrase, let worldly governments deal with worldly matters; let God deal with spiritual matters; because the two have NOTHING to do with each other. Anyone who claims to be Christian and thinks that any soul can ever be saved through an act of Congress is really just a closet bigot looking to use the government as their own personal tool of oppression.

LDTRPT25 said, "What everyon needs to understand is EVERYTHING BELONGS TO GOD-HE CREATED IT ALL"

Then why do you have a computer? Shouldn't you have turned over all your money and possessions to God? Because otherwise you are basically stealing from God, right? And if everything belongs to God, then why did Jesus say that anything at all belonged to Caesar?

It seems to me that the most important advocate for separating religion and government was not one of our founding fathers. It was Jesus himself.

Mr. Waters: the removal of references to a Volcano God/Skyborne Father Figure on our national buildings is simply a sign of the United States moving more fully into a modern era. I realize this is troubling to some of the primitive tribal peoples that still populate our rural areas, but we have Constitution that promises freedom from the government establishing religion. They need to deal with that.

Our troops are in Afghanistan bravely fighting against the Taliban. If Christian fanatics want to spit on the troops by clamoring for Religious Rule here at home, that is unfortunate. But I will fight their attempts at abominating our modernity, and I will cheer advances like our Republic's new religious-dogma-free Visitor Center.

I have a friend who explained it to me this way:

Some people strongly believe that God (in his case, Christian/Biblical God) is an anchor for good behavior because it means that everyone is held accountable in the end.

Of course, I have a bazillion problems with this concept, not to mention the idea that if some people will not behavior reasonably in society EXCEPT for the threat of a serious beating he will get in the after life; I don't want those people loose in society. It does not take much to lose faith in any kind of God, and I don't want to be near these people if/when they do. I STRONGLY encourage these people to keep their faith and keep going to church/temple/whatever. These guys obvious need some major carrot & stick program to keep them in line.

Some of us don't need the threat of eternal damnation to feel the need to behave reasonably.

Now, my friend's opinion is that the more we remove these references/elements of God from the society, the more we will likely slip down that slope to zero accountability for our lives.

I can understand this.

I can even see how some people really need this.

However, I can also see that some people really need a cigarette (witness our president elect) once in a while.

And if the problem is nation wide, then I'm all for spending some tax dollars to help with this addiction.

--------

Now, unlike cigarettes, which do not have much helpful short term characteristics and have serious long term health problems, religion is not just an opiate, but provides some really important infrastructure that very few people really would do on their own.

Some sorts of good deeds require the level of organization that national and international religious charities can do, but is very difficult for individuals to do. Religious charities help all sort of people in need both here and abroad.

These charities would not work well without the religion part. Therefore, the secular reasons why tax breaks are given to churches is partly to promote these good works.

However, to claim that a word here or there in some government plaque is some symptom of some larger atheist agenda is way beyond religious charity. You folks are wasting my tax dollars.

Go help the poor in Africa. When there are no more poor to help because you've guided all of them out of poverty, let's talk about these plaques and statues. In the mean time, I believe you have some poor people to help.

proconsul- great post! thanks-

Please! There is no "War on God in America". No one is preventing Evangelicals to worship and live the way they want. Quite the contary, Evangelicals are the ones who, at every turn, are trying to impose their beliefs on other people.

Evangelicals are to be reminded that they live in the USA, a country made up of diverse people, practising (or not) various religions.

Evangelicals are not victims. They should stop whining.

In God we Trust????
Whose God, which God, what is God and what do atheists trust in, besides America, Humanity and life?

America was founded by DEISTS, not evangelical cretins. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin Paine, et al the writers were DEISTS and Jefferson had his own Bible and NOT ONE THOUGHT Jesus was GOD. A fact evangelical prevaricators cannot digest, as they mount saddles on dinosaurs.

America was founded on RELIGIOUS freedom, not any definition of any god. Swearing on a Bible is a SIN, a British Church custom carried over to America.

The Constitution strictly states there is no religious test for office.

Religious freedom is critical to FREEDOM, LIBERTY and EQUALITY. If you don’t like it, you live in the wrong country. Religion is not a requirement for heaven or hell, it is a personal choice and to think or say otherwise is insane, and a potential threat to liberty and life, as it has from the Inquisition to the Taliban.

Religion in America has been perverted by the Falwells and extremists, who, like the Catholic Church, created a religion based on PROFIT and POWER.

Faith is personal, even Jesus never attended Church/Temple and fought the establishment that was organized religion and it murdered.

That is what conservatives do, try to remake that social liberal Jesus into a greedy, power hungry, murdering elitist conservative, but that is the beauty of America, we allow them to do so, because that is why liberty is more powerful than any religion.

There is a war, a war on beliefs, other peoples' gods and beliefs, for the purpose of hate, envy, profit or ignorance.

Jesus is not God, just a flaming liberal the conservatives murdered. The only ones murdering GOD are the ones that blame others for murdering god for their god is hate, elitism, profit and power.

Its almost a strange coincidence. Beware of New Shiny Money trotted out as state quarters. The old standard quarter, the one with the Bald Eagle,up above the head, in small letters, but prominent, E pluribus Unum. The fun quarters to collect, still has E pluribus Unum, buts extremely tiny, and on the bottom, so the stupid state can show off their prized possession. Its kind of like Fahrenheit 451 of people reading books, until one time someone decided not to read, and Firemen Bleatty seized on a grand idea, burn the books gradually, so it will recede in memory easier. That's what's happened to the prominence of E Pluribus Unum on Money. The CVC also reasserts Christian wing nuts can't do anything because of the prominence of the first amendment.

Kudos LDM

Mr. Waters,
Your paranoia is scary. Why should you concern yourself with whether ALL American's affirm "Under Your God" After all America was built on religious intolerance from England demanding we affirm "Under Their God" and now you act just like Mother England.

As a practicing American Buddhist, I am appalled at your demands I affirm "Under Your God" to vote or spend my money in America. I was born here and choose a religion that does not include "Your God" and I decline to affirm "Under Your God" and I believe all the Wars America gets in have some connection to "Your God" and belittling "Their Beliefs." The process is called "Colonialism."

Please save your colonial ideals for your colony and not America!

If you want to affirm "Your God" do so in "Your Church" as our founding fathers intended and not "Our Country."

Patrick

Enough is enough. Preaching spirituality in any religion is a business and all religions should be taxed. Big retreats on islands, on lakes with valuable pieces of property and they cry poor.

More places of worship in every town and new denominations I have never heard of. It’s a business, Tax them. What we have are glorious Tax free clubhouses, wake up and stick with laws of humanity not laws of hypocrites.

How many more wars,murders,scams and abuses using religion in the name of god do we have to have before its to late. Tax religions.

My rant
Philip, Bliss NY

Enough is enough. Preaching spirituality in any religion is a business and all religions should be taxed. Big retreats on islands, on lakes with valuable pieces of property and they cry poor.

More places of worship in every town and new denominations I have never heard of. It’s a business, Tax them. What we have are glorious Tax free clubhouses, wake up and stick with laws of humanity not laws of hypocrites.

How many more wars,murders,scams and abuses using religion in the name of god do we have to have before its to late. Tax religions.

My rant
Philip, Bliss NY

Created plutonium for nuclear bombs, lead for bullets, mustard gas and Zyclon, anthrax, uranium for hardened tanks, the Bubonic Plague, earthquakes for tidal waves, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al, etc.

What can it all mean?

Gee, if one has to turn the replica cap so that something can't be read, how about the side that has the Latin phrase that 90% of the visitors can't read? I refuse to be upset by that. . . .

I recently read a local Virginia paper where a columnist was ranting about the "War on Christmas" and particularly the greeting "Happy Holidays." It was so dim that it asserted there were no other Holidays at this season but Christmas. Hogmanie! says I.

I am so sick of hearing the mention of god everywhere !! Keep your superstitions and book of fairy tales out of politics !!
Religion is the biggest lie of all times. it enslave people and keep us from going forward. It is a poison and until anyone can proove that your god exist, shut up !!
I want america to become secular just like europe is.

And what an arrogance to always say god bless america !! Who do you think you are??? Just an idiotic and selfabsorbed society. If you really believe in a god, then time to start saying god bless the world !!

Christopher Hitchens has it right. Religion poisons everything.

By the way, PAMSM, I LOVE your sense of humor.

americans are the most hypocrit people on earth. They talk about their god and what he expects from us, but yet, 33 million people living under poverty level??? you throw away the weakest and sickest on the streets, (Mentally ill people, vets etc....) no healthcare for all etc.... and you want to give us Atheists or agnostics lessons of moral??? You people make me sick !

"There's a terrible movement to rewrite our history and obscure our faith," J. Randy Forbes, a Republican congressman from Virginia, told the National Review this week.
*****

I guess I don't understand how removing the phrase now is "rewriting" history. Rewriting would imply that we do not acknowledge the fact that at one point in history he words did exist on our currency. But I do not hear anyone advocating this. Rather, what people here are suggesting is that the phrase, now considered a violation of the principles of the separation of church and state, should be removed from this point on. It is simply correcting a previous wrong, and has nothing to do with changing history.

I think that the people need to move out of the states if they don't like what has been the american way of living for 200 yrs maybe a little time in a third world country will shut you all up

To those like Deedee985 who complain about Americans' frequent requests that God bless America:
I think William F. Buckley once responded to a similar complaint. The complainer noted that other nation's leaders do not end the majority of their speeches asking for God's blessing upon their nation.
As I recall, Buckley's response was: could it be that their requests to God might be part of the reason that our nation seems to have been so exceptionally blessed?
If you refuse to believe or follow God, this does not make God or His commandments any less real. He responds to those who pray to Him. And the Bible shows that he witholds protection from those who offend and ignore him. How many noticed that the World Trade Center was completed the same year as the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade Decision?
May God bless America.
Imaculate Mary, pray for us!

deedee985 wrote:

americans are the most hypocrit people on earth. They talk about their god and what he expects from us, but yet, 33 million people living under poverty level??? you throw away the weakest and sickest on the streets, (Mentally ill people, vets etc....) no healthcare for all etc.... and you want to give us Atheists or agnostics lessons of moral??? You people make me sick !"

Oh deedee don't be so hard on America. They did after all supply a lot of humanitarian relief to Thailand and other affected nations after the tsunami. I don't remember too many other nations doing that, and wealthy muslim nations did nothing, as usual. America continues to lead the world in AIDS relief to Africa, even while it is suffering a financial meltdown. America is the nation known for worldwide charity. Name another country which does as much. And though poverty in America exists, so does charity. No one in America is starving or cannot obtain help in dark times. And it is mostly the religious organizations that provide this charity and it is likely those religious tendencies in America are what drive the government sponsored charity.

But since you seem convinced Americans are so bad, please, tell me, where else in this world would you rather live and raise your children? The world is voting with its feet, and America is the number one place to be. America is not free of problems, it never has been, but its still the best place to live on this small planet.

You only have to consider the level of this argument and how trivial it seems in other countries. Scrubbing the word God from a building is nothing compared to the religious police of Iran or the Catholic influence in Italy, or the absence of any other religion in Saudi Arabia, where any religion other than Islam is a crime. Yet here, in America, we get bent out of shape when our Constitution is not protected in the smallest of ways. Most people in other nations love their country, but Americans love the idea of America, what it stands for, its principles. That is what makes America great and why the world continues to flock here to get away from religious intolerance and poverty elsewhere in the world.

"FDR talked publicly about God as much as any president. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill and other leaders delivered public prayers during World War II. Nearly every major public building and monument in Washington has at least one reference to God."

It depends on the context used when the passage refers to God. There is nothing wrong with displaying speeches or quotations where the speaker / writer referred to God. To change their words simply to "scrub" God out would indeed be rewriting history. To have a phrase such as "In God we Trust" used as an endorsement or reminder that this is the way we should think is a clear violation of the establishment clause. It implies a belief or mindset that not all people follow and thus goes far beyond a mere quotation. When it becomes such an "advertisement" or moral imperative displayed in a public setting, then I suggest it has indeed crossed the wall of separation and needs to be removed.

deedee985 : "americans are the most hypocrit people on earth. They talk about their god and what he expects from us, but yet, 33 million people living under poverty level??? you throw away the weakest and sickest on the streets, (Mentally ill people, vets etc....) no healthcare for all etc.... and you want to give us Atheists or agnostics lessons of moral??? You people make me sick !"
////////////////////////////////////////////////

Nice generalization! I would posit that many believe it is the community's responsibility, and not the government's to help those down on their luck; and that the role of the government is to foster and encourage local private initiatives that help people fend harsh times and serve their needs for clothing, food, shelter when they need them. You pressume that oppossing certain government programs equals hypocrisy, when many peole who opposse these programs give generously of tehir time and money to support multiple community initiatives.

Of course, let's not mention the vast amounts of money the US has dedicated and committed towards AIDS in Africa, disaster relief across the globe, etc.

Posted on December 8, 2008 07:56

deedee985 :
"I want america to become secular just like europe is."
////////////////////////////////////////////////

And that's worked so well for Europe.

Johannes1 wrote:
"If you refuse to believe or follow God, this does not make God or His commandments any less real. He responds to those who pray to Him."
*****

And if you, or anyone, choose to believe in something that cannot be proven or demonstrated, that does not make it any more real either.

"How many noticed that the World Trade Center was completed the same year as the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade Decision?"

How about telling that directly to the families of those killed on 9/11?

I'm not so sure how they'd feel about your theory.

deedee985 wrote:
"I want america to become secular just like europe is."
////////////////////////////////////////////////

argie resonded:

And that's worked so well for Europe.

***************

And what, pray tell, is wrong with Europe?

I'm curious to know who chose the words, "We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution." Obviously this statement has not always been true for America--ask any African-American/Black person--but is it true for American's today? If this IS true and the Constitution is our only oracle (insinuating religious beliefs are removed), then the Supreme Court should have absolutely no problem allowing same-sex marriage.

I feel to truly separate state from church, the Supreme Court should remove the power of a religious minister to act as a representative of the state in marriage ceremonies. EVERY couple--straight or gay--should be required to have their civil unity officiated by an actual state representative (i.e. Justice of the Peace or a judge). If a straight couple wants to have a separate religious ceremony, go for it. BUT, that religious ceremony should be symbolic ONLY of their personal religiosity. Hey, if your church, denomination, or established religious sect doesn't believe that two people who love each other should be recognized, fine, don't allow it. But you should not be allowed to let your beliefs intrude on the rights of others.

I'm curious to know who chose the words, "We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution." Obviously this statement has not always been true for America--ask any African-American/Black person--but is it true for American's today? If this IS true and the Constitution is our only oracle (insinuating religious beliefs are removed), then the Supreme Court should have absolutely no problem allowing same-sex marriage.

I feel to truly separate state from church, the Supreme Court should remove the power of a religious minister to act as a representative of the state in marriage ceremonies. EVERY couple--straight or gay--should be required to have their civil unity officiated by an actual state representative (i.e. Justice of the Peace or a judge). If a straight couple wants to have a separate religious ceremony, go for it. BUT, that religious ceremony should be symbolic ONLY of their personal religiosity. Hey, if your church, denomination, or established religious sect doesn't believe that two people who love each other should be recognized, fine, don't allow it. But you should not be allowed to let your beliefs intrude on the rights of others.

Johannes1 wrote: "How many noticed that the World Trade Center was completed the same year as the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade Decision?"

Only people who are superstitious make nonsensical connections between events. So you might want to consider the terrorist attack was caused by another event in 1973 like:

-CBS selling the New York Yankees to a 12-person syndicate led by George Steinbrenner.
-The Miami Dolphins defeat the Washington Redskins 14-7 in Super Bowl VII.
-U.S. President Richard Nixon inaugurated for his second term.
-Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was released.
-The Watergate scandal
-Pioneer 11 is launched on a mission to study the solar system.
-Federal Express officially begins operations.
-The Sears Tower in Chicago is finished, becoming the world's tallest building.
-Skylab, the United States' first space station, is launched.
-A very long total solar eclipse.
-The United States Drug Enforcement Administration is founded.
-General Augusto Pinochet heads a U.S.-backed military junta in Chile.
-Billie Jean King defeats Bobby Riggs in a televised tennis match.
-Spiro T. Agnew resigns as Vice President of the United States.
-The Arab Oil Embargo.
-The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality as a mental disorder.
-The Endangered Species Act is passed.

Personally, if I was as superstitious as you I would link Steinbrenner getting hold of the Yankees as what caused 911. Others may blame any of the other events depending on their pet cause. My mom certainly would have blamed Pink Floyd since I played 'dark side of the moon' nonstop after it was released on my new Marantz amplifier with Boston Acoustics speakers as she screamed 'turn that thing down!.

Johannes1 wrote: "May God bless America."

That is you right, which American atheists will die to defend your right to say.

Will Durant observed in his book The Life of Greece that the Ionian philosophers had reasoned that “idea of law, as superior to incalculable personal decree, which would mark the essential difference between science and mythology, as well as between despotism and democracy. Man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law.” What the Ionian Philosophers reasoned two and a half millennium ago the founding fathers of this nation adapted to free the people of this nation. The battle for all Americans even today is to not allow the Christians, Jews, or Moslems to strip our freedom from us and essentially set the clock of human progress back 2500 years. There is no need and it is highly destructive for our government to include the word “God” or make reference to anything religious in any of its verbiage. The Ionian Greeks have turned on the light, we must never let the triple threat (Christians, Jews, and Moslems) turn it off again.

Acknowledging a debt of gratitude to Christianity is not the same as imposing a religion pn anybody

hillman wrote:"

"How many noticed that the World Trade Center was completed the same year as the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade Decision?"

How about telling that directly to the families of those killed on 9/11?

I'm not so sure how they'd feel about your theory.
"

I can tell you- because I actually know quite a few of them. They would think that is the most asinine question ever asked, and you are complete ninny who needs to get back on meds.

What's next? Richard Nixon ate a Hebrew national hotdog in 1965 and caused global warming? Marilyn Monroe peroxided her hair and caused the Korean War? The dog ate your homework so you didn't get into high school?

Thalib wrote: "I feel to truly separate state from church, the Supreme Court should remove the power of a religious minister to act as a representative of the state in marriage ceremonies."

The state does not give such powers to any religious minister.

Thalib wrote: "EVERY couple--straight or gay--should be required to have their civil unity officiated by an actual state representative (i.e. Justice of the Peace or a judge)."

They do. Its called getting a marriage license.

Thalib wrote: "If a straight couple wants to have a separate religious ceremony, go for it."

They do. There is nothing legal about a religious ceremony and most religions require couples to get a marriage license before they can have a ceremony. As the clerk at the license office told my wife and I after we got the license: "Congratulations, you are now legally married".

Thalib wrote: "BUT, that religious ceremony should be symbolic ONLY of their personal religiosity."

It is, at least from a legal point of view.

Thalib wrote: "Hey, if your church, denomination, or established religious sect doesn't believe that two people who love each other should be recognized, fine, don't allow it. But you should not be allowed to let your beliefs intrude on the rights of others."

That is why many courts are allowing gay marriage. It has little to do with marriage itself and everything to do with the state benefits that go with a legal marriage. The equal protection clause of the Constitution says the state cannot provide benefits to only one class of people. Marriage benefits which include tax, inheritance, etc, currently are restricted to heterosexual marriage in most places. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Its not a clear cut issue. But the issue does not involve God, it involves the Constitution and state benefits. If God comes into it, its only in the minds of believers. The courts do not consider God in this matter. Its considers the Constitution, as it should.

Who cares?

With all the problems facing this nation, who gives a darn about the alleged "errors" cited in this article?

We've had 8+ years of hard-core Christian fundamentalism crammed down the national throat. You don't expect some sort of moderate backlash? As far as I'm concerned, there's not enough "scrubbing" going on in Washington. God's a Big Boy, He's got plenty of support.

Why not talk about the erosion of our Bill Of Rights? The Constitution? The Bush admin's "scrubbing" our freedoms worries me more.

argie- We'll acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Christianity when Christianity acknowledges all its debts, and apologizes for all the atrocities it has inflicted on others. when Christianity stops butting into people's personal lives I'll be very grateful.

This is how the Taliban took over Afghanistan, by aggressive enforcement of their superstitious beliefs on the population. The Christian Taliban in America must be resisted or we will suffer the same fate: "spiritual" values imposed by force of law. People speaking in a political capacity should be officially forbidden to make religious pronouncements. How can we expect the Europeans to seriously fight the Afghan Taliban when our own Christian Taliban are just as intolerant? I know how the Christian extremists think: I was sent to a Christian madrassah as a child. It was a hideous nightmare of superstitious brainwashing. Religious indoctrination of children should be banned as child abuse. Then we could have an open-minded society.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Herb2283 : For every Jefferson quote we can count on an oppossing quote from Adams or Franklin, Lincoln or Washington. I admire and respect the intellect and opinion of Jefferson. However, he was not the only Founding Father, was not the most critical Founding Father, and his opinions did not reflect on or summarize the beliefs of the entire cadre of founders who worked and served with him.

The American experiment works well because they were able to bring their opinions together under a document that they all agreed would serve the nation well for its governance (although Jefferson initially resisted efforts to draft the Constitution, a document he felt was not required as he preferred the more loose Articles of Confederation). The faith of many Founding Fathers informed their positions and decisions with regards to the building of the nation. That is not something of which we need to feel ashamed. They all did well.

We all agree that the Constitution sets the law of the land. There's no intention on my part or that of many others to set a theocracy in America (that'd be assuming I were a Christian, of course).

sparrow4 :
Acknowledging that men have committed incredible atrocities and wrongs in the name of their religion is not the same as ackowledging that the religion is wrong or the cause of the atrocities.

The Inquisition: abominable. The Crusades: not very religious in nature. Christian Fundamentalism: dangerous. Theocracies: awful. Religious Persecution in Europe: a political game disguised as religion that stunk to high heaven (no pun intended). Yes, the history of Christianity is full of man-made erros and blemishes. It does not mean that (some of) the Founding Fathers based their decisons and beliefs on those events or that they sanctioned those actions, or that they would accept said persecutions on this land.

Argie wrote: “Acknowledging a debt of gratitude to Christianity is not the same as imposing a religion [o]n anybody.”

I’m afraid I don’t grant your assumption that “a debt of gratitude to Christianity” exists. The US, as a country, has of course been influenced by Christianity of the majority of its citizens. This does not, however, equate in any way to owing it a debt for the progress we’ve made as a society.

Indeed, I believe a stronger argument could be made that our success is despite, not because of society’s Christianity…that this success was possible only because the wise men who wrote our Constitution (most Christians) understood the need to entirely separate the influence of all religion, including their own Christianity, from the power of government.

That doesn’t mean I'm not grateful for the contributions of many religions through the ages. I'm a choral singer so I appreciate that the Catholic Church sponsored most of the great choral music for nearly a thousand years. I'm an engineer so I appreciate the advances of Islamic states in mathematics and the observational sciences through those centuries the (Christian) Churches of Europe were actively repressing science.

So, while I’m grateful for the friendship of many religionists I know—Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Pagans—that doesn’t mean I have to respect their irrational belief in myth any more than I have to respect their belief in say, Astrology or 9/11 conspiracy theory.

No, being grateful that our government cannot impose religion on us is not he same as acknowledging a debt to Christianity for that favor.

Let's be even-handed here. If the spirit-worshippers can inscribe statements such as "In God We Trust," then there must be a comparable statement of the other viewpoint. "Faith is No Virtue." After all, this country was founded on an audacious disbelief in the divine right of kings. It was heresy in the Church of England to deny the King's divine right to rule. Have we lost the courage to protest?

Back to the topic of the article. The issue is not that we shouldn’t acknowledge the undeniable influence, both good and bad, of religion on our country’s history—of course we should do that.

The issue is identifying the real motivation of those demanding that additional specifically religious content be incorporated in the Capitol Visitor Center’s displays. Sen. DeMint and Rep. Forbes share a compulsion to rewrite history to say religion—specifically their own Christianity—is the primary factor in both the early and current achievements of the United States (and correspondingly, of course, that lack of religion is responsible for its failures).

This is an old, old argument and were it just a philosophical discussion, it would not be important. What makes it important is that the principals involved are lawmakers with a demonstrated and open agenda of writing religious influence into law.

All are free to try mold society to a preferred standard, and free to use religion as a model. People who make laws are, and will continue to be, influenced by religion. Voters will make decisions based on an individual judgment of what degree of this influence is proper, and I certainly wouldn't want to take away the ability of anyone—theist or non-theist—to make that decision.

Where it gets worrisome is when one religion tries to get its opinion of holy writing to be enforced by government, or say it is not subject to the rule of law—that we cannot allow. Religion belongs in the Public Square, but when James Dobson or Mike Huckabee, or Sen. DeMint, or Rep. Forbes try to take that to the Government Square—to have their religious opinions established as law—they’ll have a fight on their hands (and lose, even with a conservative Supreme Court, because it’s hard to really know the Constitution without a deep understanding of the Establishment Clause).

By the way, as long as we’re bringing up quotes from the Founders on religion, my favorite is Benjamin Franklin (on to something, as usual) when he said, “Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

SPARROW4

You wrote, "But changing documents to reflect changing times is not the same as falsifying them.", when a document is presented as a "replica" of the original and for "politically correct" or any other reason the "replica" is changed then it indeed is FALSIFICATION.

You then wrote, "We do this all the time when we rewrite laws, or modernize logos or dress for fashion.", rewriting a law usually is to make a change but making a "replica" is suppose to be to make a "replica", isn't it?

Just because someone disagrees with what was said or written in the past does not mean that it was not written or said in the past.

Some of what this article was written about is that the "replicas" were not "replicas" at all and in some cases partial quotes rather than the whole quote, a lie is a lie, a distortion is a distortion, no matter how someone dresses it up.

From some of the other stuff in the article, I imagine God is probably thinking something to the effect: Didn't they hear Me when I was walking among them and offered to them the invitation to "Come follow Me" and that rather than write references to Me in stone or metal, let them be written upon their hearts.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Malis,

Your posts is one of the better ones here, thanks. I agree. I am 'religious', although spiritual is a better description. I never let my belief intrude on voting, unless I vote against a candidate that wants to imprint his view of religion on the government. The subject of this particular discussion is, in itself, rather trivial, yet indicative of a dangerous mindset festering in some politicians. Therein lie the seeds of a truly evil theocracy. It angers me very much that too many 'Christians' interpret 'freedom' as freedom to impose their views on others. America has no place for these unfortunates.

REALCALGIRL

You wrote, "Why does the WaPo even HAVE a blog on religion, that's what I want to know."

One or maybe two of the reasons could be that since this is America, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, nothing wrong with exercising your freedoms, is it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

thomasbaum- "A replica is a copy that is relatively indistinguishable from the original."

So in other words a replica does not always mean a historically or accurately detailed copy. there re varying degrees. You can have a matchbox replica of a fire engine- that toy will not be accurate in every detail but it is still a replica of a fire engine.

E Pluribus unum appears on the earliest US seals, - you should go to http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html for its history.
--------------------------
"As excerpted from the United States Treasury Department's public education website:[4]

The motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins. "
-------------------------------
"A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States.[1] The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper" to "remind all of us of this self-evident truth" that "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."
----------------------------------
So it was declared a national motto during the height of the McCarthy era because of the Cold War- that's it's real legacy. McCarthyism and unconstitutional.

So in truth, "In G-d We trust" was not related to the founding of the country but to Civil War era Christians imposing their wants on the country, and the McCarthyites, whose reign in congress was as appalling and detrimental to the US as our present adminstration.

Thanks Argie, we agree.

By the way, one of the primary quotes at issue seems to be in error, and in a way that matters. In the story, the Rufus Choate quote is given as:

“We have built no temple but the Capitol.
We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.”

…the correct wording seems to be:

“We have built no NATIONAL templeS but the Capitol;
we consult no common oracle but the Constitution.”
—Rufus Choate, R/Whig- MA (Rep. and Sen.)

(my caps. Source: Samuel Gilman Brown, The Works of Rufus Choate with a Memoir of His Life, vol. 1, p. 345 (1862), per http://www.bartleby.com/73/160.html )

The point being our government is intended neither to be, nor to replace, a religion. It’s a good thing to emphasize to visitors the fact that the Capitol Building is not a church, and Members of Congress are neither preachers nor prophets (no matter how badly some of them long to be).

Hi, Sparrow,

If you check your friendly local dictionary, you will find that a replica is a copy exact in all details. Therefore, the matchbox fire truck is not a replica. (Yeah, I know, nitpicking.... but could not resist.) BTW, Thomas Baum, even if you don't agree with him, is, IMHO, a very decent person.

hey arminius- I got the definition from a different website (so much for linguistic standards.)

And I agree- thomasbaum is almost a saint on this blog. I can disagree without disrespecting or disliking him :-)

Hi Arminius

Hope you are doing fine.

I have been out of school for quite a while and one of the things that I have found out is that history is a lot more interesting when the closest to the truth is taught.

That is what I was trying to get across, a little phrase missing here, a part of a quote taken out there and before you know it, it is hollow.

Let people decide for themselves and come to their own conclusions but at least attempt to give them enough of the whole story as you can.

There is and has been plenty taught as history not only here but all over the world that is just hogwash, just like in reporting people should report and if they are giving their opinion then it should be clearly acknowledged that it is an opinion.

If someone of "historic" significance, so to speak, said something then what they actually said should be written not what someone else said they meant, we may never, in this life, know what they meant but I least we can know what they said.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SPARROW4

As far as one of your recent comments, I am just someone that has been chosen to speak for God and you should know that God doesn't always call the best to speak for Him. Also, I am counting on God to see me thru.

I am glad that you made it to the party at the VFW the other night and I thank you.

Back in 2000, I spent the month of Feb in a VA Hospital and on Valentine's Day a group called VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, came to a party and spent time with us, chatting, dancing and just being friendly, stuff like this is what I feel is important.

I know that I really appreciated what these people did not just for us veterans that were there but all of the other stuff that they do in the period of time that they offer to this organization.

Reaching out to others, and there are many ways that different people do this, is, I feel, one of the most important things that any human can do.

I wish you well and I really do appreciate hearing from you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

malis :

We are in agreement. Thanks for the revised quotation.

Many thanks to you, thomas, for your service. People like you and arminius are to be treasured, not forgotten. The VFW Post was one of the Catholic War Veterans Posts. I seem to hang out with far more Catholics than Jews! :-). My uncle, a WW II vet just turned 100 this year. Still has all his faculties (a little trouble with short term memory) and still reads without glasses.

Hi, Thomas Baum,

Always a pleasure to hear from you. You said,
"Reaching out to others, and there are many ways that different people do this, is, I feel, one of the most important things that any human can do."

I think you just touched on a very central, and usually ignored, truth about people. Seems to me that a guy by the name of Jesus had something to say about that! Too much are we obsessed with 'stuff' and not our fellow children of God.

Or maybe reaching out to people heart to heart, just because we are all human.

Hi, Sparrow,

Thanks! You are, indeed, a treasure here too. You and Thomas Baum are two of the few reasons that I remain on these otherwise hopeless blogs.

Thomas, "god see/talking", Moses of the NT, Baum is a treasure to this blog?? The guy has significant hallucination issues which he refuses to have treated.

I see, sadly, that Bun-Bun is here with his usual childish bigotry. Apparently anyone that disagrees with his pointless posts is demented. He sounds more like Spidey every day.

ccnl- thomasbaum is one of best examples of a good person of faith. I realize you have set yourself as the spokesperson of the anti-religionists, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is extremism too. You expect people to read your posts and respect your opinion- but all you ever do is insult and cut and paste. You aren't making your argument, you aren't educating anyone, you aren't illuminating anything- you're like a child in a sandbox.

Faith is a beautiful thing- wish I had more of it, but that doesn't close my eyes to the abuses (as you well know, I speak out on what I think those are). But I don't believe in gratuitously insulting Jesus or Mohammad or Jehovah, Pagans, Buddhists or sacred texts just because I can.

what I get from you is that you believe in nothing, and you have no principles. Or at least you've never expressed any positive thoughts about anything.

thanks arminius! Back at you!

Hi, Friend Sparrow!

While I will admit that Bun-Bun will, rarely, submit a post that is pretty good, it will always be off-topic. Mostly he posts his usual depressing anti-Islam lists, or his customary puerile bigotry. I have dealt with him for over a year, and he has never deviated from his mindless drivel. He will not learn, he will not discuss, he will only rant. He does not even have the twisted humor that Spidey offers.

arminius- I find that so strange. I mean, why participate in a blog if you don't want any interaction or discussion? But only once in awhile will he deviate from the cut and paste of the same stuff over and over.

Hi, Sparrow,

Yes, Bun-Bun is impossible to understand. Endless repetition, a verbal form of compulsive-obsessive syndrome.

All these blogs are really depressing me. Most of the good minds have fled.

I do realize its a bit late and the effect of this might be worthless, but...the definition of God as I understood it was basically called erroneous by someone sometime back on Saturday. So I checked to see if by some off-chance the dictionary might agree with me, sure enough, (and for whatever it is worth), it did:

God - 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

And so I submit, that if anyone out there believed Pikachu to be the creator, etc. etc., he has every right to call him "God" and anyone telling him otherwise would just be simply wrong.

As always, we set our own limitations and labels. There now I feel better, even if the ignoramus who insisted on his limited definition of God will never know any better.

I suggest that the President of the United States take the oath of office by swearing on the Constitution. The reasons are threefold:

The first is legal. The President presides over all Americans, not just those belonging to religions that consider the Bible a sacred text. As far as I know, no other major democracy uses a religious text to swear-in its chief executive, a procedure more fit for a theocracy than a modern democracy founded on the principles of the Enlightenment.

Second: The President swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States; therefore it makes sense to swear on the Constitution itself.

Third: The Bible explicitly accepts and sanctions slavery. There are several examples of this and one need go further than the wording of one of the Ten Commandments, which in the original wording reads: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Thus the Bible explicitly considers slaves “property” (along with houses, wives, oxen and donkeys).

This biblical sanction was the main ideological justification the Confederacy used to justify slavery and was preached in southern Churches as well as state legislatures throughout the confederacy in justifying secession from the union.

The vast majority of historians agree that the fight over slavery (specifically on whether new states to be added to the union were to be “free-soil” or “slave” states) is the issue that caused the Civil War, as both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

The civil war accounted for more American casualties than all other U.S. wars combined, more Americans died in one hour during its bloodiest battle than have died so far during the entire Iraq war.

How ironic that the first African-American President be sworn-in on the very text that provided the ideological justification for slavery, and led to the greatest tragedy in American history.

For these reasons I suggest that the Constitution should substitute the Bible in the swearing-in ceremony of the President of the United States.