91 California cities vote to display "In God We Trust" (move, deal)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

That is what the motto itself strongly implies. The "we" is - or ought to be - all Americans.

Right, again, proving that this is really a separation of church and state issue.

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

The founding fathers would have seen nothing unconstitutional about that.

Oh yeah? Surely you're qualified to speak for them right?

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Many states forbade atheists from holding office until as late as 1961. Etc.

And all states enslaved blacks...what is your point? Like I said, people in the US have been trashing the constitution from day one and the "In god we trust" motto is just another example.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

People who do not understand the 18th century, and most certainly do not understand 18th century philosophy will attempt to use the words of the Founding Fathers to show that they were Christians. One can only do that if they have only a limited knowledge of the words of our Founding Fathers, and especially, they do not understand the term Deist.

For someone who claims he "doesn't care" about God or religion, Lieutenant Dan, you sure exert a lot of energy fighting it.


Lieutenant Dan and the Storm - YouTube

Most of your last comment was a series of straw men and red herrings. I've addressed them all before and tire of repeating myself. As to which of the founding fathers were Christians and which ones were not, the question is really beside the point. The fact is that none of our founding fathers would have objected to our national motto - with the possible exception of the neurotic Thomas Paine - and many of them expressed similar sentiments, as demonstrated by the quote I provided from George Washington.

I'll freely admit that my own views are out-of-step with the founding fathers on some issues. This isn't one of them. Respectfully, you are the extremist on this topic, and you should be an honest man about it and admit as much. There is absolutely nothing in the founding fathers or the constitution to support the notion that "In God We Trust" violates the First Amendment, or disrespects our founding principles, or is anything other than mainstream Americana.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

You just need to spend a little time with some basic philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Dude, c'mon, for every "philosophical argument" for god you find one can find a counterargument. As far as philosophy goes, the question of god is almost entirely dead....just a handful of religiously minded folks still talking about it. That's saying something when even philosophers move on....

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

No, you don't need any faith. To believe in God you need only exercise the use of reason. Five proofs for the existence of God.

Yeah Circular Reasoning: "Why do you believe in God, because the text says to."

Anyways...not debating religion here as I cannot disprove that there is no god, so therefore it could exist I will give you that. But I highly doubt anything written by man is godly and I certainly don't think it belongs in a government built upon logic (founding fathers) around known facts.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by user_id

Dude, c'mon, for every "philosophical argument" for god you find one can find a counterargument.

Therefore, the arguments and counterarguments must be of equal merit and cancel each other out!

Is that really your position? If so, that's pure laziness, not logic.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Mach50

Yeah Circular Reasoning: "Why do you believe in God, because the text says to."

Way to prove that you have never bothered with the arguments.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by user_id

That's saying something when even philosophers move on....

All that says is that the philosophers moving on have either: 1) decided the question for themselves without the aid of philosophy, or; 2) do not consider the question important. And that is why the discipline of philosophy is dead and corrupt in all but a few obscure liberal arts colleges and a handful of universities.

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Way to prove that you have never bothered with the arguments.

I read them, sort of what every christian theologian says cause/effect therefore God is the cause. That IMO is not proof but a belief, for it to be a proof you have to have some evidence that the cause was in fact a God. You do not and neither do I.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Mach50

I read them, sort of what every christian theologian says cause/effect therefore God is the cause. That IMO is not proof but a belief, for it to be a proof you have to have some evidence that the cause was in fact a God. You do not and neither do I.

That's a very inadequate description of just one argument: Aquinas' second proof.

Philosophy proves what it can prove. It can prove that certain attributes of God are real, but it doesn't claim to prove, for example, the Athanasian Creed, because that is indeed an article of faith.

Good philosophy also requires a belief in certain assumptions that are rejected in many philosophy departments today. It begins with the beliefs that truth exists, that truth is knowable, and that truth matters. By rejecting these presuppositions, philosophy doesn't advance knowledge but becomes an exercise in futility.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by user_id

Right, again, proving that this is really a separation of church and state issue.

No, it isn't. What is it about "establishment" that you don't understand? Context is important: the backdrop for the establishment clause is the established Church of England and the established churches in the various colonies. That's what the First Amendment forbids at the federal level, and after incorporation, at all levels of government.

Otherwise government is free to be as religious as it wants to be short of establishing an official religion which must be observed by all on pain of legal penalties.

Any other interpretation is ridiculously overreaching and probably in violation of the free exercise clause.