Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you really need that?
By "Constitution", I meant all of them, including the States. Lots of "God" references in those...you can check it out.
Anyway...here ya go:
It's the in the ratification Clause: Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
What entity do you think that was referring to? And by signing after it, they all acknowledged that is what it was.
You can try to nitpick...but you know the truth. You just don't like it.
Why only in private?
ALL Beliefs and NonBelief should be able to be openly proclaimed (and practiced) without issue. Only the biased, prejudice, and hateful would feel otherwise.
Regardless of what you 'meant', so what?
Those papers were written by human beings, not one of whom yet I've found to be perfect.
That the phrase wasn't inscribed on our coinage until the 50's, does that mean that the originators of the design weren't Christians?
Should we subscribe only to what people thought or were influenced by 200 years ago regardless of what has been learned or what has changed since then??
What entity do you think that was referring to? And by signing after it, they all acknowledged that is what it was.
You can try to nitpick...but you know the truth. You just don't like it.
Honestly, this is kind of a "so what?" moment.
They used an ultra-formal line in the signatory section that mentioned Lord.
And?
What powers does the signatory section grant anyone? How influential is it? Do you think anyone has successfully argued for or against a constitutional issue by referencing the signatory section?
Nope.
What counts is what is written in the body of the Constitution; that is what gives it it's authority.
Not "the Year of Our Lord ..." where people sign off.
You sound just like them, always accusing atheists of "hate" when we don't tip-toe in the presence of religious belief - no matter how bizarre it is. This ridiculous accusation is so common now that atheists all over the country see it as just another internet meme propogated by fundies who WANT to be hated. In fact, I think that's why they goad atheists with accusations in the first place.
But for someone such as yourself to repeat it - tsk tsk. Unless you want to be hated too, I suppose. Because we really are getting tired of having the entire issue deflected with ad hominem nonsense. It's much easier to argue about who hates whom than to offer up evidence of a god or to show how the Bible is historical fact.
Fundies are Fundies...no matter what their "stripe". ALL bias and intolerance over differing views is not cool.
Quote:
It's really too bad that you only open your mouth when you're chastizing atheists. If I didn't know better, I would think you were a fundie in disguise. I often wonder what it would take for you to actually come down on the side of atheists - religion trying to pass bills allowing open discrimination? Wait, no, you sided with the bigots on that one. How about the chief jurist for the state of Alabama announcing that atheists and non-Christians should be denied Constitutional rights? Oh, no ... you kept conspicuously quiet when that debate occurred.
I dunnae ... at least with the fundamentalists, we know exactly what to expect, and they don't pretend to be anything other than who and what they are.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who haven't changed their calendars since 1776; they still think we live in the age of Oklahoma land claims, log cabins, muskets, and rugged frontiersmen with a bowie knife and coon-skin cap. These are the same folks who have deified the Founders - and quote mine them to death, picking only the positive things they said about religion or taking them out of context to make them Christians. Oh yeah, and the Constitution only matters when it works in their favor. If it doesn't, then it becomes a worthless piece of paper and, besides, the Bible trumps the Constitution every time about every subject.
I'm not a Fundie anything...except for fundamentally tolerant of all views. I don't care what anyone believes as long as there is no harm being done (being "bothered" is not harm).
Of course everyone would like laws that conform to their preferences...no matter what the basis is for that preference. All should be free to try to promote laws that facilitate their views...and let the chips fall where they may. Everyone will win some and lose some. That's what's most fair.
Quote:
However, the irony here is that those who worship the Founders the most are the very people you keep defending.
What others think of them is not my consideration. I base my opinion of them on what they did and how they acted...not by what they wrote. On that basis...I think they were some of the most evil and barbaric dudes to ever live. Others can think what they want.
Quote:
It will change in about 2, perhaps 3, generations. The intolerant, rigid, bigoted right-wing conservative Christians of today have all but ensured that the younger generations will cast off the primitivism of fundamentalism and strike out for balmier shores. Those that don't become atheists will seek spirituality elsewhere - perhaps with the Far Eastern philosophies, a very liberal version of Christianity, or within the parameters of a generic god of which we know nothing.
But it will change. The war against gay marriage and contraception has caused some Christians to say in haste some unspeakable, atrocious things, and people were paying attention.
I hope so. The sooner the better. But I'm a realist...so I won't hold my breath.
Quote:
I'm sure you would like to think that - and it sure makes a debate with us much easier if you manage to convince yourself that we're all just itching to impose our own brand of fascism onto the world. As long as you believe both sides are exactly the same, it allows you to sit on the fence and not be responsible for having any convictions. Of course, with the year or so I've been here and watching you unilaterally come down on the side of the fundies, you've taken a side whether you meant to or not.
If you're so worried about spitting into the wind, I have to wonder why you're doing it yourself by admonishing atheists - as if we're going to sit down and shut up because you said so. But as you say, it's your life.
I don't think that...I'm sure of that. Here is an example of what I mean:
Now...because my children were brainwashed with that stuff I don't even get along with two thirds of my family...including six of my eight grandchildren.
Brainwashing infants and small children with a collection of fairy tales which the Jews wrote and don't even believe themselves should be considered child abuse and those who do it should be prosecuted and incarcerated.
I will fight the mere hint of those who roam around living a convenient and comfortable life style while ignoring the instructions in the new testament which told them to be meek, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, love their neighbors, love their enemies, do unto others, pray for those who curse and despise them, if sued in court for their cloak to voluntarily give coat, take no thought for tomorrow, etc.
If a Christian has a 401K he is ignoring the instructions given by Jesus. If he were to follow the instruction given in Matthew 5 he would sell what he has and give it to the poor.
It's all BS and I do not want any of them trying in any way to influence anything I do or say.
Thank goodness for the Internet...it will be the ultimate ingredient of the fall of religion...all religion.
AGAIN: Fundies are Fundies. They all pretty much roll the same way.
Regardless of what you 'meant', so what?
Those papers were written by human beings, not one of whom yet I've found to be perfect.
That the phrase wasn't inscribed on our coinage until the 50's, does that mean that the originators of the design weren't Christians?
Should we subscribe only to what people thought or were influenced by 200 years ago regardless of what has been learned or what has changed since then??
No. As I have said many times: Don't go by speech or writing...go by actions. THAT will tell you where they were REALLY coming from.
They promoted religion better than any group of evangelists ever did. Sooooooo good...the influence still heavily exists.
No. As I have said many times: Don't go by speech or writing...go by actions. THAT will tell you where they were REALLY coming from. They promoted religion better than any group of evangelists ever did. Sooooooo good...the influence still heavily exists.
And I'll repeat......so what??????
I know a lot of people, even some very intelligent people, that do or have done a lot of things that indicate they hold certain beliefs.
. That doesn't mean everybody or anybody has to emulate them in every one of their beliefs or take their word as .......no pun intended........gospel.
And I'll repeat......so what??????
I know a lot of people, even some very intelligent people, that do or have done a lot of things that indicate they hold certain beliefs.
. That doesn't mean everybody or anybody has to emulate them in every one of their beliefs or take their word as .......no pun intended........gospel.
No, it doesn't mean that.
I just point out where this stuff originated in America. The Native People were spiritual, not religious...for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. So, where does anybody think it came from?
But for some reason...people want to point to "Founding Documents" and the like to try to argue, based upon what they wrote, that those people were not religious and didn't inculcate the society with religion.
Their actions were in contravention to any writings or talk proclaiming secularism. Those dudes screwed up what could have been a really cool system (like the Native People had) by doing what they did...regardless of what they wrote to the contrary. They were politicians--nuff said.
In line with the OP...those people even created a "National Day of Prayer". How nice and "secular" of them!!
They used an ultra-formal line in the signatory section that mentioned Lord.
And?
What powers does the signatory section grant anyone? How influential is it? Do you think anyone has successfully argued for or against a constitutional issue by referencing the signatory section?
Nope.
What counts is what is written in the body of the Constitution; that is what gives it it's authority.
Not "the Year of Our Lord ..." where people sign off.
That line is indicative of their basic mindset.
BUT...what counts is what they DID...and not what they wrote. That is, and has been, my point...and, the facts of the matter.
NOBODY promoted religion better than those dudes...no matter what they wrote otherwise.
Heck...they even had Bibles printed up and distributed them to all the public schools as the main textbook! The ULTIMATE way to inculcate the society with religion.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,953,217 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Do you really need that?
By "Constitution", I meant all of them, including the States. Lots of "God" references in those...you can check it out.
Anyway...here ya go:
It's the in the ratification Clause: Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
What entity do you think that was referring to? And by signing after it, they all acknowledged that is what it was.
You can try to nitpick...but you know the truth. You just don't like it.
That is too funny. It was a standard of speaking, just like today, rather than using the religious overtoned
Before Christ (BC) or Anno Domini (AD) had been replaced by BCE and CE for Before Common Era and Common Era. It means, well, AD.
Quote:
Why only in private?
ALL Beliefs and NonBelief should be able to be openly proclaimed (and practiced) without issue. Only the biased, prejudice, and hateful would feel otherwise.
Why? What role does the public purse have in promoting any religion? Read the Constitution.. government has no role. Period.
That is too funny. It was a standard of speaking, just like today, rather than using the religious overtoned
Before Christ (BC) or Anno Domini (AD) had been replaced by BCE and CE for Before Common Era and Common Era. It means, well, AD.
Right. Why do we say it's 2014? Answer that...and you'll understand where it's at.
Quote:
Why? What role does the public purse have in promoting any religion? Read the Constitution.. government has no role. Period.
The Constitution says government should have no role. In REALITY, no entity had a greater role. They did everything they possibly could...I suggest you educate yourself on it. If you'd like, I would be glad to help ya.
Like I said...forget what was written (anybody can say or write anything)...deal with what they actually did.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,953,217 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Right. Why do we say it's 2014? Answer that...and you'll understand where it's at.
Convention. Just like Judaism uses their calendar and Arabs theirs.
Quote:
The Constitution says government should have no role. In REALITY, no entity had a greater role. They did everything they possibly could...I suggest you educate yourself on it. If you'd like, I would be glad to help ya.
Like I said...forget what was written (anybody can say or write anything)...deal with what they actually did.
Better educate the Supreme Court on that. They seem to think the Constitution actually means something.
Boy oh boy are THEY in for a surprise. Courtesy GldnRule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
