- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conservative Christians rally around persecuted Judge Roy Moore
Posted on 11/20/17 at 5:33 pm to The Spleen
Posted on 11/20/17 at 5:33 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I'm not into making moral equivalencies between ideological beliefs and actual human behavior. If that's what you have to do to justify your support for a man with no ethical character, knock yourself out.
No thanks... I refuse to vote for Jones
0
Posted on 11/20/17 at 6:09 pm to cahoots
quote:
The Founders didn't do stuff like that, nor did anyone else in government for a long time. They also didn't start "in god we trust" or put "under god" in the pledge. All of that was added much later. The government was clear of religious references at its founding. Don't try to pin this on a "newer interpretation based on a godless worldview." Try reading some history books and get back to me.
really? Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Benjamin Franklin (not exactly the exemplar of Christian piety) recommended that a chaplain be selected to entreat God through prayer at the start of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
The Continental Congress in 1785 issued a proclamation of a day of fasting and prayer to all of the colonists. Washington and Adams, as Presidents, called for national days of prayer. That practice stopped with Jefferson and for 40+ years but then picked back up.
Most of the founders of this nation prayed and called others to prayer or praised those calls. They weren't anti-religion--far from it--but only did not want the state to coerce citizens into religious observance, attempting to protect religious liberty.
Religious liberty is what this is about, not squelching religion. The 1st amendment was intended to protect the religious from the overzealous in positions of authority from forcing the people to abandon their faiths and worship a certain deity a certain way (or prevent worship altogether). The separation of church and state is not a complete and total separation where the state has to maintain a posture of secularism in all ways, but that the state cannot impose a particular religion on the people by force.
Unfortunately this position has been butchered to the point where it is assumed by many that the government should not touch religion and religion should not touch government at all. This leads to arguments for removing "In God We Trust" from coinage; halting the practice of an invocation to start the days activities on the Hill; and removing all references to religious symbols in public spaces (like the 10 commandments, taking this back to Roy Moore).
Posted on 11/20/17 at 6:36 pm to FooManChoo
It is safer that government stay out of religion as much as possible. For the Gvt and for the religions too.
You never know how it will end up.
In Chicago a few years back they were finally going to allow churches to run charter schools. The first to hand in an absolutely by the book perfect plan was a school to be run by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Then all of a sudden the Ministers who wanted all these religious schools had second thoughts!
It's just one example of how you never know how things will boomerang in this area.
You never know how it will end up.
In Chicago a few years back they were finally going to allow churches to run charter schools. The first to hand in an absolutely by the book perfect plan was a school to be run by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Then all of a sudden the Ministers who wanted all these religious schools had second thoughts!
It's just one example of how you never know how things will boomerang in this area.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 6:37 pm to Strannix
quote:
persecuted
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:42 pm to Eurocat
quote:If government isn't forcing anyone to believe a certain way or to worship a deity (or anything) against their conscience, I don't see why we can't allow for history and culture to be involved when it comes to religion. No one is being hurt by acknowledging that the 10 commandments have influenced our rule of law or that our country was founded by men who formed a government with the understanding that a higher power has given us rights that should not be stepped on. If most of the people in this country are Christian and their representatives are Christian and those representatives want to pray or those citizens want to pray (during a football game or otherwise), so long as they are not coercing others to do the same they should be allowed to do that.
It is safer that government stay out of religion as much as possible. For the Gvt and for the religions too.
You never know how it will end up
When we err we should err on the side of freedom, not oppression. It's not oppressive to anyone if I pray. It's oppressive to me to prevent me from praying. That's how the government acts now: get God out of the public square and damn the religious folk who want Him there.
quote:The problem with freedom is that people are free to do things we don't like. That extends well beyond religion.
In Chicago a few years back they were finally going to allow churches to run charter schools. The first to hand in an absolutely by the book perfect plan was a school to be run by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Then all of a sudden the Ministers who wanted all these religious schools had second thoughts!
It's just one example of how you never know how things will boomerang in this area.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:44 am to Eurocat
In Dearborn Michigan public school, the students pray to Allah.
In Laredo Texas, the students have Catholic mass at the public schools.
Get government religion out of all public schools.
In Laredo Texas, the students have Catholic mass at the public schools.
Get government religion out of all public schools.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:20 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If government isn't forcing anyone to believe a certain way or to worship a deity (or anything) against their conscience, I don't see why we can't allow for history and culture to be involved when it comes to religion. No one is being hurt by acknowledging that the 10 commandments have influenced our rule of law or that our country was founded by men who formed a government with the understanding that a higher power has given us rights that should not be stepped on. If most of the people in this country are Christian and their representatives are Christian and those representatives want to pray or those citizens want to pray (during a football game or otherwise), so long as they are not coercing others to do the same they should be allowed to do that.
Tell you what. We will put up references to the Bible right alongside references to the Quran. Maybe we can throw in an "in Allah we Trust" on the $2 bill. Should be no problem according to your interpretation of the constitution.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:15 am to cahoots
quote:I don't have a problem with it philosophically but it wouldn't make sense culturally or historically. There's context to consider, and we have a very small population of Muslims in this country and our history and culture have not been and is not defined or heavily influence by the Qur'an.
Tell you what. We will put up references to the Bible right alongside references to the Quran. Maybe we can throw in an "in Allah we Trust" on the $2 bill. Should be no problem according to your interpretation of the constitution.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 10:16 am
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:41 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't have a problem with it philosophically but it wouldn't make sense culturally or historically. There's context to consider, and we have a very small population of Muslims in this country and our history and culture have not been and is not defined or heavily influence by the Qur'an.
There are 3 million Muslims (and growing) living in the US. I think that deserves at least a nod on the $2 bill.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:45 am to cahoots
quote:I think there are actually more Mormons in the US than Muslims. Perhaps a picture of Joseph Smith and his funny hat and seeing stone on the $2 bill?
There are 3 million Muslims (and growing) living in the US. I think that deserves at least a nod on the $2 bill.
Or... we could stop trying to arbitrarily change things to pander to the next minority group on the list.
Christianity has had a major influence on the founding and maturity of this country and there's no point in denying it.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:57 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Or... we could stop trying to arbitrarily change things
But we did arbitrarily change our motto and the writing on our currency in the 50s. We went a century and half without it and suddenly it's necessary because of history/culture? That makes no sense.
quote:
Christianity has had a major influence on the founding and maturity of this country and there's no point in denying it.
We can acknowledge the influence without arbitrarily putting references everywhere. Two completely different things.
What standard is even being employed to put Christian references in government. It's completely arbitrary, like you said.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:14 am to cahoots
quote:It was on the 5 cent coin long before "In God We Trust" was adopted as the national motto in the 50's. The motto was on the currency and when the motto changed, the currency was updated to reflect that.
But we did arbitrarily change our motto and the writing on our currency in the 50s. We went a century and half without it and suddenly it's necessary because of history/culture? That makes no sense.
The motto, itself, was updated from "E pluribus unum," to "In God We Trust" during the Cold War to differentiate ourselves from the atheistic communists, so it wasn't exactly arbitrary so much as petty, IMO.
The motto, itself, has been used in various ways throughout our history, from the Star Spangled Banner in 1812 to the Civil War and onward. The saying has historical significance with our country.
If you don't like that it's on our currency, perhaps you should petition your representatives to introduce legislation to change our national motto to something else. It was re-affirmed 11 years ago as the national motto by the Senate and 6 years ago by the House.
quote:Like I said, it's our national motto. That's why it's on our currency. Maybe we don't have to have our national motto on our currency, but it's not exactly a forced application.
We can acknowledge the influence without arbitrarily putting references everywhere. Two completely different things.
quote:Got another reference other than "In God We Trust"? It's the national motto.
What standard is even being employed to put Christian references in government. It's completely arbitrary, like you said.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 11:31 am
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:38 am to FooManChoo
quote:
It was on the 5 cent coin long before "In God We Trust" was adopted as the national motto in the 50's. The motto was on the currency and when the motto changed, the currency was updated to reflect that.
First appeared on coins in 1864, almost a century after the country was founded. We put it on there around the time of the Civil War because a lot of religious citizens essentially demanded it. There was no precedent for it at the time.
quote:
Like I said, it's our national motto. That's why it's on our currency. Maybe we don't have to have our national motto on our currency, but it's not exactly a forced application.
It was forced upon the currency. That's exactly what happened.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:44 am to cahoots
quote:I'm glad you were willing to concede that it didn't originate in the 1950's, so that's a start
First appeared on coins in 1864, almost a century after the country was founded. We put it on there around the time of the Civil War because a lot of religious citizens essentially demanded it. There was no precedent for it at the time.
quote:I think you mistake my meaning. When I said "it's not exactly a forced application", I mean that the motto is not out of place by being put on the currency. Our previous motto was on our currency prior to being changed, so it's not like in the 50's, some religious politicians came up with a brand new way to get God's name out there by doing something unprecedented in putting the updated motto on our currency. It had been done before even when that phrase wasn't our national motto, so the application (like I said) was not forced.
It was forced upon the currency. That's exactly what happened.
In the grand scheme of things, what is on our currency doesn't really make a difference. The value is the same whether the motto is there or not. It's symbolic only, and in that regard, we could put anything we wanted to on it. People have been talking about updating the people who are on our currency for years, trying to symbolize our diversity or whatnot. I like having "In God We Trust" on the currency but I wouldn't be too upset if it were removed; it might be more in-line with the godlessness that is becoming more prevalent in our nation anyway if it were gone.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
In the grand scheme of things, what is on our currency doesn't really make a difference. The value is the same whether the motto is there or not. It's symbolic only, and in that regard, we could put anything we wanted to on it. People have been talking about updating the people who are on our currency for years, trying to symbolize our diversity or whatnot. I like having "In God We Trust" on the currency but I wouldn't be too upset if it were removed; it might be more in-line with the godlessness that is becoming more prevalent in our nation anyway if it were gone.
Well, I can agree with this sentiment. All the more reason why electing someone who cares more about this shite than anything else is crazy. It ain't like Roy Moore is going to be co-sponsoring important legislation if/when he gets to office. He's going to go down the predictable path of pandering to the religious right and trying to convince them that they are being persecuted because the 10 commandments aren't plastered in public spaces. It's right wing identity politics.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:07 pm to cahoots
quote:If you're right, he'll be not much different than the typical Southern Republican Congressman, so in that regard, he's just as good (or bad) as the next guy and shouldn't be any more cause for concern than the other Republican Congressmen.
Well, I can agree with this sentiment. All the more reason why electing someone who cares more about this shite than anything else is crazy. It ain't like Roy Moore is going to be co-sponsoring important legislation if/when he gets to office. He's going to go down the predictable path of pandering to the religious right and trying to convince them that they are being persecuted because the 10 commandments aren't plastered in public spaces. It's right wing identity politics.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:21 pm to cahoots
quote:
But we did arbitrarily change our motto and the writing on our currency in the 50s. We went a century and half without it and suddenly it's necessary because of history/culture? That makes no sense.
Money does not specify a Deity when it lists "In God we Trust"
While many or most in the US may think of the Judeo-Christian god when they see that phrase written it actually is generic.
To specifically denote the Judeo-Christian god it would have to read "In Yahweh we Trust" or "In Jehovah we Trust" possibly even "In the Lord God we Trust"
All of those would be a violation of the First Amendment just as "In Allah we Trust" would be.
Whereas the generic phrase "In God we Trust" is not or should not be considered as a violation.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:26 pm to RCDfan1950
Really expected more from you. If we can’t draw the line at child molesters then really what’s the point.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:28 pm to FooManChoo
Ha ha ha. He didn’t repent. My God. He’s calling them all liars.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 10:29 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I'm not into making moral equivalencies between ideological beliefs and actual human behavior. If that's what you have to do to justify your support for a man with no ethical character, knock yourself out.
100% positive you don't understand what you just wrote.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News