In God we Trust

But we fixed that didn't we?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Teddy Roosevelt and St. Gaudens would appear to have agreed. The 2 cent use during the Civil War recalls for me Bob Dylan's song, "With God on our side." That said, as a Christian I like it there. I think it makes for an interesting juxtaposition with Christ's commentary about rendering unto Caeser, which had much to do with the type of currency (temple-approved versus Roman), and with JFK's defense of running for the first Catholic U.S. president. Some non-Christians may appreciate having it there for its historical value, even if they consider religion merely another form of a culture's art. If (when) we fully digitize money, the whole topic will likely become moot.

 

I agree completely. Way too many people confuse this, freedom of religion only meant the US could not officially become a methodist country, or a Catholic country, or a Jewish country, etc. It was not a guarantee a person could not utter the word God in public.

 

Why is it you have to put your two cents in, but its only a penny for your thoughts? Someone somewhere is making a penny........


My apologies to Steven Wright and stealing his very funny line.

 

I'm sure they were there, but hid their non-belief. Back then in many communities being a non-believer was practically if not actually an illegal act and would bring the wrath of the community down on your head. (Even today in a secular nation with a guarantee of freedom of religion it can be uncomfortable and even sometimes dangerous for those of us who do not believe to ignore public displays of the faith of others. In general the more religiously devout, the intolerant.) While many of the groups came here to escape religious persecution, it was also to establish communities where THEY would be the majority and would/could do the persecuting. And history shows that in most cases they did become persecutors. The country was not founded with a guarantee of religious freedom, it had to be contained in one of the amendments to the original document. But it made good sense because it would eliminate friction between different parts of the country that had different denominations and ways of worship. (Remember at this time Virginia, like England, had an official Church which in theory everyone had to belong to.)

 

I have to disagree with this statement. The Bill of Rights was not passed after the fact, but had to be put on the table to get the Constitution to be passed to begin with. Just because it was not part of the original draft of the Constitution does not mean it was not integral to the decision of many to even sign the Constitution. Without the bill of rights its highly likely the US Constitution would never had went into force. As such, I and most others consider it a "founding document". Your argument is very valid for amendments 11-27.

 

While they had to be promised in order to get some of the states to vote for adoption of the Constitution they were not written until after the Constitution was adopted and were not ratified until 1791 some four years after the Constitution was ratified. (At least according to the official history. I don't consider that the Constitution was ratified until 1790 when the last of the thirteen states ratified it.) So I will grant that they knew they would have to be added when the Constitution was ratified. In that respect we can say that it was part of the founding.

 

Fair enough sir.

Sorry, but I just consider the Bill of Rights to be very different than every amendment passed afterwards, and a foundation of liberty this nation was founded upon.

 

No. That was "The Divine Right of Kings."

 

No. We didn't. In fact. We recognized grants of property by several different Crowns as the Country grew. I'm particularly familiar with Spanish Land grants in Texas where European nobles were given land which they never saw, but whose rights have been upheld, particularly along the Rio Grande. It caused some real interesting law suites around the turn of the 20th Century as 20th Century heirs divided 18th Century Grants for the spoils.

The US issued Patents for land under conditions set by Congress. No land was ever just there for the taking. It had to be claimed and the requirements for those claims had to be proved.

 

Whose land?

 

Land was either claimed as newly discovered or obtained by conquest. It is not a popular notion today, but was the prevailing method of obtaining land for thousands of years. Uncivilized indigenous people were not considered owners of the land by either the discoverers or the discovered in many cases. The very notion of land ownership was considered a sign of civilization.

 

Interesting because for the most part, our founding fathers were typically American in being oversexed atheists in practice.

 

So the FOUNDING FATHERS were already TYPICALLY AMERICAN?

lol, that's as far as I got before rendering your argument invalid..........

 

That is commendable. No need for historical fact to obscure biases.

 

Historical fact!? How can any FOUNDING body be TYPICAL?

Kind of a oxymoron don't you think?

You're not the kid from Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close are you?

deafening silence
original copies
found missing
clearly confused
living dead
almost exactly
genuine imitation
accidentally on purpose
jumbo shrimp

 

Wrong, but I'll point that out.

Wrong, but I'll point that out as well.

Yes it does, by simply stating that one has the freedom of religion. If one chooses to follow no religion, that is them exercising their right of "the freedom of religion". The term "Freedom of Religion" basically means on a personal level that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want, without the government telling them what or who to believe in. The government will stay neutral and will never choose one religion over another, which also includes those who choose to not follow any religion because like I said, that is them exercising their right to freedom of religion by not choosing a religion. This has nothing to do about people publicly speaking about God, that's where you are mixing freedom of speech in with the Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State clauses.

Sure I can't stop someone from speaking about God in public but that same person can't stop someone else from speaking against God in public, all of this is covered under the freedom of speech.

You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom of religion. Simply put, freedom of religion also says freedom from religion, not on the aspect of removing religion from being spoken by others but on a personal level in which the founding fathers intended.

You can read just about every Supreme Court case on Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State, it's pretty clear and straight forward they've concluded of what I've stated above that freedom from religion is the same as freedom of religion, because it's pertaining to the individual rights of a citizens choosing.

And for the country not establishing a national religion, that's the separation of church and state clause outlined that prevents the government in any form to endorse one religion over the other, which is broken all too often. I say, if you got to pray before a meeting, do it before the official government meeting takes place, it's not hard to uphold the Constitution. But if a government sanctioned meeting or event has to include a prayer, well, better find a clergy member, priest, minister, rabbi or preacher from every denomination to make it fair for all religions.

 

Rodeo, I don't really understand your argument. I agree with Doug in that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. I can't spout court cases and Supreme Court rulings, but I do know many of both have been overturned, reinterpreted, rewritten. Only time will tell the outcome.

My View: Government is for the people, by the people. If those people want to conduct a prayer before meetings, they should have the right to do so. If other people don't agree, then don't participate.....conduct your own prayer or non-pryer. When a governing body tells the people that they cannot pray before a meeting begins, I feel that is in direct correlation with freedom of religion. Instead, the government is providing someone else the freedom FROM religion. Thus MY PERSONAL view....they are not the same. And just like prayer......you don't have to agree.

Maybe I can pose this question: Would a government telling me that I cannot pray be the same thing as a government telling you that you have to pray?

 

That is two personal attacks.