CAIR wants Franklin Graham stopped from delivering the Inauguration prayer
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
This country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles. The statements on the money reflect that history. Not hard to understand. The Ten Commandments is displayed at the Supreme Court, again historical recognition of Judeo/Christian principles in forming our laws and our Constitution.
We have the first Amendment which ensure no national church. It also ensures freedom of religion. SCOTUS has constantly ruled that the language on the money does not violate the Constitution.
Excerpt:
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has 'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality.'"[1]
You the one who said to get the motto off our money. And you tell me to get over myself? Seems like you're the one with the outsized ego trying to impose your values on others even thought SCOTUS has already found it Constitutional.
I said I wish they would get it off the money...don't read tone into type. It really isn't a big deal. Christians are all good people....wait, most Christians are good people....well I'm pretty sure most Christians are good people. But guess it really doesn't matter as long as they accept Christ though
Not sure why it's a big deal to get it off the money. Most people support it. It's constitutional. It's now tradition. And it reflects the historical founding of this country.
You're right, "Endowed by our Creator" is not in the Constitution. Creator is synonymous with God. Surely you're not actually this low on the intellectual scare, are you?
Specifically, Jefferson wrote:
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.
That means these rights are given to us by our creator, not by man, and man can never take away rights given by our God.
And you realize that quote is from the Declaration of Independence?
So keep telling us how this country was founded as a Christian country when the US Constitution doesn't even mention God.
Who really cares anything about what CAIR wants, thinks, desires? Are they not included in the broad category of 'terrorist organization'?
Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." Creator is GOD. Surely, you aren't this stupid. Creator speaks to a higher power, one that has endowed us with rights the government nor man can take away.
I never, never said we were founded as a Christian country. I said that we were founded based on Judeo/Christian principles. Stop lying. And it is beyond historical question that we were founded on these principles. They can be found in our Constitution as well as our declaration of Independence.
If neither government nor man can take them away then why bother having police force or government watchdogs or anything? After all, they can't be taken away anyway.
Because we can't kill or steal. And I forgot the amendment that makes it illegal to not honor thy father, or the one making illegal to covet thy neighbors wife. Oh and we all know that Jesus loved his guns. And the Bible is ok with slavery.
Man has throughout history tried to take basic rights away from those under their rule. The reason this is so important is that the Courts recognize that these rights cannot be taken away by man or government and have ruled that way. The Constitution enshrines these rights. Surely you know this.
Dear liberals. Please keep saying stupid things. So much entertainment from the bubble.
I didnt realize that the Declaration of Independance was not a foundation of our country.
I'm sure you didn't.
The U.S. Constitution is the framework of our government and is the Supreme Law of the United States of America.
Thankfully not all people think that way.
Just a little off the mark, Many does not include all. If you read the verses you idenitified you will get my meaning.
Who is trying to change history? That would be you.
Again, the US Constitution does not mention God. No matter how many times you get mad, you can't change that FACT. Our founders were pluralists. And even if they had mentioned God, it doesn't mean they were referring to the Christian God.
The First Amendment, "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion" makes it abundantly clear the country wasn't founded based on religion, let alone Christianity.
Surely you know that the Ten Commandments hang on the Supreme Court building, does that not tell you something? 5 of those commandments are secular. God given rights as emphasized in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are Judeo/Christian values.
A good article that explains the fact that we were NOT founded as a Christian nation but rather founded on Judeo/Christian principles. A big, big difference.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
You are lying about. my words and my intent. I NEVER said we were founded as a Christian nation. We were not. We were indeed founded on Judeo/Christian principles. From the Declaration of Independence which references rights given to us by our creator to the Constitution. The Ten Commandments hangs above the Supreme Court, 5 of which are secular commandments.
This is a good analysis of our founding on those principles:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
And what you apparently don't understand is that the Constitution enshrines those principles espoused in our Declaration of Independence, as rights that cannot be abided because they are Creator given.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have laws against murder. As for liberty, we have Amendments that enshrine those rights. Rights against illegal search and seizure. Rights to a trial of our peers. First Amendment rights. Second Amendment rights and so forth. Again, in pursuit of happiness, we have Amendments that enshrine those rights meaning man nor government can take them away.
Cite any where in the US Constitution that refers to God. Anywhere.
And you realize nations that are predominantly Muslim have similar laws; do not kill, do not steal, etc.
Here is a good read for your enlightenment:
Research by Jim Allison. Writing by Tom Peters.
One of the strangest arguments we've encountered in our conversations with accommodationists has to do with the several depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments contained in the artistic embellishment of the Supreme Court building. Briefly, some accommodationists argue that these depictions prove that (1) no one believed in separation before 1935 (when the Supreme Court building was completed), and/or (2) that American law is based on the 10 Commandments. We beg to disagree. Not only are these depictions irrelevant to the separation debate, many of the claims made by accommodationists about these depictions are either misleading or inaccurate.
We begin by observing that this is not a mainstream accommodationist argument. We've never seen this argument made, for example, in books and articles by professional accommodationist scholars. Rather, we've encountered this argument only in debates with non-academic, religious, accommodationists. We note this because we want to emphasize that not all accommodationists think alike. In contrast to professional scholars, non-academic accommodationism tend to gravitate toward the more extreme forms of accommodationism, and often take positions that academic accommodationists wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This argument happens to be one of them. Keep that in mind as we respond to this argument.
Our first response is to note that the primary factual premise of the argument is untrue: Moses and the 10 Commandments are not prominently featured in the Supreme Court building. Rather, most of the artistic embellishment in the building involves symbolic and allegorical representations of such legal themes as justice, authority, fairness and the like. Most of these representations involve human figures representing the civilizations of Greece and Rome (the building itself was designed to invoke the feeling of the classical Greek temple). If quantity is the measure of importance, the architecture of the Supreme Court favors the classical over the Mosaic tradition of law. Moreover, where Moses and the 10 Commandments are depicted, they are never given positions of exclusive prominence, as we would expect if the intention of the architecture was to establish a connection between the Bible and American law. Rather, the architecture depicts Moses as one of many important lawgivers, and the 10 Commandments as one of many important events in legal history (click here for a more detailed discussion of the subordinate placement of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the architectural fabric of the Supreme Court building).
A second premise of the argument is that, if belief in separation was widespread in 1935, depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments would never have been allowed in the building. But this doesn't follow; the Supreme Court has never held that public buildings cannot contain depictions of the 10 Commandments. The Court's rulings proscribe only those depictions that are intended to convey government endorsement of the Commandments (Stone v. Graham, 1980). Additionally, the Court has allowed the inclusion of religious symbols in public displays so long as those symbols are part of a larger work that serves a secular purpose (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1991). No one thinks that the art of the Supreme Court building is intended as an endorsement of the 10 Commandments, and there is no question that the overall effect of this art is secular. Hence, the depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the Court building would pass muster even under today's more stringent establishment clause jurisprudence.
Nor would separationists object to the notion that Judaism and Christianity have contributed to American law. Of course they have. America inherited it's common law from Britain, and British common law was certainly influenced by Christianity. It makes perfect sense, in other words, for the art of the Supreme Court building to contain depictions of Moses as an important and relevant lawgiver. But this is a far cry from proving that American law is founded on the 10 Commandments. On the contrary, while our common law comes from Britain, our fundamental statue law is the Constitution, and the Constitution fairly repudiates the first two Commandments (worship only the LORD, do not make graven images), and doesn't even mention the other eight. We can accept, in other words, that the art of the Supreme Court is intended to implicate the Bible as an important background for our law, without leaping to the wholly unwarranted conclusion that the 10 Commandments have some immediate relationship to the Constitution.
Finally, we note that the architecture of the Supreme Court building is irrelevant to the separation debate. The building was designed by architects and sculptors, not lawyers and legal scholars, and the Supreme Court building committee deferred to the architects in their choice of artistic embellishment. Accordingly, one can't read the architecture of the building as if it were intended as some sort of commentary on American law. Moreover, we know why the building was designed as it was; they artists involved in the project submitted detailed explanations of their art to the Supreme Court building committee, and these explanations say nothing about the 10 Commandments as a source of American law. Remarkably, when accommodationists interpret the art of the Supreme Court building, they simply ignore these explanations (click here for a look for our critique of one popular accommodationist commentary on the art of the Supreme Court).
In summary, this argument fails on both a factual and logical level. If anything, the fact that artistic depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments appear in the Supreme Court building, and that separationists have never challenged these depictions proves that separationism does not have the pernicious effects claimed by accommodationists.
What in the world does this have to do with the fact that the U.S. was founded on Judeo/Christian principles. NOTHING. It seems to be about separation of Church and State which has not even been discussed in this thread.
And this is one man's opinion of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court. They are located there. That is a fact. 5 of the commandments are secular, that is a fact. More importantly, in my post above, you can see the profound influence Judeo/Christian philosophy had on our founding documents and our laws. This is beyond dispute.
Since you clearly didn't understand what you read, let me summarize the most important sentences:
Nor would separationists object to the notion that Judaism and Christianity have contributed to American law. Of course they have. America inherited it's common law from Britain, and British common law was certainly influenced by Christianity. It makes perfect sense, in other words, for the art of the Supreme Court building to contain depictions of Moses as an important and relevant lawgiver. But this is a far cry from proving that American law is founded on the 10 Commandments. On the contrary, while our common law comes from Britain, our fundamental statue law is the Constitution, and the Constitution fairly repudiates the first two Commandments (worship only the LORD, do not make graven images), and doesn't even mention the other eight.
Judaism and Christianity have made contributions to American Law. America is founded upon the US Constitution. The US Constitution doesn't mention God and it doesn't mention The Ten Commandments. In fact, the US Constitution contradicts some of the Ten Commandments - we are allowed to make and worship graven images and we can worship other deities, or none if we so choose.
Do you read anything? His argument was about the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court and I can only assume separatist's arguments of church and state. It says very little about the founding of the country, our founding documents and the principles upon which they rely. It does say this however:
"Nor would separationists object to the notion that Judaism and Christianity have contributed to American law. Of course they have. America inherited it's common law from Britain, and British common law was certainly influenced by Christianity."
Even this author acknowledges Christian principles both in British common law and America's. But his focus was not on our founding documents. Thus he doesn't discuss the principles that guided both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Read my posts rather than ignoring them. The evidence is laid out there.
My position is not just about the Ten Commandments. Again, do you read? It was about the principles used in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Rights given, not by man but my our Creator. These rights enshrined in our Constitution (e.g. our laws). I cited the Amendments enshrining those rights as examples. Even your author recognized Christian influence on our common laws. This is not hard.
I knew he was not very bright, but this is absurd. This is not even a controversial subject.
His ignorance is intentional here. The constitution defines our government but the Declaration of Independance is the foundation of our country. He knows this but he is too dishonest to admit he is wrong.
[laughing][laughing][laughing]
You are so stupid you don't realize you are stupid.
When something is argued whether or not it is legal, they don't reference the Declaration of Independence. They use the US Constitution, hence the terms Constitutional or Unconstitutional. That's where our rights come from, not the Declaration of Independence.
Again, God is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Our rights come from the US Constitution. Our laws come from the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
I honestly don't think you have ever read the Constitution.
Our rights come from our creator. The constitution protects our rights from being violated by our government.
If you need anything else explained to you, just ask.
How he doesn't understand this is beyond me. The Constitution enshrines Judeo/Christian principles as even the article that he posted agrees with as it relates to common law. We don't need GOD to be mentioned in the Constitution to recognize that the principles in our Constitution are generally judo/christian in nature.
I listed many Amendments that enshrine the rights stated in our Declaration of Independence as those coming from our Creator. He still won't listen.
SCOTUS ruling:
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
As we both stated, the Constitution enshrines the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence, which is has been cited over 100 times in SCOTUS cases.
Last edited: