BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion I am Joe and I am a Christian.....WTF!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-05-2014, 12:40 PM   #397
128Convertibleguy
Captain
48
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Here are some quotes from George Washington:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
The first quote is the only one that mentions Christ, so is the only relevant one. Is is clear that the Founding Fathers valued religion over atheism, at least in public.

This particular quote is often cited in a highly misleading way, by far right and Christian propaganda websites. Washington was addressing Native Americans, who, at the time, were considered "godless heathens", and so, any religious beliefs at all were to be encouraged. He wasn't speaking to Americans, and he wasn't bringing up Christ out of thin air, he was responding to the Native Americans communication. Details on these unbiased websites, the first is particularly good.

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/201...rican-schools/

http://www.mountvernon.org/research-...us-quotations/

Given Washington's reticence to discussing his own religious views, the quote is surprising, unless you know the context.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 11-05-2014 at 12:56 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2014, 12:59 PM   #398
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The first quote is the only one that mentions Christ, so is the only relevant one. Is is clear that the Founding Fathers valued religion over atheism, at least in public.

This particular quote is often cited in a highly misleading way, by far right and Christian propaganda websites. Washington was addressing Native Americans, who, at the time, were considered "godless heathens", and so, any relious beliefs at all were to be encouraged. He wasn't talking about Americans. Details on these unbiased websites, the first is particularly good.

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/201...rican-schools/

http://www.mountvernon.org/research-...us-quotations/
Are the quotes incorrect?

Quotations of Christ were not my point; I was speaking of Washington's recognition of a God that is involved in everyday life. This would appear to rule him out as a Deist, along with Ben Franklin, who requested prayer at every daily meeting of the Constitutional Convention.

The web links you provided are instantly credible - someone's blog at Wordpress... And btw - they didn't refute the quotes I made at all - in fact they presented them as the actual quotes. So what was your point?

Whether Washington was speaking to the Native Americans or not, would he have changed his message? You cited the Jefferson Bible previously - many sources say that Jefferson edited to actual Bible to present it to the Native Americans in ways that they could relate to it.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2014, 05:59 PM   #399
128Convertibleguy
Captain
48
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Whether Washington was speaking to the Native Americans or not, would he have changed his message? You cited the Jefferson Bible previously - many sources say that Jefferson edited to actual Bible to present it to the Native Americans in ways that they could relate to it.
Yes, unquestionably, Washington would not have said that to American citizens. Whatever his beliefs, he wasn't big on imposing them on others, or even stating them in public. As the websites I cited made clear, this was a special thing, where he was trying to improve relations with Native Americans.

OTOH, the idea that Jefferson wrote the "Jefferson Bible" with Native Americans in mind is utterly absurd. He clearly was removing all supernatural references to Christ; son of God, virgin birth, resurrection, walked on water, etc., because as a scientist and a follower of the Enlightenment, he eschewed the supernatural for the logical. It earned him the undying opposition of important Christian leaders, who issued pamphlets denouncing him, and stating he was unfit to be President because of his religious beliefs.

Bottom line - your Christian interpretations fly in the face of other things we know about these two men.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2014, 09:37 PM   #400
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Yes, unquestionably, Washington would not have said that to American citizens. Whatever his beliefs, he wasn't big on imposing them on others, or even stating them in public. As the websites I cited made clear, this was a special thing, where he was trying to improve relations with Native Americans.

OTOH, the idea that Jefferson wrote the "Jefferson Bible" with Native Americans in mind is utterly absurd. He clearly was removing all supernatural references to Christ; son of God, virgin birth, resurrection, walked on water, etc., because as a scientist and a follower of the Enlightenment, he eschewed the supernatural for the logical. It earned him the undying opposition of important Christian leaders, who issued pamphlets denouncing him, and stating he was unfit to be President because of his religious beliefs.

Bottom line - your Christian interpretations fly in the face of other things we know about these two men.
Your first point is your opinion on what Washington would not have said. Thanks for that.

Your second point is incorrect - in his "bible," he included what Jesus said in the Bible (primarily Jesus' parables and instruction), and excluded what others said about Jesus - your conclusion ("because as a scientist and follower of the enlightenment") is not supported. Jefferson said that one reason he created his "bible" was "a primer for the Indians." He also got funding from Congress to build a church and hire a priest to minister/educate the Kaskaskia Indians.

Regarding the assumption that Jefferson was a Deist - in the foreward of his bible, he describes the Jews as Deists, and how they "caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and regard Jesus as an imposter." He then says "It [his bible] is a document in proof that I AM A REAL CHRISTIAN [his emphasis]..." - but never says he is a Deist, when he was clearly familiar with the term and the concepts.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2014, 11:21 AM   #401
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
31
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Your second point is incorrect - in his "bible," he included what Jesus said in the Bible (primarily Jesus' parables and instruction), and excluded what others said about Jesus

Regarding the assumption that Jefferson was a Deist - in the foreward of his bible, he describes the Jews as Deists, and how they "caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and regard Jesus as an imposter." He then says "It [his bible] is a document in proof that I AM A REAL CHRISTIAN [his emphasis]..." - but never says he is a Deist, when he was clearly familiar with the term and the concepts.
George Washington being a Deist is defintately debatable. Jefferson is much less so. The rest of your quote looks like this:

Quote:
"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
What Jefferson removed in his bible was any mention of any miracle, anything supernatural and any claim Jesus was a GOD. He kept only his teachings, as you say, and looked at Jesus as simply a moral Philosopher. Which is where the "I am a real Christian" quote comes into play. He didn't not believe Jesus was a God, simply a man who advocated agreeable values (forgiveness, kindness, etc).

Quote:
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

So no, Jefferson was not a "Christian" in the way that we normally define a Christian. He was being glib. Here are some other quotes from Jefferson:
  • Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
  • I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Regarding "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")
  • Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
  • If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

But again. "Who believed what" is largely irrelevant. Because regardless of what the individual beliefs of each Founder, they all acknowledged the need for Religious Freedom and the benefits of Separation of Church and State.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|
Appreciate 0
      11-07-2014, 07:20 PM   #402
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
Because regardless of what the individual beliefs of each Founder, they all acknowledged the need for Religious Freedom and the benefits of Separation of Church and State.
What is your source for that conclusion? The only FF to ever use those words ("separation of church and state") was Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury CT Baptist Association. Jefferson himself regularly attended church services inside the House of Representatives, as did many others.

Here's William Rehnquist's opinion, written in 1985 (he was a Supreme Court Justice):

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment...

The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

This from Justice Scalia in 2005:

"I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false...

George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.' The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim ' a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'

...The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.

These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."

You may not agree with their conclusions, but their statements are facts. And clearly, every FF did not agree with the later-described concept of "separation of church and state."
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2014, 12:29 PM   #403
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
31
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
What is your source for that conclusion? The only FF to ever use those words ("separation of church and state") was Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury CT Baptist Association. Jefferson himself regularly attended church services inside the House of Representatives, as did many others.
Yes, he coined the phase. The establishment clause is in the Bill of Rights and can be interpreted differently by different people.

Do you not recognize the importance of Separation of Church and State?

There's a concept called the Veil of Ignorance. It's a thought experiment where you have to develop a society while being ignorant of where you would be placed in that society (race, religion, etc). Let's say you had to re-roll your gender, race and religion today, and that your income and prosperity were determined purely by what you produced or the skills you had to offer.

What if you were Christian and the Government (and the social majority) made constant references to Allah and used tax payer's money to put up references to Muhammad? Or let's say you're Hindu and believe in many gods. Do you like that your government officially recognizes one God? What if you were a Muslim and Allah was the ONLY true God and yet the Government you lived in recognized the many Gods of Greek mythology while claiming to have religious freedom?

Now let's say you want to avoid being unfair to ensure religious freedom. So whenever Government makes references to a God, it will make sure to include the following text "God, God(s), or No God". And whenever they are going to use tax payer's money, let's say to put up religious decorations, they make sure to poll the town and include decorations from each and any religion practiced to ensure they are being "equal". What if you have someone who practices a religion that's private to them, either because it's simply no one's business or because they fear being attacked for their beliefs. They are now being forced to pay for all the other religion's decorations that they do not believe in, while not being equally represented.

The reason Separation of Church and State makes sense is because attempting to have Religious Freedom without it is an expensive waste of time, if not impossible. Instead of having Government attempt to recognize religions and try to then treat them all equally, WHILE SPENDING OUR MONEY, it makes MUCH more sense to leave religion to the PEOPLE whom the Establishment Clause is designed to protect.

The Government's job is to ensure individuals can have whatever and as much religion as it wants. Trying to get the Government to recognize YOUR religion is really just being a bully. It sets us back on the path of a State backed religion which was what we were trying to avoid in the first place.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|

Last edited by Devious21; 11-08-2014 at 12:50 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2014, 11:00 PM   #404
NemesisX
Captain
271
Rep
904
Posts

Drives: '19 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
Yes, he coined the phase. The establishment clause is in the Bill of Rights and can be interpreted differently by different people.

Do you not recognize the importance of Separation of Church and State?

There's a concept called the Veil of Ignorance. It's a thought experiment where you have to develop a society while being ignorant of where you would be placed in that society (race, religion, etc). Let's say you had to re-roll your gender, race and religion today, and that your income and prosperity were determined purely by what you produced or the skills you had to offer.

What if you were Christian and the Government (and the social majority) made constant references to Allah and used tax payer's money to put up references to Muhammad? Or let's say you're Hindu and believe in many gods. Do you like that your government officially recognizes one God? What if you were a Muslim and Allah was the ONLY true God and yet the Government you lived in recognized the many Gods of Greek mythology while claiming to have religious freedom?

Now let's say you want to avoid being unfair to ensure religious freedom. So whenever Government makes references to a God, it will make sure to include the following text "God, God(s), or No God". And whenever they are going to use tax payer's money, let's say to put up religious decorations, they make sure to poll the town and include decorations from each and any religion practiced to ensure they are being "equal". What if you have someone who practices a religion that's private to them, either because it's simply no one's business or because they fear being attacked for their beliefs. They are now being forced to pay for all the other religion's decorations that they do not believe in, while not being equally represented.

The reason Separation of Church and State makes sense is because attempting to have Religious Freedom without it is an expensive waste of time, if not impossible. Instead of having Government attempt to recognize religions and try to then treat them all equally, WHILE SPENDING OUR MONEY, it makes MUCH more sense to leave religion to the PEOPLE whom the Establishment Clause is designed to protect.

The Government's job is to ensure individuals can have whatever and as much religion as it wants. Trying to get the Government to recognize YOUR religion is really just being a bully. It sets us back on the path of a State backed religion which was what we were trying to avoid in the first place.
Excellent post. I agree completely.
Appreciate 0
      11-09-2014, 07:15 PM   #405
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
Yes, he coined the phase. The establishment clause is in the Bill of Rights and can be interpreted differently by different people.

Do you not recognize the importance of Separation of Church and State?

There's a concept called the Veil of Ignorance. It's a thought experiment where you have to develop a society while being ignorant of where you would be placed in that society (race, religion, etc). Let's say you had to re-roll your gender, race and religion today, and that your income and prosperity were determined purely by what you produced or the skills you had to offer.

What if you were Christian and the Government (and the social majority) made constant references to Allah and used tax payer's money to put up references to Muhammad? Or let's say you're Hindu and believe in many gods. Do you like that your government officially recognizes one God? What if you were a Muslim and Allah was the ONLY true God and yet the Government you lived in recognized the many Gods of Greek mythology while claiming to have religious freedom?

Now let's say you want to avoid being unfair to ensure religious freedom. So whenever Government makes references to a God, it will make sure to include the following text "God, God(s), or No God". And whenever they are going to use tax payer's money, let's say to put up religious decorations, they make sure to poll the town and include decorations from each and any religion practiced to ensure they are being "equal". What if you have someone who practices a religion that's private to them, either because it's simply no one's business or because they fear being attacked for their beliefs. They are now being forced to pay for all the other religion's decorations that they do not believe in, while not being equally represented.

The reason Separation of Church and State makes sense is because attempting to have Religious Freedom without it is an expensive waste of time, if not impossible. Instead of having Government attempt to recognize religions and try to then treat them all equally, WHILE SPENDING OUR MONEY, it makes MUCH more sense to leave religion to the PEOPLE whom the Establishment Clause is designed to protect.

The Government's job is to ensure individuals can have whatever and as much religion as it wants. Trying to get the Government to recognize YOUR religion is really just being a bully. It sets us back on the path of a State backed religion which was what we were trying to avoid in the first place.
I don't disagree with much of your post - I actually don't advocate that government is a good way to alter social behavior. Trying to extricate religion from all aspects of our society, however, simply isn't possible, and wasn't intended from the start.

Regarding the Veil of Ignorance - it's a great idea, but not practical, in my opinion. What society has every achieved this religious-vacuum utopia? Communism tried, Pol Pot tried, and all sorts of other horrible leaders (with horrible outcomes), and people more oppressed than ever. The Judeo-Christian ethics of our society are what binds us to concepts that are so intrinsic to our society that they are taken for granted. Mankind by itself doesn't have an innate respect for human life. Mankind doesn't by itself recognize human rights. And the list goes on - A society without religion might look a lot like The Hunger Games.

Right now we are also seeing bullying by the non-religions, such as atheism, earth-worship, etc. It's the same issue, just wearing different clothing.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      12-28-2014, 05:01 PM   #406
DocMick
Private First Class
DocMick's Avatar
United_States
10
Rep
121
Posts

Drives: 2013 MCB F10 M5
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Irvine, CA

iTrader: (0)

The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God'
Appreciate 0
      12-29-2014, 06:38 AM   #407
pfitz911
Private First Class
13
Rep
161
Posts

Drives: bmw 330i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide Australia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
Yes, he coined the phase. The establishment clause is in the Bill of Rights and can be interpreted differently by different people.

Do you not recognize the importance of Separation of Church and State?

There's a concept called the Veil of Ignorance. It's a thought experiment where you have to develop a society while being ignorant of where you would be placed in that society (race, religion, etc). Let's say you had to re-roll your gender, race and religion today, and that your income and prosperity were determined purely by what you produced or the skills you had to offer.

What if you were Christian and the Government (and the social majority) made constant references to Allah and used tax payer's money to put up references to Muhammad? Or let's say you're Hindu and believe in many gods. Do you like that your government officially recognizes one God? What if you were a Muslim and Allah was the ONLY true God and yet the Government you lived in recognized the many Gods of Greek mythology while claiming to have religious freedom?

Now let's say you want to avoid being unfair to ensure religious freedom. So whenever Government makes references to a God, it will make sure to include the following text "God, God(s), or No God". And whenever they are going to use tax payer's money, let's say to put up religious decorations, they make sure to poll the town and include decorations from each and any religion practiced to ensure they are being "equal". What if you have someone who practices a religion that's private to them, either because it's simply no one's business or because they fear being attacked for their beliefs. They are now being forced to pay for all the other religion's decorations that they do not believe in, while not being equally represented.

The reason Separation of Church and State makes sense is because attempting to have Religious Freedom without it is an expensive waste of time, if not impossible. Instead of having Government attempt to recognize religions and try to then treat them all equally, WHILE SPENDING OUR MONEY, it makes MUCH more sense to leave religion to the PEOPLE whom the Establishment Clause is designed to protect.

The Government's job is to ensure individuals can have whatever and as much religion as it wants. Trying to get the Government to recognize YOUR religion is really just being a bully. It sets us back on the path of a State backed religion which was what we were trying to avoid in the first place.

I agree, but the problem with the religions that you're referring to is that there is no freedom to disbelieve!! It is controlled. I can already hear you say that many Christian churches are very controlling...yes of course, but that is by the "idiot" Christians who are so lost in their various agendas that they've lost sight of the basics. The God of the bible wants us to thrash it out with Him and see if He isn't telling the truth...freedom to disbelieve is very necessary. Very different to Islam, Johos and Mormonism in particular. I couldn't imagine living in a regime where they were involved in the state!!
Good post though...perhaps it is true what you're saying, because our human nature is involved.
Appreciate 0
      12-29-2014, 10:02 AM   #408
Dalko43
Captain
168
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
America was founded with a designed separation between church and state, but it was founded by a mostly Christian population, thus many of its laws/traditions are based heavily on Judeo-Christian philosophy.

Why is that so hard to understand? "In God we trust" and "one nation under God" may have been recent additions to certain institutions of this country, but they are not at all at odds with the beliefs of the majority of this country's founders.
Appreciate 0
      01-13-2015, 12:40 PM   #409
Dalko43
Captain
168
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
And the Founding Fathers embraced not merely in religious tolerance, but religious pluralism , the concept that there is no one true faith. The principle is clearest in some Asian religions, which refer to "many paths up one mountain". James Madison, although a believer himself, even expanded the idea to embrace the acceptance of nonbelief, a very radical idea at the time. He was, not surprisingly, pretty low key about that.

Like much of what they did, religious pluralism was brilliant. If you remove the idea that there are "right" religious beliefs, and "wrong" religious beliefs, any justification for a religiously inspired war, for anyone, simply disappears.
You miss the bigger point, especially with your statement in bold.

The founding fathers said nothing in regards to whether or not there was one true faith. They didn't set out to create a government that embraced religious pluralism.

They sought to establish a society where government said nothing at all in regards to religion. It was government's job to be agnostic on religion in order to ensure that everyone was able to decide for themselves what religion they would follow or if they would follow any religion at all.

'In God we trust'
'One Nation under God'
Visual depictions of the ten commandments in certain courthouses

These references indicate our country's heritage, but they have never been used to impose or restrict the religious views of its citizens.

I just think that you are reading too much into the founding fathers' views on religion when you mention things like they declared there was 'no one true religion.'

The founding fathers' intent was that: "You (the individual) decide your own religious views." Of course I am paraphrasing, but it's as simple as that.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2015, 09:04 AM   #410
shoptb
Major
shoptb's Avatar
United_States
131
Rep
1,034
Posts

Drives: '19 G01 X3 m40i
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver Area

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
'In God we trust'
'One Nation under God'
Visual depictions of the ten commandments in certain courthouses
I hope that you realize that most all of these things were added in the 20th century, and not anywhere near the times of the Founding Fathers. These "parts of our heritage" were thrown in mainly in response to America's fear of communism, aka the Red Scare.
__________________
Delivered --> '19 G01 X3 m40i, 8SA, Glacier Silver with Mocha Vernasca, ZDA, ZDB, ZPK, ZPP w/ 4HA, ZPX, 3AC, 4K1, 688, 6NW, 5DF
Past --> '15 F33 328xi, 8SA, '13 F30 328i, '08 E92 335xi, '95 E34 530i, '88 E30 M3
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2015, 09:08 AM   #411
shoptb
Major
shoptb's Avatar
United_States
131
Rep
1,034
Posts

Drives: '19 G01 X3 m40i
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver Area

iTrader: (0)

I just always fail to understand why one's religious beliefs require acknowledgement, validation, or even comprehension by other people. Who cares?!? I could care less if you believe in God or a Giant Rabbit. At the end of our lives, from a religious standpoint, it's only about oneself, not others. You don't need to prove to anyone that there is a God, and I don't need to prove to you that there isn't...because at the end of the day, no one is convincing anyone of anything. This world would be such a better, more peaceful place if people would just worry about their own personal faith instead of nosing into others'.
__________________
Delivered --> '19 G01 X3 m40i, 8SA, Glacier Silver with Mocha Vernasca, ZDA, ZDB, ZPK, ZPP w/ 4HA, ZPX, 3AC, 4K1, 688, 6NW, 5DF
Past --> '15 F33 328xi, 8SA, '13 F30 328i, '08 E92 335xi, '95 E34 530i, '88 E30 M3
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 11:54 AM   #412
Dalko43
Captain
168
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoptb View Post
I hope that you realize that most all of these things were added in the 20th century, and not anywhere near the times of the Founding Fathers. These "parts of our heritage" were thrown in mainly in response to America's fear of communism, aka the Red Scare.
I do realize that those phrases were added in later years, and in fact that is why I referred to them. A lot of atheists like to think that 'In God we Trust' and 'One nation under God' were arbitrarily added in for political reasons, and had no bearing on this country's religious background.

I acknowledge that there were political motives for adding those phrases to our currency and pledge of allegiance. But, as I said before, that does not take away from this country's heritage of being a nation founded by Christians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoptb View Post
I just always fail to understand why one's religious beliefs require acknowledgement, validation, or even comprehension by other people. Who cares?!? I could care less if you believe in God or a Giant Rabbit. At the end of our lives, from a religious standpoint, it's only about oneself, not others. You don't need to prove to anyone that there is a God, and I don't need to prove to you that there isn't...because at the end of the day, no one is convincing anyone of anything. This world would be such a better, more peaceful place if people would just worry about their own personal faith instead of nosing into others'.
Well it's a good thing you live in America, because that's how religious affairs are handled here! Welcome to the club of 'choose your own beliefs!'
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 02:23 PM   #413
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
31
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I do realize that those phrases were added in later years, and in fact that is why I referred to them. A lot of atheists like to think that 'In God we Trust' and 'One nation under God' were arbitrarily added in for political reasons, and had no bearing on this country's religious background.
They are definitely consistent with the country's religious background, the problem is they aren't consistent with the spirit of the constitution.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 04:03 PM   #414
Dalko43
Captain
168
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I do realize that those phrases were added in later years, and in fact that is why I referred to them. A lot of atheists like to think that 'In God we Trust' and 'One nation under God' were arbitrarily added in for political reasons, and had no bearing on this country's religious background.
They are definitely consistent with the country's religious background, the problem is they aren't consistent with the spirit of the constitution.
If those slogans were ever used to forcefully convert people to Christianity or if the US legally acknowledged Christianity to be the preeminent religion of this country, I would agree with your statement....but until then, I see no compromise of this country's religious freedoms.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 04:11 PM   #415
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
31
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
If those slogans were ever used to forcefully convert people to Christianity or if the US legally acknowledged Christianity to be the preeminent religion of this country, I would agree with your statement....but until then, I see no compromise of this country's religious freedoms.
  • If I'm a hindu and I see "One nation under God" on my money, you don't think the US is endorsing a religion other than my own?
  • What if I'm a Scientologist and there's a statue of the Ten Commandments on land that I pay for?
  • What if I'm an Atheist, and my children are chanting "Under God" in a class I pay for?

It's not about "converting people", it's about our government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Why? Because the government doesn't HAVE freedom of religion. We, as people, have it. And in order for us to KEEP having it, it's absolutely crucial that the government stays absolutely neutral.

Not to spend our collective money doing a shout out to the religious majority.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 04:23 PM   #416
128Convertibleguy
Captain
48
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
  • If I'm a hindu and I see "One nation under God" on my money, you don't think the US is endorsing a religion other than my own?
  • What if I'm a Scientologist and there's a statue of the Ten Commandments on land that I pay for?
  • What if I'm an Atheist, and my children are chanting "Under God" in a class I pay for?

It's not about "converting people", it's about our government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Why? Because the government doesn't HAVE freedom of religion. We, as people, have it. And in order for us to KEEP having it, it's absolutely crucial that the government stays absolutely neutral.

Not to spend our collective money doing a shout out to the religious majority.
+1

The Founding Fathers, especially the leaders whose names are familiar, were a lot stronger on this than most of our politicians today. They believed in an America, and an American government, that went beyond mere religious "tolerance" to religious pluralism. What many today would call "political correctness" about not promoting a particular religion, would be more of a duh thing to them.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 04:26 PM   #417
Dalko43
Captain
168
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
[LIST][*]If I'm a hindu and I see "One nation under God" on my money, you don't think the US is endorsing a religion other than my own?
I think a Hindu in America would recognize that phrase for its cultural and historical meaning in the same way that a Christian or Jewish person in India would acknowledge the significance of why an Indian politician would wear a bindi while in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
[*]What if I'm a Scientologist and there's a statue of the Ten Commandments on land that I pay for?
[*]What if I'm an Atheist, and my children are chanting "Under God" in a class I pay for?
This country wasn't founded by aetheists or scientologists. But they are free to follow their beliefs without harassment just like everyone else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21 View Post
It's not about "converting people", it's about our government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Why? Because the government doesn't HAVE freedom of religion. We, as people, have it. And in order for us to KEEP having it, it's absolutely crucial that the government stays absolutely neutral.

Not to spend our collective money doing a shout out to the religious majority.
This country was founded by Christians. It's laws are mostly derived from Judeo-Christian philosophy. There is a historical connection between Christianity and this country. To acknowledge that connection with phrases in our pledge and depictions of the ten commandments, is not the same thing as endorsing one religion over all the others.

I can recall very few instances in this country's history, if any at all, where religious groups were persecuted or disenfranchised by the US government. This country has always made a point of respecting the individual's right to choose his/her faith...I think that our government has done a better job than most in protecting the right.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2015, 04:43 PM   #418
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
31
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I think a Hindu in America would recognize that phrase for its cultural and historical meaning.

This country wasn't founded by aetheists or scientologists. But they are free to follow their beliefs without harassment just like everyone else.
I didn't say it was. My point wasn't that someone else besides Christians were the religious majority during the founding of our nation. My point was that it's crucial that the government abides by the constitution and the first amendment.

If you want to recognize the history of the united states, do it with your money and your power. It's your right. You can put up all the statues you want on your property. You can build a private theme park where dinosaurs and man walk together and print your own currency there that says "Christians founded the great nation of America!". You can do ALL OF THAT. You just have to do it with your own money. When the government does it, it's using tax payer money. It's taking the money from someone who doesn't believe in those things and makes them pay for it. By printing it on their money, it shoves it in their face and into their wallets.

Imagine if I printed Atheist money that had a picture that said "No Fairytales" on it. Then I forced your city to buy all their goods with it and printed it at their expense.

Saying your point is consistent with our heritage is not a good point. Slavery is also consistent with our heritage. The 1st amendment is more important than the government paying for you to be nostalgic. Pay for it yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
But they are free to follow their beliefs without harassment just like everyone else.
No they aren't. They are forced to pay for your beliefs and you are not forced to pay for theirs. That's not "just like everyone else".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
This country was founded by Christians. It's laws are mostly derived from Judeo-Christian philosophy.
And those philosophies are based on the moral philosophies that came before them. They didn't invent the Golden Rule. If we had laws telling us not to eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I can recall very few instances in this country's history, if any at all, where religious groups were persecuted or disenfranchised by the US government. This country has always made a point of respecting the individual's right to choose his/her faith...I think that our government has done a better job than most in protecting the right.
Of course, because we have the first amendment. These things we are talking about are slow erosions of the first amendment, which is how all freedoms die out. And like we discussed said, they are all fairly recent.

If the goal is to treat all religious beliefs equally and have religious freedom, then there is NO REASON for the government to endorse any religion. That doesn't help us keep religious freedom.

It excludes people for no gain and at their expense.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|

Last edited by Devious21; 01-25-2015 at 05:06 PM..
Appreciate 0
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST