Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Suburban · 07-24-2003, 12:54 PM

Well, let's see what Meriam-Webster has to say on the issue:

Quote:

Main Entry: es�tab�lish�ment
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

...and furthermore...

Quote:

Main Entry: es�tab�lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2 obsolete : SETTLE 7
3 a : to make firm or stable b : to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
4 a : to bring into existence : FOUND <established a republic> b : BRING ABOUT, EFFECT <established friendly relations>
5 a : to put on a firm basis : SET UP <establish his son in business> b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>
6 : to make (a church) a national or state institution
7 : to put beyond doubt : PROVE <established my innocence>
- es�tab�lish�able /-sh&-b&l/ adjective
- es�tab�lish�er /-sh&r/ noun

I don't see "under God" or "in God we trust" as the fedgov requiring anyone to do anything.

As is with another 1st amendment issue, that being of federal funding of the arts, certain people are told to ignore that art which is offensive to them...I can only say, if the PoA or IGWT offends you, ignore it...no one is forcing you to DO anything.

ScumDog · 07-24-2003, 01:14 PM

Religion used in the establishment cause refers to all aspects of religion as well. Refer to the religious clause, where it uses "thereof". "Thereof" refers back to "religion" used in the establishment cause, so logically and grammatically they are equal in definition. With this in mind, the government is not allowed to prohibit praying in schools, because it is an aspect of religion, and just as well they cannot make a law requiring anything that is an aspect of religion, exactly why they cannot require students to pray.

So, "under God" is an aspect of religion, and so is "In God We Trust", and thus unconstitutional.

Suburban · 07-24-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ScumDog
Religion used in the establishment cause refers to all aspects of religion as well. Refer to the religious clause, where it uses "thereof". "Thereof" refers back to "religion" used in the establishment cause, so logically and grammatically they are equal in definition. With this in mind, the government is not allowed to prohibit praying in schools, because it is an aspect of religion, and just as well they cannot make a law requiring anything that is an aspect of religion, exactly why they cannot require students to pray.

So, "under God" is an aspect of religion, and so is "In God We Trust", and thus unconstitutional.

And who, praytell, is forcing anyone to recite the PoA? No one. Does IGWT apply to you? NO? Is someone FORCING you to "trust in God"? NO?

Then, ignore them both.

nogods4me · 07-24-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburban

I don't see "under God" or "in God we trust" as the fedgov requiring anyone to do anything.

Of course you don't. But it requires those who recite the pledge (or wish to do so) to affirm a monotheistic god, it requires me to walk around with the affirmation of the nation's supposed faith in a monotheistic god in my wallet and pocket.

don't be so coy, change "In God We trust" to "In Allah, We Place Our Faith" and see how you like it that way, after all Allah is just another word for God, isn't it?

ScumDog · 07-24-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburban
And who, praytell, is forcing anyone to recite the PoA? No one. Does IGWT apply to you? NO? Is someone FORCING you to "trust in God"? NO?

Then, ignore them both.

You are a bigot. If it said "under no god" you'd be crying out of your ass that it was against your rights. You can't just ignore it, that's so bigoted I can't stand it.

nogods4me · 07-24-2003, 01:56 PM

Yeah, you gotta just love it when they say "what difference does it make to you, just ignore it" and then watch them burst into fits of apoplexy when the find out that there is a mosque in the next town over, or when someone other than a xtian wants to give the prayer at a town council meeting.

Autonemesis · 07-24-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburban
I don't see "under God" or "in God we trust" as the fedgov requiring anyone to do anything.

It requires me to tolerate a religious message being promulgated by the government, and furthermore requires me to pay for that promulgation.

Suburban · 07-24-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me
Of course you don't. But it requires those who recite the pledge (or wish to do so) to affirm a monotheistic god, it requires me to walk around with the affirmation of the nation's supposed faith in a monotheistic god in my wallet and pocket.

don't be so coy, change "In God We trust" to "In Allah, We Place Our Faith" and see how you like it that way, after all Allah is just another word for God, isn't it?

I would have no problem with that had islamic peoples founded this country.

Our Founders were Christian men...not deists as some would have us believe...they invoked the name of God on a daily basis. You should read some of what John Adams, Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin (arguable the most secular of the lot) and the other Founders had to say on the subject.

Were the Founding Fathers "Deists," "Freethinkers," and "Infidels?"

Quote:

Thomas Paine and the Age of Reason
Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped with the Founding Fathers. Your daily newspaper might reinforce this view with editorials like this:

Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Paine and most of our other patriarchs were at best deists, believing in the unmoved mover of Aristotle, but not the God of the Old and New Testaments.[1]

It would be difficult to name a single one of the Founding Fathers who approved of Paine's Age of Reason, his famous tract attacking religion in general and evangelical Christianity in particular. Even less-than-evangelicals like Benjamin Franklin and the "Unitarians" all denounced Paine's book.

Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and succinct reply, and keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders:

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . [T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship.[2]

Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:

[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?[3]

John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4]

Not a real scathing opposition to Christianity so far...and it gets even better.

Quote:

Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5]

This was, in fact, the basis for the system of government in America, as Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious."[7]
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."[8]
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith."[9]
John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution." [10]
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:

I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."[11]

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as "the puny efforts of Paine." However, after reading Bishop Richard Watson's Apology for the Bible written against Paine, Henry deemed that work sufficient and decided not to publish his reply.[12]

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered:

Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?[13]

Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, warned:

[W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason . . . . He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers . . . . No language can describe the wickedness of the man who will attempt to subvert a religion which is a source of comfort and consolation to its votaries [devout worshipers] merely for the purpose of eradicating all sentiments of religion.[14]

John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack:

I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind.[15]

Paine himself declared a devout belief in God.

I have absolutely no quarrel with with non-believers, our Constitution was set up so those of you that DON'T believe in God would not be persecuted...and believe me, that happened a LOT back then. The Constitution was also written in such a way as to prevent the government from running the church and vice versa...nothing more, nothing less. To put forth that any representation of God, or the Christian principles upon which this great nation was founded, constitutes an establishment of religion is ludicrous.

Suburban · 07-24-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
It requires me to tolerate a religious message being promulgated by the government, and furthermore requires me to pay for that promulgation.

...and last time I checked, roughly 85% of this country was Christian.

You do not have any right not to be offended...and only you can decide what is offensive to you. As I've said before, I am offended by a large portion of what is passed off as GOVERNMENT FUNDED "art". I, being a member of the majority opinion on that subject am told to ignore it. I suggest you do the same. You, being in the minority, have no right to dictate to the majority...and the majority is starting to flex its political muscle.

Sorry if that offends you.

nogods4me · 07-24-2003, 02:10 PM

Allright there Suburban, please list for me those "christian" principles on which the US was founded.
And please Jefferson was in no way a xtian, he declared himself a Unitarian on more than one occaision. I must off to home, buut if it's toss out the quotes you wish to play, I'll see ye on the morrow.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 01:14 PM	#12
ScumDog Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Florida Posts: 137	Religion used in the establishment cause refers to all aspects of religion as well. Refer to the religious clause, where it uses "thereof". "Thereof" refers back to "religion" used in the establishment cause, so logically and grammatically they are equal in definition. With this in mind, the government is not allowed to prohibit praying in schools, because it is an aspect of religion, and just as well they cannot make a law requiring anything that is an aspect of religion, exactly why they cannot require students to pray. So, "under God" is an aspect of religion, and so is "In God We Trust", and thus unconstitutional.

07-24-2003, 01:56 PM	#16
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Yeah, you gotta just love it when they say "what difference does it make to you, just ignore it" and then watch them burst into fits of apoplexy when the find out that there is a mosque in the next town over, or when someone other than a xtian wants to give the prayer at a town council meeting.

07-24-2003, 02:10 PM	#20
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Allright there Suburban, please list for me those "christian" principles on which the US was founded. And please Jefferson was in no way a xtian, he declared himself a Unitarian on more than one occaision. I must off to home, buut if it's toss out the quotes you wish to play, I'll see ye on the morrow.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.