I think it goes a little beyond that; it seems to me that it's a prohibition against making laws about any religion. There is to be no law passed by Congress that would have sway over religious belief and practice. I think it's a matter of coercion. Speaking as an atheist, I'd just as soon do without the "IN GOD WE TRUST," but to me, that phrase falls short of being coercive. Despite its ubiquity, even. It's appropriately ambiguous and open to interpretation, it matches the basic belief of pretty much any theistic religion, and it sort of serves a non-sectarian, vague ceremonial purpose. As has been said by many posters, it also ties into (similarly ambiguous) language used in our nation's founding documents. So it doesn't bother me. I'd rather save the energy to make sure displays of the Ten Commandments in court houses are set in a historical framework if they are to be displayed at all, and to fight against inclusion of Intelligent Design in the local public school science curriculum.
Okay guys, it's time for my two cents worth again. If I were to be interpreting what the founding fathers of the United States were saying about this particular type of issue, I would have to look at their backgrounds: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum, were all believers in the Christian God. Therefore, if I were to be arguing for whether or not having "In God We Trust" as our motto on coinage, or having God in the Pledge, or elsewhere, I would infer that the Constitution implies that mottos, designs, and other such references to the United States would in fact have a reference to God, instead of having no reference to a higher power or reference to a power that is not the Christian God. Like I said before, though, I don't really care one way or another. Leave it in or take it out, it won't affect the way I think or feel about our country. ~AJ
By the way, GDJMSP, the four stanzas of Keys' poem actually are all part of the song - I know, I was in choir and we had to sing them all - but nobody ever uses anything past the first one. Unlike in Russia, where they use all ten gazillion stanzas of their anthem. (Okay, there's not really ten gazillion, but it's a lot.) ~AJ
I would have to take exception to the persons you named believing in a christian god. I have seen many references who cite that many of these men were, in the steps of John Locke, who heavily influenced their ideology as well, Deists, and rejected organized religion. http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm The first description - that of the 'clock-maker god' is the most common that I have come across. Actually, this website is a pretty good resource on the subject, if you were interested.
Good site - but I didn't say they were Christians. I said they believed in a God (or "higher power") that is/was akin to the Christian God, which would then fit with your notion of Deism just as it does my own views (which aren't Deist), according to that website. (It gives that definition that a Deist is one who believes in a God or higher power, but rejects the notion of "revealed religion," instead basing beliefs on nature and reason.) ~AJ
right - I just saw the comment 'believers in a christian god'. One comment that I thought hit home on this topic is: "Deism is not a religion but a philosophy that emphasizes morality and reason without the need of supervision or benediction of the Creator in our everyday lives." so going back to the 'intetions behind the documents', I have to bring into context the nature of the men that wrote them.
And I believe that the nature of the men who wrote the Constitution and our other important founding documents had some sort of base in a higher power, what they did, and we still do, call God - referring to the Christian-based God. ~AJ
We agree Morgan. The founding fathers wrote God, devine entity. The majority of the country does believe in god and in many varied ways and the founding fathers set the nation up to be that way. I think we would also agree that we do have an element that is the clear minority, (and we most likely talking about single digit numbers), who want a nation without any god or religion and they are willing to take away the majoritys rights to have a faith, any faith. That is not democracy. Nice posting GD.
Your getting rather free with your interpretation of what did and what did not happen, aren't you Rick? When the truth of the matter was that ajm had it right the first time. The gentlemen he listed along with Paul Revere, Joseph Warren and John Hancock were also amont the majority of signers of the Declaration that not only believed in God, but ask for his guidance in their everyday lives. You'r going to ask how I can be so sure of this, and here is the reason. All of these, and the vast majority of signers were members of a fraternity which absolutely requires the belief in a superior being/supreme architect of the universe/GOD or a few more descriptive names. Athest can not, under any circumstance, become a member of this fraternity. Not only that but some of these named individuals were leaders of this fraternity which required a person to profess a beliief in 'GOD', and at the beginning of every session of the fraternity, a prayer for devine councel and guidance is prayed for. The basic belief is that religion is the basis of a civilized society. Yes, in most cases, an open bible lays in the center of the room at every meeting. So your suggestion that these men were of some how or nammer of Deism is pure bunk!
I stand corrected. more 'bunk': Atheism and Deism aren't the same thing. And the Freemasons were heavily numbered by Deists from the beginning - if that is the fraternity you are getting at. In fact, the term 'supreme architect' is a term that was coined by a Deist.
No one said they were. I have no idea where you come up with such nonsense, unless it's wishful thinking on your part. Prove it! Put up or shut up!
Although you did not 'say' it, you threw out one term, and switched it later in your same post with the other... dangerously misleading, to say the least. Read the link I posted - or don't - if you want to go along believing what you think, do that. I'm not trying to sell you anything. You can say and believe what you want. you first Read the link... or don't. You can be wrong if you want to stay that way, it's fine with me!
Thank you Rick for the option. Read the thread you posted, and came away thinking someone has a great immagination and a very unique way of putting things togather to make them say what they want to have said. (by the way, I found mis-quotes in the article) It all comes down to this. I've never met a athiest that wasn't a deist, or the other way around. Personally can't see a great deal of difference between them. Oh by the way; I'm still waiting for you to show me where you found this. But I'm betting I will have a long wait, right?
OK, Dan - if you honestly think you're dealing with a rookie here, you better think again... "Regardless of where they fell on the Deist spectrum, many Deists continued to respect the moral teachings of Jesus without believing in his divine status. But the tendency of Deism was to emphasize ethical endeavors and to replace the Judeo-Christian explanation of existence with a religion of reason and nature. In the understanding of the typical Deist, a rational "Supreme Architect"—one of a variety of terms Deists used for the deity—created the earth and human life. But this omnipotent and unchangeable creator-architect then withdrew to let events on earth take their course without further interfering" Was that a *long wait*? That was taken from this website: http://www.vqronline.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/8454 Now, let's turn the tables, since I have not seen proof one from your claims, except your own rehashed opinions.... Quoting you: Put up or shut up. Lets see some proof and a little less opinion. And as far as a Deist being an Atheist - I suggest you look into it a little more, or else *meet* a few more proscribed members... because if I ever came across an atheist who told me he believed in 'one god', I'd smack him and tell him to buy a dictionary.
here's a little more hints I know what I'm talking about, straight from the google search engine: Results 1 - 10 of about 80,300 for "thomas jefferson" deism. (0.20 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 42,700 for "george washington" deism. (0.25 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 62,700 for "foundingfathers" deism. (0.32 seconds) So as much as you want to paint history to fit your tastes and opinions, looks like a lot of real research has been done that tends to disagree with your ideas.
Now that wasn't so hard now was it Rick? The last time you said the Deists "coined" (generally indicates they made up the item) the term 'Supreme Architect'. Now we find they only used this term, along side of all the rest of the terms used to express GOD. I believe that makes quite a difference, don't you? As for your history lesson, I can find this in any reference book I pick up.
