Printable View
and watching China return to its rightful place at the top
http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedFile..._President.pdf
We have an economy in shambles, citizens dying in a war which is plagued by uncertianty and a populace which is beat down and tired
Yet this is what these congressmen decide to sit down and do.
A pox on both your houses was never more fitting
Good lord.
e pluribus unum has been a motto for ages.
Also,
Quote:
The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. He is most closely connected with the Episcopal Church, Unitarianism, and the religious philosophy of Deism. He wrote to a nephew, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."[90][91] In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as "Christian" (1803),[92][93] "a sect by myself" (1819),[94] an "Epicurean" (1819),[95] a "Materialist" (1820),[96] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[97]
Jefferson believed in the moral teachings of Christ; writing a bible of Christ's teachings without the miracles.[98] Jefferson, however, was firmly anticlerical saying that in "every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot...they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."[99] Jefferson himself privately expressed doubts on the existance of invisible beings such as God, angels, and the soul writing, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings."[100] Jefferson believed that Immaculate Conception by the Virgin Mary would eventually be "classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [101] Jefferson also rejected the predestination doctrine of John Calvin and the Book of Revelations in the Bible. [102]
Yep, such is the political culture these days.
Yup, America's problems have nothing at all to do with policy. They are all caused by those evil white women and men who go around correcting a President who gets his facts wrong.
They are caused by people who go around creating superficial problems pandering to the LCD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Judging by your post they are ensuring relection for the next decade or two.
I'm assuming this letter was printed out, and so I say never before has the world seen so much ink wasted by so few for so little.
It is just a little detail Vuk, remember, nothing important. Just like it is not important is his birth cirtificate happens to say Kenya and not USA, or that he happens to swear on the Koran and not the Bible.
These details don't matter, there are bigger problems right now... :rolleyes:
Show me the birth cirtificate. I don't care what fairy tale book he swears on. I don't care if he is getting blown by white women on every third sunday (as long as txpayer money isn't being used)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I care he does his job as president. Every great American preisident has had ghastly flaws which in todays day and age would prevent them from getting elected. The man is not elected to be my moral leader and hero, he is elected to my political leader.
Although strike, hasn't the chinese government spent the last couple weeks trying to get people to not attend the nobel ceremony?
China has its own problems of course. I certainly aspire to be in no way like that backwater of human rights. I was just using them as one of the many whom happen to be breathing down our neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
[B]*Whistles*[/BQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
And you don't think that a man's morals are a great indication of how well he will make good on his promises? I am sorry, but the principles of a country are important to me, and I care how well a president upholds them and defends them. I think it has a lot to say about his moral character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No. History has proven that it is not so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
As Strike has already stated, the greatest American presidents have all had major character flaws, yet that has not prevented them from being of tremendous benefit to your country(and the world).
Winston Churchill was a womanizing drunkard. Yet he is among Britains most loved statesmen.
He is upholding them, and you and the people who wrote that letter are treating them like garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
The founding fathers reasoned their way from the status quo to a new/untried on that scale system of government. They did the opposite of what these jokers are doing in citing legislation passed in the 50's that reflects the culture of the time more than reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Quote:
"It's the economy stupid"
Moral principles have nothing to do with political principles. The mans morals mean jack all to me, everyone has skeletons in the closet, it gets to a point where we haggle over how morally outraged we are.Quote:
And you don't think that a man's morals are a great indication of how well he will make good on his promises? I am sorry, but the principles of a country are important to me, and I care how well a president upholds them and defends them. I think it has a lot to say about his moral character.
McCain Left his crippled wife
Gingrich screwed everything that was warm, while he was married
Reagan is a divorcee
Right wing politicians rarely exhibit the type of family values they claim to uphold. Gods, guns and gays are just issues republicans use to keep the base rallied and not really something they care about. Well, except for the new wave of tea party republicans.
I was just joking with the birth cerficiate thing...
The views of the founding fathers were rooted in ancient custom and a pretty superstitious reverence for an almost mythological ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution, which guaranteed them their rights as Englishmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If you look at the roots of their ideas on government, it seems to go back to this idea about how the first societies appointed government over themselves for their own good, and how the first political leaders were appointed by the people, rather than having a right to rule over them. Hence, monarchy, and the colonial situation Americans found themselves in were seen as perversions. A buzzword of the time was "innovations", with any sort of development in the form of goverance being condemned. They didn't see themselves as progressive, in their mind they were returning to the one true form of governance, and the golden age that came with it.
The constitution can only have any authority or value if you buy into the founding fathers ideas of natural law/reason, and the moral absolutism that comes with it, which dictates that one form of government is true and best.
Did he really get the national motto wrong? I mean, that's like a five second google search...
I get Strike's point, but tradition is important, even if it is a stupid tradition adopted out of fear of communist atheism. It took some low level congressional staffer about 30 minutes to write the letter, and probably about three hours to have it circulated around congress for signatures. That doesn't seem too excessive or wasteful too me if it teaches the good professor a little bit about the country he is supposed to be representing, especially considering 90% of the citizens of said county support the motto (and could probably quote it). :dizzy2:
No it's not. Tradition for tradition sake is for people scared that they can't handle life without things being the way "it should" and it holds people back from improving.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
"But I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum -- out of many, one. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika -- unity in diversity. (Applause.)"Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Why would he have said something different after a google search?
I think 90% of the country thinks making a fuss about having "in god we trust" on our money is silly. Which implies that the tradition isn't important, but trivial instead.Quote:
I get Strike's point, but tradition is important, even if it is a stupid tradition adopted out of fear of communist atheism.
especially considering 90% of the citizens of said county support the motto (and could probably quote it). :dizzy2:
If 90% of people trusted in god, then you might have an argument.
http://www.google.com/search?source=...motto&aq=f&oq=Quote:
Why would he have said something different after a google search?
E pluribus Unum hasn't been the national motto for over half a century, which, I thought, was basic American history.
With all due respect, your opinion on the relative silliness of the country's attitude towards the issue doesn't carry the weight to make any implications about it.Quote:
I think 90% of the country thinks making a fuss about having "in god we trust" on our money is silly. Which implies that the tradition isn't important, but trivial instead.
I think 43% of the country still supporting this dolt is silly. That is not, however, the basis to make broad implications about the silliness of those supporters that would be expected to sway any but those who accept my opinions as fact. :shrug:
Motto's and such nonsense is important to the outdated royals(it's part of that "package") and communist dictatorships.
Why is this an issue in a republicsn democracy?
Because revolutionaries never used slogans.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, they did, hence why I said so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I, for one, applaud the good work done by the Assembly of Experts in safeguarding the religious purity of the Christian Republic of America.
As my Texas history schoolbook has taught me, America has always been a Christian theocracy, first amongst the free theocratic republics of the world.
Freedom, Independence, Christian Republic! :iran:
OK "communist dictatorships"... you were making it sound like the sort of movement you identify with wouldn't use them. I don't know how I always end up arguing with you when we don't really directly disagree often...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
For all the rightful mocking of the wannabe-theocratcs in the US of A, they really aren't any further off in their understanding of the constitution that todays New Atheists, who for some reason try to write french-style laicitie into the document. Sure laugh at O'Donnell, but what the so-called "secular humanists" etc are saying is no less ridiculous and dishonest from a historical perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
No, I'm afraid not. There is no double attack on America's history. There is an attack by religious fundamentalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
There is a sustained attack to rewrite American constitutional and political history, to show that it has always been a theocracy. It simply hasn't. As regards the specific points about it in this thread, the motto 'E Pluribus Unum' was replaced in the 1950's with 'In god we trust'. To the pledge of allegiance to the flag was added 'one nation under God' in 1954. 'So help me God' was added as a suffix to the oaths of office. The presidents of old certainly not swore to God. On US money is printed since the 1950s 'In God we trust'.
Even allowing for the dominant role of religion in US history, these are all outrageous acts for a free republic. They belong to a theocracy. There is no modern parallel in the free world to it. Nowhere in Europe or in East Asia can one find a similar assault on religious freedom in the modern age. The likeminded religious revolution is in Iran a little later, where the newly installed Islamic Republic of the 1970s mirrored the Christian Republic of America.
And in Iran too, elected politicians will receive angry letters from religious politicians like this one, 'kindly' informing him he too must toe the religious line. Some fine freedom.
Basically they are sidestepping an argument for religion by making an argument for tradition. But it's not in the tradition of the country to sidestep your real argument because you can't back it up, not in any good tradition anyway :p
But there is. As you well know, France's vision of laicitie is rooted in the circumstances (notably the anticlericalism) surrounding its revolution. Every country has different models of church-state relations due to their historic circumstances. Those of the USA could not be more different to those of France. The US was founded on the ideals of freedom to religion, France on freedom from. In France, their vision of freedom and republicanism was rooted in the writings of atheists and deists. In the USA, it was rooted in a mix of Protestant theology and English constitutionalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
To suggest that such different circumstances could have given rise to the same vision of secularism and church-state relations is completely dishonest and divorced from reality. French secularism means that the religous and political spheres are not only separate, it is seen as unacceptable for them to interact with each other. In the USA, while secularism means that there is an institutional separation fo church and state, that does not prevent individuals allowing their private faith to influence their political views. To an American (and to me) it seems tyrannical to not allow this to be the case.
For a Frenchman and a believer in laicite, any mention of religion in political life is seen as a threat to freedom. In Frenchland, the President could never say any of his political decisions were influenced by his private religious views, because then people woudl scream "laicitie!... Church and state are separate!"
US secularims means the separation of political and religious institutions, not the separation of political/religious views at the individual level. In France, it means separation at both the institutional and individual level. But in taking things to the individual level, this seems to me to infringe freedom of conscience.
What seperates a communist dictatoship and a revolutionary movement is "time" :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I for one find it highly entertaining! i blame my father, however. There's a family trait that says "whenever someone is in agreement, find something to object to!" :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Well a quick google tells me that it's been on currency since the 1860's and has been on all currency since the 1930's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_TrustQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I think you americans should use "E Pluribus Unum" as your motto. That is an awesome motto, "In God We Trust" just makes you look superstitious.