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.
Rhy, I understand America has its own traditions. There's no point in projecting a different history on it.
Still America's history is not one of Protestant fundamentalism. Even if one understands that the religious element is a constant in American history, one can still see that religious fundamentalism has encroached upon the state and the public sphere in the past century. America's political and constitutional history are being rewritten by fundamentalist blogs, scientists, lawyers. It is all quite dismaying. Political and legal science are under attack from fundamentalists just as much as biology.
(Whereas in France, which I don't mistake for America, this religious encroachment, the perennial attacks on the third Republic by Catholicism, plus the outcry over the depravity of the religious right during the Dreyfus affair, led to the very twentieth century(!) solution of laïcité.)
I've been had!Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
Nevertheless, even that quick wiki tells the familiar story, that of encroaching religionisation, in this case of America's coin and paper money. When the Romans wished to trap Jesus, they showed him a coin bearing the likeness of Caesar. They hadn't counted on Jesus' modesty: 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's!'
No such separation for the American clerics. No such modesty for the American Taleban. Unlike the man they worship, they would not rest until their god was printed on every coin and bill:
Quote:
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin, followed in 1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866–1883), quarter dollar, half dollar, silver dollar and gold dollars.[1][3] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."
Use of the motto on circulating coinage is required by law. A March 3, 1865 law allowed the motto to be used on coins.[4] The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. While several laws come into play, the act of May 18, 1908,[5] is most often cited as requiring the motto (even though the cent and nickel were excluded from that law, and the nickel did not have the motto added until 1938). Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. On July 11, 1955 it became required on all coins and currency by Act of Congress.[6] The motto was added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.[1]
For the record, I was arguing that the president should know basic American history, culture, and tradition - like the national motto, how many states there are in the union, and placing one's hand over one's heart during the playing of the national anthem. I'm not interested in the religious angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
He does. But how can he go to indonesia and talk about "in god we trust" instead of "e pluribus unum"?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
In God we trust has nothing to do with the Declaration of Indepence. If you are going to be all smug and point out how Obama got his motto's wrong (well, his tenses really), at the very least don't start making the exact same sort of mistake yourself. :book:
Actually, the Presidential Oath of Office has never required any reference to God, though the oaths of some judicial offices do. The text, as mandated by the Constitution, makes no reference to Deity in any fashion. However, tradition asserts that Washington himself appended the phrase "so help me God" to the oath -- a common verbal convention of his era. There is no specific documentary proof to suggest that he did or did not, only the tradition. There is written evidence that Chester Arthur used that phrasing in his oath of office and we have specific recordings of that phrasing having been used by all Presidents from and including Franklin Roosevelt to the present. It seems likely that the tradition predate Arthur, though there is no distinct evidence either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
But that wasn't what was envisioned by America's founders! Putting your hand over your heart was put in place by that socialist FDR in 1942! America needs to go back to the real salute for the flag:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...edge_salue.jpg
Surely there any number of things the president can discuss in a speech in Indonesia without having to make things up? Why was he required to speak about the respective national mottos at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki
Fine by me. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He's not making it up...it's a big part of american history, it's a huge part of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
"out of many, one" ... ... The united states of america
"Never codified by law, E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H.J. Resolution 396), adopting In God We Trust as the official motto.[5] ...The first coins with this motto were dated 1786 and struck under the authorization of the State of New Jersey by Thomas Goadsby and Albion Cox in Rahway, New Jersey[7]"
What is the national motto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
There isn't one national motto, just one official one.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
It's like he referred to something American's like to do a lot as our pastime, and someone wrote an angry letter about HOW OUR NATIONAL PASTIME IS BASEBALL
I love they way this stupid thing about a national motto is soooo important but the reason or location for the speech is not.
America is gonna need friends in Asia in the future but you all prefer to worry that Obama is gonna burn churches or set up a mosque in the Whitehouse.
Indonesia - ask our two patrons from there - is under siege from Islamism. Terrorism, encroaching sharia, trampled rights of non-Muslims in this most diverse country. The last thing democratic and pluralist Indonesia needs is support from the US president for theocracy.
Obama did very well to showcase America's plurality, its tradition of embracing different people of different bakcground, its liberty. This supports democracy in Indonesia, bolsters anti-Islamicist groups, inspires those students. Obama's speech is the equivalent of 'Ich bin ein Baliner'.*
If Indonesians want to hear theocratic mottos, they can just turn on their state radio.
* There must be people at the NYT or the Guardian who would sell their mother in exchange for that genius headline, which you fine gentlemen at this cult games forum get for free.
Mutual exclusiveness between the two clauses seems implied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
It is not important at all. This is the same type of letter congressmen have been sending presidents for years in order to score easy political points. It is interesting to see the lengths people will go in order to deny that the current POTUS did not even know the national motto, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
No, national does not entail official.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
No it's like louis said. They (and you) are either ignorant of the fact that "e pluribus unum" is a national motto or willfully avoiding acknowledging it, and focusing on that rather than it's appropriateness to the speech and things that actually matter.Quote:
It is interesting to see the lengths people will go in order to deny that the current POTUS did not even know the national motto, though.
5 second google is your standard-->
1. "national motto"
2. "I'm feeling lucky"
3. wikipedia
4:
Downplaying it ignores US history.Quote:
* Uganda: For God and My Country[121]
* United States: In God We Trust (official) and E pluribus unum (Latin, Out of many, one) (de-facto)
o See also list of U.S. state and territory mottos
* Uruguay: Libertad o Muerte (Spanish, "Liberty or Death")[122]
Yes, it does when congress gets involved. Or would I be correct in stating that 'Fat Bottom Girls' is the US national anthem, that the militia movement is part of the US national guard, that my backyard is a US national park, that the hamburger is the US national emblem, and that the Stars and Bars is the national flag?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Who is downplaying it? It is important. It is relevant. It is not the national motto.Quote:
Downplaying it ignores US history.
Not sure what you are trying to do here, but you proved my point. There are many national parks. Something being "national" does not require that it be singular. So, "e pluribus unum" is a national motto. And as it is vastly preferable to "in god we trust" to use in his speech in indonesia he did a wise and well informed thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
It has nothing to do with singularity, it has to do with the question of whether national implies official. There are many national parks, but they were all established by acts of congress. There is one national emblem established by congress. There is one national anthem established by congress. There is one national flag of the United States. And there is only one national motto established by congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The congress part isn't relevant. It's on the money. It's traditional. It's a motto. It's national.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I'd say the de-facto motto is nore relevant than the one ordered by law.
Because the de-facto one is where it is because of its merit, while the other is there because of the law.
As I said I don't deny it, America is not a theocracy, and never had been. Indeed, there are some of a fundamentalist persuasion that seem to think being a theocracy is an American value, and they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
But... to exlude religion from the political sphere completely (a la laicite) is not, and never has been, the American way of doing things. Certainly, religious institutions/values are in no way institutionalised into the political system. That would make the US a theocracy. But for the ordinary voter to allow his religious beliefs to influence his political views does not mean he is a theocrat. To deny him the right to do this is to deny his liberty of conscience. And yet this is what laicite and the New Atheists demand - that people keep their political and religious views seperate.
Of course, fundamentally, the very idea of singling out religious beliefs, based on the fact that they are rooted in a belief in a deity, is pretty arbitrary. So if I want to ban abortion because of my secular humanist values, thats OK. But if I want to do it because of my religious values... no, laicite! :stare: