Fundamentalism

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your historical knowledge is zip as I've already shown.

Now there is a nice rebuttal.

The U.S. government is definitely not moving towards secularism.
According to the first ammendment of the constitution, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. However, the national anthem has relatively recently (1954) had "under god" added to it, and "In god we trust" has also been put on all of our money. There is a pending court case about the constitutionality of the "under god" clause, but there is no question in my mind that both of these developements blatantly violate the first ammendment. Therefore, the constitution may be secular, but that seems to do very little to prevent the government from pasing religious laws.

Originally posted by whiterose
The U.S. government is definitely not moving towards secularism.
According to the first ammendment of the constitution, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. However, the national anthem has relatively recently (1954) had "under god" added to it, and "In god we trust" has also been put on all of our money. There is a pending ...[text shortened]... ar, but that seems to do very little to prevent the government from pasing religious laws.

So tell me, which estasblished religion is Congress respecting by adding the "under God" to our national anthem? Which established religion is Congress respecting with "IN God we Trust" on our money? Should the Liberty Bell be removed from public property or melted down because it has Leviticus 25:10 inscribed upon it?

As far as i know, only christians believe in "god", but it doesn't matter. God is a religious word, and has no place in a secular state. Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof says nothing about god or religion. The bible is just book from a secular point of view, and can be quoted just like any other by government agencies without impinging upon the separation of church and state, provided that "god" or other religious words are not mentioned.

Originally posted by whodey
ALL laws are based upon a moral code of some kind. Is it "good" to murder or not to murder. Is it "good" to speed or not to speed etc. I base my moral code on my religious beliefs and you base yours soley on what only seems right to you. It then comes down to who's moral code do you go by to decide what is best for society. I say the majority rules wheth heocracy. They in no way wanted a state sponsered religion/church to control the masses.

Again, the second paragraph is a bunch of pre-programmed propaganda that has been previously shown to be untrue on these forums in virtually every aspect. Yet, you repeat it without a second thought. This shows exactly what a fundamentalist is, someone so brainwashed that he is incapable of independent thought.

EDIT: Your first paragraph merely illustrates your frightening ignorance of the philosophical principles this country was founded on.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, which estasblished religion is Congress respecting by adding the "under God" to our national anthem? Which established religion is Congress respecting with "IN God we Trust" on our money? Should the Liberty Bell be removed from public property or melted down because it has Leviticus 25:10 inscribed upon it?

Questions that you'll ignore (you've been given the answers previously):

When did Congress add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (not the national anthem, dolt)?

When did the phrase "In God we trust" start being put on our money?

When was Leviticus 25:10 put on the "Liberty Bell"?

Originally posted by whodey
Now there is a nice rebuttal.

Since you ignore the facts, what else is there to say?

under god-1954
liberty bell-1751
in god we trust- slightly more complicated, see full story:http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm, but it had been on all money since 1957

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yet, you repeat it without a second thought.

I have noticed that, in order to save time, Whodey tends to skip the "first thought" most of the time too.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, the second paragraph is a bunch of pre-programmed propaganda that has been previously shown to be untrue on these forums in virtually every aspect. Yet, you repeat it without a second thought. This shows exactly what a fundamentalist is, someone so brainwashed that he is incapable of independent thought.

EDIT: Your first paragraph merely illustrates your frightening ignorance of the philosophical principles this country was founded on.

In fact, nothing I have said has shown to be untrue. Perhaps it has been proven in your own mind and perhaps you would like to share what has been shown to be untrue? Therefore feel free to continue to rebutt every statement I make by saying I am
1. brainwashed
2. or everything you say has already been shown to be untrue
3. and/or I am incapable of independent thought.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Questions that you'll ignore (you've been given the answers previously):

When did Congress add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (not the national anthem, dolt)?

When did the phrase "In God we trust" start being put on our money?

When was Leviticus 25:10 put on the "Liberty Bell"?

What I should have said and what I was trying to say was what establishment of religion is our government respecting by allowing the "in God we trust" on our currency? What establishment of religion is being respected by allowing the "one nation under God" to our anthem? In fact, it could be any religion and in no way sponsors a state religion of any kind. That is all I am saying. Whether we are talking about the original founding fathers or those who proceeded them a generation after or even those in government a century ago, you must conceede that the seperation of church and state was not seen the same as it is today. Today secularists have become religious phobic to the point that the mere sight of the Ten Commandments in our court rooms is seen as a threat to them rather than a symbolic reference to our judicial heritage and therefore must be removed as a result. The presence of the Ten Commandments in no way effects the affairs of the state within the court room. In fact, any judge or lawyer who would refer to the Ten Commandments would be laughed out of the court room.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Questions that you'll ignore (you've been given the answers previously):

When did Congress add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (not the national anthem, dolt)?

When did the phrase "In God we trust" start being put on our money?

When was Leviticus 25:10 put on the "Liberty Bell"?

So what you are implying is that the government in the past had moved away from the intended "seperation of church and state" intended doctrine of our Framers and now we are back to where they intended us to be? If so, I say melt down the Liberty Bell!!!!! I think it will make us all feel much better about ourselves and it will show those crazy fundi's where to get off!!!!!!!🙄

Originally posted by whiterose
As far as i know, only christians believe in "god", but it doesn't matter. God is a religious word, and has no place in a secular state. Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof says nothing about god or religion. The bible is just book from a secular point of view, and can be quoted just like any other by government agenci ...[text shortened]... ration of church and state, provided that "god" or other religious words are not mentioned.

The inscription on the Liberty Bell was taken from Leviticus 25:10. Granted, it may not mention God, but is it a conflict of religion and state for a scripture of a particular religion to be used as a reference? I say it is not where others would say, melt it down!!!!
I feel as though we can honor a religious heritage of a particular country as we have done in the past without respecting a particular established religion of that country.

As far as mentioning God, as I said before, the mention of God does not respect any particular established religion and could refer to any established religion. Granted, people today have taken the liberty of intepreting what our founding fathers were trying to convey buy saying that any reference to God is a violation of respecting an established religion. However, as I have shown it has not been interpreted as such in the past and is a new phenomenon.

Originally posted by whodey
What I should have said and what I was trying to say was what establishment of religion is our government respecting by allowing the "in God we trust" on our currency? What establishment of religion is being respected by allowing the "one nation under God" to our anthem? In fact, it could be any religion and in no way sponsors a state religion of any kind. ...[text shortened]... ge or lawyer who would refer to the Ten Commandments would be laughed out of the court room.

The claim that they are not referring to any specific god is a disingenuous one. Even though it's not explicitly stated, it's painfully obvious which god they mean. But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. The fact remains that the phrase endorses the belief in a god of some type. There are many citizens in this country who have no belief in any god and find the inclusion of the phrase on Federal currency and coinage to be offensive.

The Ten Commandments have no place in a courtroom at all. It is not a symbolic reference to anyone's judicial heritage, but rather a direct reference to someone's particular religious heritage. Churches are the appropriate venues for reflecting on one's religious heritage, not courtrooms. The placement of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is a state endorsement of christianity. Once again, there are many citizens in this country who do not come from that particular religious heritage. Can a Hindu expect to gain equal protection under the law when he clearly does not practice the state sanctioned religion?

There are two ways you could go here. You could give equal time to any and all religious faiths, and non-religious sentiments, in a courtroom, which would include Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, etc., etc., etc., or you remove all references to any particular faith from the courtroom. Since the business of a court does not include reflecting upon anyone's religious faith, it makes far more sense to remove them all.

Originally posted by whodey
I have had several discussions about fundamentalism in other threads and thought it best to start a new thread on the matter. It seems as though many people view fundamentalism as the source of evil in the world today. If it is indeed the source of evil then I dare say it deserves its own thread. Someone provided me with this web site about the "evils" of as the Pilgrims who came to America then evil? After all, they were also fundi's, no?

Whodey: "I wonder if such people could be labeled fundamentalists even though they profess atheism? "

Oh, sure. Our resident agnostic fundamentalist is no1marauder. The Constitution of the United States of America forms his holy scripture. His god, his idol, is liberal freedom of which a statue can be admired in the harbour of New York, donated by the French and called "Marianne".