Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;727084]Thread checklist

Black National Anthem -- check
Global Warming -- check
Existence of God - check
Mosque at Ground Zero (well 2 blocks away) -- check
Left bashing right - check
Right being offended by left bashing right - check
Unicorns -- check
Taxes - ??
Universal Healthcare -- ??[/quote]

You forgot:

Nazis -- ??
Simpsons -- ??

You could also throw in:

Pie -- ??
Question 3 -- ??

But they are a bit more WP specific.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Sorry dude, I am a libertarian leaning conservative if there is such a thing and Glenn Beck is a joke in all honesty. Did you see him a few years ago with the fake tears on Fox talking about his 9/12 Project? The guy even admits he is more of an entertainer than newsman,etc. What he has successfully done is get so called conservatives to follow his schtick(and Palin's) and ignore the more change minded and serious Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. Also if Beck was such the influential man, why did less than 200,000 people show up to his much advertised Rally? And really, do you see a revival with tons of people going back to God? I go to a rather large church and well over 70% of the parishoners are older retirees or folks in their 50's(which fits in with Fox's and Becks number one market age group). Another one of Beck's jobs is to help with the illusion of there being a true opposition party in America, where in reality you get pretty much the same policies no matter who you want to vote for. Beck just wants to give his flock the illusion that their way of life can somehow return to what it used to be ie circa 1970. Beck is making a killing on book sales, etc playing to the fears of a dying demographic that rather live in self delusion than actually doing anything to salvage anything of their way of life.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Wait, we're still talking about Beck? Why, I thought we had moved onto Global Warming Nazis and the climate change's effect on apple pie?

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;727133]Wait, we're still talking about Beck? Why, I thought we had moved onto Global Warming Nazis and the climate change's effect on apple pie?[/QUOTE]

I have heard that it is a scientific fact that apples will no longer turn red due to gcc and thus more apples will be available for pies. pie nazi tho' will still not allow seinfeld to order at his store. Meanwhile joe gibbs remains speechless that beck was not asked a question as tough as question 3 was.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Does the fact that I stated that the Simpsons have not been referenced count as a Simpsons reference?

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;727147]Does the fact that I stated that the Simpsons have not been referenced count as a Simpsons reference?[/QUOTE]

I would think that clarifying the checklist doesn't count as a mention

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;727026]Excellent post.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing my beliefs being referred to as fairy tales by those who chose to believe differently.

[B]BB, where do your "inalienable rights" come from?[/B] If you do not believe in the existence of a being outside creation, aren't they just conveyed to you by other humans? If so conveyed, isn't it equally true that they can be legitimately denied by the same?[/quote]

From an agreed upon system of government/culture that places value upon them. It is a creation of men and their philosophy and yes, it is possible they could be denied, look around the globe for countless examples. IF these rights were guaranteed by our supposed creator, you'd think he/she/it would do a better job of follow up. Just sayin'. Oh, I know, mysterious ways and all that. Right.

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that [URL="http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html"]Jefferson originally wrote[/URL] "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their [B]Creator[/B] with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Also, the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean the role of creator is played by a god. Could very well be a process, like, I don't know, evolution? Take it for what it's worth.

Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

Why is it disrespectful for the religious to be told their beliefs are baseless when those of us who prefer to live in the real world must constantly be told that we "need saving" or "face eternal damnation..?" Why are religious views worthy of more respect? I'd love to hear an answer without "god" in the verbiage.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;727337]From an agreed upon system of government/culture that places value upon them. It is a creation of men and their philosophy and yes, it is possible they could be denied, look around the globe for countless examples. [B]IF these rights were guaranteed by our supposed creator, you'd think he/she/it would do a better job of follow up. [/B]Just sayin'. Oh, I know, mysterious ways and all that. Right. [/quote]

Preliminarily, we have a very different understanding of God. I have said this before in a more detailed post, but, put simply, my God doesn’t keep human pets.

We are free to disbelieve in God and, as such, we are free, through “agreed upon system[s] of government[s]/culture[s]”, to choose systems that deprive fellow humans of their basic humanity. It’s not the Creator’s job to ensure that we love and respect each other – [I]it’s ours [/I](Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?). Our success or failure in that respect, however, does not belie the Creator's underlying endowment. Rather, if the Creator forced humans to behave in certain ways, then we are not truly free, the Judeo-Christian God is a lie, and we are just very intelligent hamsters in a cage.

[Similarly, earlier you said you demand proof of God’s existence. Actually, what you are demanding is forensic evidence of God’s existence – God’s blood samples and fingerprints. Such a demand is antithetical to the God in which I believe. If you have undeniable, forensic evidence that a supreme, all powerful being exists, then to disobey such a being is foolhardy. Again, my God says I am free to disbelieve him/her/it. Forensic evidence destroys the need for faith but equally destroys the ability to freely choose. W/out freedom of choice, you cannot choose to love. Rather, the “proof” of my God’s existence comes in the form of testimony - testimony that you categorically disbelieve and find not credible. That’s your choice. I am not going to go into a long discourse on my philosophical/spiritual journey but, suffice it to say, it was long, contemplative and rocky and the outcome not certain until my mid -30’s. Through my own experience, I found some testimonial proof concerning the existence of God credible and some not so much. I weighed them and, after much thought and analysis, made my own determination. You are free to make the same choices or not.]

[quote=BleedBurgundy;727337]Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that [URL="http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html"]Jefferson originally wrote[/URL] "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their [B]Creator[/B] with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Also, the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean the role of creator is played by a god. Could very well be a process, like, I don't know, evolution? Take it for what it's worth. [/quote]

Again, I believe evolution took place [I]and[/I] I believe it to be entirely consistent with the existence of God. I do believe that, at some point, something was [I]created[/I] from nothing. Even if you say, created is part of the evolutionary process, fine by me – the rights did not come from man and cannot legitimately be taken away by other men.

As for being “forced to pander to the religious”, I don’t recall an armed militia holding a gun to the Continental Congress. They made a choice based on their experience. I suggest you see it as pandering b/c of your hostile attitude toward religion rather than a conclusion with factual basis.

[quote=BleedBurgundy;727337]Why is it disrespectful for the religious to be told their beliefs are baseless when those of us who prefer to live in the real world must constantly be told that we "need saving" or "face eternal damnation..?" Why are religious views worthy of more respect? I'd love to hear an answer without "god" in the verbiage.[/quote]

Ahh. So some individuals/groups made remarks that disparaged your belief system and you feel the appropriate response is to treat anyone who holds similar beliefs to those individuals/groups with equal and opposite disrespect. Excellent moral/ethical conclusion – do unto others as they do unto me. Nice. Sign me up for that system.

Why are religious views worthy of [I]more[/I] respect? They aren't. I would suggest, however, that the spiritual choices and belief systems of others are worthy of the [I]same[/I] respect you demand for your own belief system. Your disrespect towards millions of people you don’t know strikes me as arrogant and condescending.

To be clear – I live in the “real world” and am not passing judgment on your spiritual choices. Who knows, maybe there is no God. I’ll take that chance and you take yours. In the meantime, I will live in the moment, cherish the gift of life and do unto others as I would have them do unto me - Even if they are disrespectful, arrogant individuals who mock my beliefs without any understanding of how I arrived at them.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;727532]Preliminarily, we have a very different understanding of God. I have said this before in a more detailed post, but, put simply, my God doesn’t keep human pets.

We are free to disbelieve in God and, as such, we are free, through “agreed upon system[s] of government[s]/culture[s]”, to choose systems that deprive fellow humans of their basic humanity. It’s not the Creator’s job to ensure that we love and respect each other – [I]it’s ours [/I](Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?). Our success or failure in that respect, however, does not belie the Creator's underlying endowment. Rather, if the Creator forced humans to behave in certain ways, then we are not truly free, the Judeo-Christian God is a lie, and we are just very intelligent hamsters in a cage.

[Similarly, earlier you said you demand proof of God’s existence. Actually, what you are demanding is forensic evidence of God’s existence – God’s blood samples and fingerprints. Such a demand is antithetical to the God in which I believe. If you have undeniable, forensic evidence that a supreme, all powerful being exists, then to disobey such a being is foolhardy. Again, my God says I am free to disbelieve him/her/it. Forensic evidence destroys the need for faith but equally destroys the ability to freely choose. W/out freedom of choice, you cannot choose to love. Rather, the “proof” of my God’s existence comes in the form of testimony - testimony that you categorically disbelieve and find not credible. That’s your choice. I am not going to go into a long discourse on my philosophical/spiritual journey but, suffice it to say, it was long, contemplative and rocky and the outcome not certain until my mid -30’s. Through my own experience, I found some testimonial proof concerning the existence of God credible and some not so much. I weighed them and, after much thought and analysis, made my own determination. You are free to make the same choices or not.]



Again, I believe evolution took place [I]and[/I] I believe it to be entirely consistent with the existence of God. I do believe that, at some point, something was [I]created[/I] from nothing. Even if you say, created is part of the evolutionary process, fine by me – the rights did not come from man and cannot legitimately be taken away by other men.

As for being “forced to pander to the religious”, I don’t recall an armed militia holding a gun to the Continental Congress. They made a choice based on their experience. I suggest you see it as pandering b/c of your hostile attitude toward religion rather than a conclusion with factual basis.



Ahh. So some individuals/groups made remarks that disparaged your belief system and you feel the appropriate response is to treat anyone who holds similar beliefs to those individuals/groups with equal and opposite disrespect. Excellent moral/ethical conclusion – do unto others as they do unto me. Nice. Sign me up for that system.

Why are religious views worthy of [I]more[/I] respect? They aren't. I would suggest, however, that the spiritual choices and belief systems of others are worthy of the [I]same[/I] respect you demand for your own belief system. Your disrespect towards millions of people you don’t know strikes me as arrogant and condescending.

To be clear – I live in the “real world” and am not passing judgment on your spiritual choices. Who knows, maybe there is no God. I’ll take that chance and you take yours. In the meantime, I will live in the moment, cherish the gift of life and do unto others as I would have them do unto me - Even if they are disrespectful, arrogant individuals who mock my beliefs without any understanding of how I arrived at them.[/quote]Great post, very well said.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;727337]Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.[/quote]Then why even make your statement.

My little scenario is certainly no "agrument for religion". Just a 30 second retort to folks who know everything, look at Christians as idiots, and feel the need to mock people's beliefs publicly. Who knows, maybe it's made someone over the years think and eventually seek and find God.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;727337]Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that [URL="http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html"]Jefferson originally wrote[/URL] "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their [B]Creator[/B] with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.[/quote]

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights#Text]Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#English_jurisprudence]Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] (my emphasis).
[quote]Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time. As his recent editor has written, once Coke said that something was the law, almost everyone agreed. Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke’s custom and right reason." Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that before the Revolution, the first volume of Coke's [I]Institutes of the Laws of England[/I] "was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties."

Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things.” For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will. Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): [I][B]"The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." [/B][/I]In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.[/quote]

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, [I]a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?[/I] Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes [url=http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html]Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial[/url]

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. [url=http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm]Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers[/url]

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Some girl is in our office with a screaming baby and its driving me nuts. If I go nuts will that be covered under OBama care? I'm guessing the baby is starving because the Rep. blocked some bill to keep babies from eating.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

You could probably file a stress claim under comp.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

It depends on the type of nut you turn into. If you turn into a right-wing Nazi terrorist then most likely not. If you turn into ACORN, yes.

If you turn into a pecan, well, then you'll just be made into a pie.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;727559]Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights#Text]Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#English_jurisprudence]Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] (my emphasis).


And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, [I]a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?[/I] Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes [url=http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html]Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial[/url]

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. [url=http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm]Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers[/url]

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.[/quote]

You are officially more smarterized than me. Well done.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;727637]It depends on the type of nut you turn into. If you turn into a right-wing Nazi terrorist then most likely not. If you turn into ACORN, yes.

If you turn into a pecan, well, then you'll just be made into a pie.[/quote]
Now if someone would just give a useful if meaningless Simpsons reference the checklist would be complete!

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;727638]You are officially more smarterized than me. Well done.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - I try to take a scientifical approach to things.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;726506][B]I dismiss insanity pretty readily. When someone gets up and starts claiming that we as a nation need to turn back to a mythological being in hopes of fixing real world problems... sorry, I don't need to listen to that nonsense.[/B] I wonder... if this were someone saying that the US needs to turn to Allah for guidance in order to restore honor (whatever the hell that even means), how would that work out? Buddha? [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster"]Pastafarianism[/URL]? Sorry, crazy is crazy. I don't pay attention to the guy on the train rambling about the end of the world and I likewise can't be bothered with an uneducated blowhard spouting equivalent drivel. [B][B]The only reason it's even worthy of discussion is that there are at least 300,000 like minded lunatics.[/[/B][/B]QUOTE]

so you think christians are insane lunatics? people like you are the reason this country is so screwed up.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

Then we have to contend with the issue of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams, (many of whom consider to be among the most Puritanical of the Founders) which says...

[QUOTE]Art. 11. [B]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;[/B] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[/QUOTE]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... much more, in fact, than the relatively vague "Creator" mention.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727661]Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.[/quote]

They [I]could have [/I]written any number of equivalent titles. To assert the Founding Fathers weren't "certain" of their belief that the "Creator", "Almighty God", the "Divine Being", the "Holiest of Holies", etc. existed and granted certain inalienable rights to humans is to completely disregard their writings and statements made at the time. It is an assertion which is clearly contradicted by historical fact.

The "modern day evangelicals" often misconstrue what the Founders meant by certain stateemnts relating to religion and God in order to make it in accord with their own belief system. However, the misuse of the Founder's words by some does not discount the firmness and conviction of the Founders underlying beliefs which can only be determined fully by looking at those words in the context of their time and in the context of the otherwise stated beliefs of those who made them.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

the government no but the united states of america yes.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727696]If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.[/quote]

Remember the 1st Amendment was written in many ways with respect to the liberties that were being repressed by the King of England. That included the freedom to establish Protestant churches instead of Anglican (or Church of England) ones. As for the Treaty of Tripoli, what were we supposed to say, that we were in search of a holy were with the "musselmans"??? Political expediency was and is alive and well.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727661]Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.[/quote]

I believe they said exactly what they meant to say and didn't play games. They are meaning God in the generic sense. Not necessarily their own specific God. They were in the midst of unshackling themselves from religious tyranny so they understood the err of citing one specific theological God. I don't think what they said was at all less "certain" more than it was meant to be more accessible.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727671]Then we have to contend with the issue of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams, (many of whom consider to be among the most Puritanical of the Founders) which says...

[QUOTE]Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[/quote]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... much more, in fact, than the relatively vague "Creator" mention.[/QUOTE]

The US wasn’t founded on "the Christian Religion". Rather it was founded on the [I]freedom of religion[/I]. The founders were not atheists. They were, however, [I]very[/I] concerned with any attempt by the State to coerce [I]anyone[/I] into [I]any[/I] religion by government action.

On one hand, Madison writes of religion in govt. as evil:

[quote]What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [/quote]
Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785 [url=http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm]Quotes on Religion - James Madison[/url]

At the same time, Madison was a firm believer in Christianity and felt only by freedom of choice could both good government and religious pursuits.

[quote]It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.[/quote]

[url=http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/10/Letter_from_James_Madison_to_FL_Schaeffer_1.html]Letter from James Madison to F.L. Schaeffer[/url]

Despite the need for separation, Madison also felt that the principles of “Christian forbearance, love and charity” were necessary for civil society.

[quote]Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that [I]all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society, and [B] that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.[/B][/I][/quote]

[url=http://www.doctorsenator.com/JamesMadison.html]James Madison[/url] (My emphasis).

Again, to try and disassociate the Founders’ belief in God and their creation and adoption of the founding documents is simply wrong. It is also wrong, however, to assert that the Founders intended to found an evangelical (or, for that matter, any particular type of) “Christian Nation”. Rather, they intended to found a nation based on the liberties they saw encapsulated in “natural law” and, accordingly, believed that the “inalienable rights” they stated within the Declaration and the Constitution were rights granted man by a Divine Being. Given that they were granted divinely, there was no way these rights could be legitimately denied by other men. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727696]If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.[/quote]

I think it is quite clear they believed in God and believed that our rights were afforded to us by a God. It is also quite clear they didn't attempt to define what or who that God was. Trying to establish a form of gov't based on a specific religion isn't the same as establishing a form of gov't based on one's values, which are in alignment in a general sense with a religion. They believed in God. They believed we exist because of God. They believed we had rights given us by God. They believed it wasn't their right to define that God for us and/or even make you believe in the same thing.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Beemnseven;727696]If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.[/quote]

Give unto Ceasar that which is due Ceasar. Give unto God that which is due God.

As shown in my post above, the Framers firmly believed in the separation of church and state. To me, this is absolutely in line with the Judeo Christian tradition. As I stated earlier, it is my belief that the God revealed in the Talmud and Bible is a God who asks us to freely choose him. Separation of church and state not only permits this but is conducive to such a choice. Despite the attempts of many, belief cannot be mandated, legislated or coerced. For it to be real, it must be chosen. The Founders recognized this and, accordingly, protected that choice through the First Amendment.

Nothing in the First Amendment places anyone or any God above any other. Instead, the Amendment guarantees that each of us is allowed to recognize (or deny) that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [to] have no other gods before him" .

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

This thread is amazing.

Remember the United States is never going to be a Christian Nation, but rather a nation made up of many Christians.

The former would be very very bad, but the later is just what we have always been.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

This thread needs a DISTRACTION.

[url=http://img108.imageshack.us/f/motivator37302ne6.jpg/]Imageshack - motivator37302ne6.jpg[/url]

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=firstdown;727727]This thread needs a DISTRACTION.

[url=http://img108.imageshack.us/f/motivator37302ne6.jpg/]Imageshack - motivator37302ne6.jpg[/url][/quote]

Wait, a better distraction!! [Might be NSFW]

[url=http://www.lazygirls.info/Marge_Simpson/Playtoon_Magazine_Jan_2008_YlsFoIh]Ohh Baby!!![/url]

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

I was gonna throw out the Truth or dare picture(in Super happy fun thread now) here, but I kinda wanted to keep it civil given the discussion. I can see that was a silly thought.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[IMG]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/glenn-beck-crazy-is-as-crazy-does-demotivational-poster-1255892533.jpg[/IMG]

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[IMG]http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz229/bryankenny64/old20t20back.jpg[/IMG][/IMG]

Matty loves this one. This will cause a little more than a distraction!!!!!

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/stewart-colbert-to-host-rallie.html]Post Now - Stewart, Colbert to host rallies on Mall[/url]

Now thats a rally Im gonna try to make. Should be funny and not political, exactly like Becks.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Chico23231;734511][URL="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/stewart-colbert-to-host-rallie.html"]Post Now - Stewart, Colbert to host rallies on Mall[/URL]

Now thats a rally Im gonna try to make. Should be funny and not political, exactly like Becks.[/quote]

Yep, funny but without the side helping of crazy

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/12/10/gps.witw.glenn.beck.cnn?hpt=T2]Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com[/url]

Hilariously sad...but some people actually believe this lol

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Chico23231;768011][URL="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/12/10/gps.witw.glenn.beck.cnn?hpt=T2"]Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com[/URL]

Hilariously sad...but some people actually believe this lol[/quote]

Thats considered breaking news for CNN? No wonder their rating has dropped so much over the years. He said it as his opinion and they cut the clip so short its not put into any kind context so who knows what else he talked about.

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=firstdown;768328]Thats considered breaking news for CNN? No wonder their rating has dropped so much over the years. He said it as his opinion and they cut the clip so short its not put into any kind context so who knows what else he talked about.[/quote]

Come on now thats funny...if your muslim your proably be pretty offended. His opinion then is way off, but the thing is, his presentation of information comes across as if it is facts. He believes everything he says and thens trys to support it...I like what the guy says, the reason more people are not talking about it, is its not true. lol

Re: My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally
 

[quote=Chico23231;734511][URL="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/stewart-colbert-to-host-rallie.html"]Post Now - Stewart, Colbert to host rallies on Mall[/URL]

Now thats a rally Im gonna try to make. Should be funny and not political, exactly like Becks.[/quote]

So funny looking back on this thread. Later on I wrote this whole thing to a group of friends, etc. as to why I wasn't going to the Stewart Rally and a few of them kind of blasted me and what not. It's funny how both of the rallies were so hyped and now the country has moved on to real issues that affect their everyday lives.