Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


It’s on: Atheists want “In God We Trust” removed from Capitol visitor’s center

posted at 7:34 pm on July 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

We’re never going to have an atheist president, are we?

Besides the one we have now, I mean. OH YES.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based church-state watchdog group, claimed the engravings are unconstitutional and would exclude the 15% of Americans who identify themselves as non-religious…

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said historical references to God should not be censored for political correctness.

“The Founders based the Constitution and our laws on religious faith and principles that clear the way for individual freedom,” he said in a statement. “Our true motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ expresses this fact, and we cannot allow a whitewash of America’s religious heritage.”

However, Gaylor said the mottos are inaccurate since “In God We Trust” and the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance were adopted in the 1950s as anti-communist measures.

“They wanted this up there because they think God is the foundation of our government,” Gaylor said. “Boy, are they misinformed.”

Before anyone says something smart-assed, no, atheists aren’t pro-communist. (Not anymore, at least.) I would have let this one go given that (a) no one pays much attention to the “In God We Trust” stuff anyway and (b) the bad press derived from a lawsuit will outweigh the gain from shielding soft-headed believers from a motto engraved in rock except that, per the Establishment Clause, they do have a point. What’s a prudent atheist to do?


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8

But to deny the existence of the creator, is to deny the obvious.

garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM

If complexity requires a creator, what created the complex creator?

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM

and the 2nd law is real simple…things decay…and die…but somehow you believe that the fundamental forces of the universe could somehow produce life…but of course its ’silly’ to think these same forces could form a much simpler non-living machine.

and somehow out of this decay, massive complexity occurs…of course we cannot reproduce this unless we apply intelligence and effort.

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM

and since you understand evolution, and poor rube like me never could…why don’t you list the mutations that led to an eye?

you cannot, and no one else can either…but it HAD to evolve…because evolution is true…sigh.

you take it on faith.

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Any theory that requires acceptance that an insurmountable amount of events each broke insurmountable odds requires almost as much blind faith as it would believing in an all powerful creator…maybe even more.

ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The theory describes mechanisms (many discovered after Darwin) for change and diversity. Even creationists allow for microevolution. The dispute is really about how much adaptation could take place and whether there was a universal common ancestor. If there were a substantial body of science supporting alternative theories, those theories could be taught too.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Just to establish context for my comments, as an agnostic apatheist I think this atheist lawsuit is childish and counterproductive.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Sorry, I didn’t mean a repeat of the Biblical timeline, which couldn’t happen, simply that Israel rises up again, and someone wants to knock it back down again.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Couldn’t sleep so very early this morning I watched an old 1983 movie “Under Fire” based loosely on th overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. In this move the actor playing Marcel Jazy said this: “I LIKE YOU PEOPLE(talking to the american journalists) BUT YOU ARE SENTIMENTAL S**TS,YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH POETS, THE POETS FALL IN LOVE WITH THE MARXISTS, THE MARXISTS FALL IN LOVE WITH THEMSELVES. THE COUNTRY FALLS IN LOVE WITH THE RHETORIC AND IN THE END WE ARE STUCK WITH THE TYRANTS”.
This sounds like the USA to-day. “IN GOD WE TRUST” forever.

concernedsenior on July 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

and since you understand evolution, and poor rube like me never could…why don’t you list the mutations that led to an eye?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM

How many times in different threads over the last 6 months have I responded to this same inane argument from you. The exact set of mutations that led to the eye are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

If you can demonstrate irrefutably that no sequence of mutations could ever lead to an eye you’d have a point. But you can’t and don’t.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

How many times in different threads over the last 6 months have I responded to this same inane argument from you. The exact set of mutations that led to the eye are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

its not inane obviously. we don’t know the sequence of mutations that led to any complex organs..and eye is a great example, since it occurs in very diverse lines of animals, like a squid, and it is remarkably similar in each case…of course they call it ‘convergent’ evolution, which means ‘we don’t know how this could happen, but it does, praise darwin’

If you can demonstrate irrefutably that no sequence of mutations could ever lead to an eye you’d have a point. But you can’t and don’t.

you’re back to the ‘anything can happen’ mode to defend evolution..but anything can’t happen. the odds are beyond vanishingly small that an eye could evolve at all, much less the same eye in very diverse lines…there is not enough time…Haldan’e dilemma, don’t you know?

and bacteria get a long just fine without an eye, why would one ‘need’ to evolve?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM

but you don’t find it amazing or ’silly’ at all to think that atoms could just form life…which if far more complex than any machine we can make ourselves.

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM

One cannot equate a machine with life. A machine is the sum total of its required parts. Life, on the other hand, began one tiny step at a time, becoming ever more complex, as dictated by its surroundings. A simple organism can exist unchanged, for as long as it is successful. Otherwise, it either evolves or dies out.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

so you equate order ie crystals..with organized complexity, ie life?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM

My point (which shouldn’t be difficult to grasp) is that your apparent assertion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents the emergence of order without supernatural intervention fails in the case of crystals, unless you think they’re products of magic as well.

Please, in your own words, explain how crystals form without violating what you understand to be the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM

began one tiny step at a time, becoming ever more complex, as dictated by its surroundings. A simple organism can exist unchanged, for as long as it is successful. Otherwise, it either evolves or dies out.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

this is a statement of faith. how did it ‘begin’?? either God created life, or somehow, and no one has a clue how, molecules became self-replicating, and somehow ‘life’ began. so you are saying the same fundamental forces of the universe (strong weak, electro-magnetic) that allowed for life, cannot allow for complex machines…or even simple machines to organize…that evolution sure is something ain’t it?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Please, in your own words, explain how crystals form without violating what you understand to be the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM

why would one state to another violate the second law? its like saying water boiling to steam violates the second law??

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM


DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Thought experiment: if the 2nd law prevents order from ever emerging from chaos, how do you explain the formation of crystals without invoking the supernatural?

Entropy is created elsewhere, so sayeth the 2nd. Although you have to admit, you should give more credit to molecular structure and relative polarization for creating ordered crystal structures, not some order out of chaos thing…

ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM

why don’t you state how order equates to the organized complexity of life? with its energy conversion mechanisms, and such?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM

The FFRF says that it is “a national membership association of freethinkers: atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree”.

Well, I’m an agnostic and these bigots sure don’t speak for me. They simplisticly blame religion for all the ills in the world, when in fact, religion is just another vehicle for the power mad to distort in order to justify totalitarianism.

Oppressive governments and those who seek to install them are and always have been the source of all man made misery in this world.

Whether it’s done in the name of economics, class divisions, nationalism or religion (Islam, anyone?), the end result is the same.

BTW – I don’t see these clowns protesting or suing in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Go figure.

At any rate, I see none of that happening in this country. All I see are mere recognitons of the Judeo-Christian influences on the foundation and culture of America. Those influences are obvious to anyone honest enough to see them.

I’m also a libertarian and my problem is with those who claim a right to control and enslave their fellow man. I don’t care if it’s called Christianity, Communism, Fascism, Environmentalism or Fred. It’s all the same to me.

Ironically, the FFRF is trying to do just that; get people to think the way they do through force and intimidation.

If the government tried to force me to practice or subjugate myself to any religion, I’d be loading my AR-15 right now. But that’s simply not the case.

RadClown on July 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

An “eye” is merely an organ that can sense light. A light sensitive membrane would suffice for some species, and light sensitive cells suffice for flowers, for example. That this membrane developed into what we now call an eye, is merely the effect of improvement over time – as required.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

this membrane developed into what we now call an eye, is merely the effect of improvement over time – as required.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

what requires it?? bacteria survives quite nicely without an eye.

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM

How many amino acids, for example, are there in a machine?

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM

How many amino acids, for example, are there in a machine?

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM

which machine are you talking about? a flagellum?

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM

RadClown on July 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Very well said.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM

why would one state to another violate the second law? its like saying water boiling to steam violates the second law??

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Liquid water boiling to steam is a example of increasing entropy.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM

That is because they are successful, in their own right. For their function, they do not need to see. If they did need to see, and did not develop a system that allows for sight, they would die out.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:32 AM

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM

A non-animate machine, as built by us.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I have an interest in Astronomy, and through my telescopes I have seen some marvellous sights, but I know what those sights are basically composed of – just as I know what the Mona Lisa is composed of.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM

OldEnglish, fellow astronomy enthusiast here. If you’re on Facebook, please consider adding me as a friend (Charles W Clark).

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM

OldEnglish, fellow astronomy enthusiast here. If you’re on Facebook, please consider adding me as a friend (Charles W Clark).

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM

turns out there are quite a few with same name on FB. I’m the one in China.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I’m not on FaceBook (or anything else) at the moment, but I have copied your post and would be honoured to welcome a fellow stargazer if I can find the time to participate. My research keeps me in a hermit-like state for much of the time, and HotAir is all I can manage at the moment.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM

On the above note, it’s almost 2:00 AM. Time for recharge. Goodnight.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I’m not on FaceBook (or anything else) at the moment, but I have copied your post and would be honoured to welcome a fellow stargazer if I can find the time to participate. My research keeps me in a hermit-like state for much of the time, and HotAir is all I can manage at the moment.

OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I encourage you to join. It doesn’t have to take much time or attention. I have a couple of other HA participants that you regularly interact with on my friends list already and can recommend you to them as friends also.

right4life, I would gladly accept a friend request from you also, if I were to receive one.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM

turns out there are quite a few with same name on FB. I’m the one in China.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM

how surprising.. an atheist who is a communist.

Then again ALL communists are atheists.

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM

how surprising.. an atheist who is a communist.

Then again ALL communists are atheists.

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Who said I’m a communist you moron?

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Atheism is not a Religion.

Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM

Oh, really? Let’s consult the dictionary:

RELIGION:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects…

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices…

Both ‘Atheism’ and ‘Environmentalism’ are religions, and should be treated as such.

landlines on July 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM

When people ask me about my religious beliefs, I usually claim to be a “Pedestrian”. I don’t know who, if anyone, is cranking the Eternal Wheel. I am just glad it keeps on spinning.

The existence of an almighty god (or gods) cannot be proved or disproved by resort to science. For many atheists, their belief in the non-existence of God performs the same emotional and psychological functions as belief in the existence of God does for others. For some, it is impossible to deal with the uncertainties of life without a crutch. Therefore certainty must be manufactured, whether it takes the form of belief in the existence of an almighty god, or belief in the non-existence of such a god.

Some of these atheists are driven by their own psychological needs to try to deny and destroy the truths of our history, that we were founded as a Christian nation based on the moral and ethical values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is the truly laudable nature of many of those beliefs that has made this country great, and one need not share the religious convictions of Jews and Christians to recognize that fact. The atheists ongoing and unrelenting focus on trivia reveals them to be just as deluded as their zealous religionist counterparts.

There is absolutely no chance that religionists will co-opt our government institutions. Raving like lunatics about the dangers of a handful of historical mottoes that serve as nothing more than reminders of our heritage seems to me but one step removed from the lunacy of the Hillsboro cultists.

novaculus on July 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM

and the 2nd law is real simple…things decay…and die…but somehow you believe that the fundamental forces of the universe could somehow produce life…but of course its ’silly’ to think these same forces could form a much simpler non-living machine.

and somehow out of this decay, massive complexity occurs…of course we cannot reproduce this unless we apply intelligence and effort.

right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM

You have thoroughly misapplied the 2nd law to your argument. The earth has been receiving energy from the sun–which provides the energy necessary to construct more complex organisms. Generally, more complex organisms are good at consuming more energy in a fairly inefficient way, thereby increasing total entropy. So, in a system which is the constant recipient of energy, the thermodynamic state that is most favored is one of increased complexity.

BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Don’t worry. There will be plenty of people around. Jack, Jim, Jose, Jameson…

I always like to bring along my friend Skyy.

Seriously…bitches don’t know.

MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM

Well, she did leave. I can only hope it was for the better.

If I have a gun and plenty of ammo, then the people cannot take it away from the individual either.

MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 5:03 AM

That’s true. A fully loaded gun is just as powerful, which is why the Founders considered them so important as to be the second guaranteed right of free Americans. That some don’t get that is beyond me.

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Every organism begins as a single cell. As the word “organism” implies, the cell divides and organizes itself into more and more complex structures. The complexity of the organism increases, the total entropy of the system comprising the organism and its environment increases, the second law of thermodynamics holds, and all is well.

Just as a seed can grow into a tree without violating any physical laws, a fish can evolve into a human without violating any physical laws.

The second law of thermodynamics does not forbid local increases in complexity. If it did, nothing would ever grow on earth. When a creationist says that evolution violates the 2nd law, he is either lying, or doesn’t understand physics (nttawwt).

RightOFLeft on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Do you really think that if you can prove evolution that somehow this invalidates the existence of God the Holy Trinity?

LOL!

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Atheism is as much a religion as all the religous ism’s. I’m an agnostic and I’m gettin damned tired of these atheists forcefeeding me their crap sandwich. I see nothing threatening in the idea of a God and if that threatens them, then I’d say they’re pretty shakey in their own beliefs. There are way more Chritians in this country than Atheists. Until that changes let’s get used to “In God we Trust”. It ain’t hurtin no one.

What a bunch of insecure cry babies. Geeez.

Ernest on July 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Do you really think that if you can prove evolution that somehow this invalidates the existence of God the Holy Trinity?

LOL!

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

It wouldn’t. Perhaps it would be more evidence of God’s power or perhaps science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 1:14 PM

But to deny the existence of the creator, is to deny the obvious.

garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM

If complexity requires a creator, what created the complex creator?

Of all of the knowledge that exists in the universe, the sum total of humanity’s knowledge is equal to less than 0.001 percent.

The infinite knowledge of our creator is incomprehensible to mortal men. Perhaps answers to these questions will become more clear as we evolve spiritually after our brief stay in this mortal world.

garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

LOL! You’re still an idiot. Probably a communist too.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Do you really think that if you can prove evolution that somehow this invalidates the existence of God the Holy Trinity?

LOL!

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Pretty lame attempt of redirecting the argument when you know it’s lost. I made no claim–nor have I ever–that I could in any way disprove the claims of someone’s faith. My original argument was simply a refutation of the claim that the 2nd law of thermo forbids evolution. It’s a stupid claim creationists make–and really the creationists have better avenues to explore than one so thouroughly closed shut.

BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Do you really think that if you can prove evolution that somehow this invalidates the existence of God the Holy Trinity?

LOL!

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

That’s not at all what he’s saying.

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM

garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Do you consider that any kind of answer? Just more mystical mumbo-jumbo.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM

If you don’t make any effort to understand what atheists actually believe, naturally it’s not going to make a lot of sense.

RightOFLeft on July 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM

The same happens often in these threads with Christian beliefs as well. These discussions would be far more meaningful if both sides put forth a little more effort.

OldEnglish, fellow astronomy enthusiast here. If you’re on Facebook, please consider adding me as a friend (Charles W Clark).

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I just looked you up. It’s nice to put a face with a name. Also, I see you’re from Seattle and have a lot of Microsoft friends. Did you ever work there?

My brother-in-law’s been with the company for years, most I think in the Outlook department, though I believe he’s somewhere else now.

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Also, I see you’re from Seattle and have a lot of Microsoft friends. Did you ever work there?

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM

15 years at MS, but never in the Office group. Mostly Windows and IE.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM

What’s a prudent atheist to do?

Cross it out on any bills that pass through your wallet, and learn to pick your battles. I’m sort of on the fence. It’s not really an establishment of religion, because it’s theistic, not religious. But then most people know that it was put there by American Christians in the 20th century, so the there’s a religious implication. For instance, the flag of Saudi Arabia has the word “God” on it as well. No one would be confused as to which religion’s idea of God that represents.

My approach has been to question the faith of those who protest its removal. They act as if their faith would be shattered if their money didn’t reinforce it—rather pathetic.

Mark Jaquith on July 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM

There is no valid proof one way or the other for the existence of god(s). The classical proofs of Avicenna, Aquinas and Anselm have been demolished by, among others, Kant and Hume. More modern attempts are usually subtle variations on these old chestnuts and nowadays have to further account for a quantum reality where the common understanding of causality is invalid and the universal veracity of two valued logic is in question.

Religion itself is a man made structure which has been the cause of much evil. None of the well-known sects has truly clean hands but, for the most part, Judaism and Christianity are under control and have whitewashed through reinterpretation or replacement by new teaching the most offensive parts of their holy books. On the other hand, Islam has not passed through this stage and given that it defines a complete socio-religious structure ans its holy book is not ‘inspired’ but god’s own unchangeable word, it is difficult to see how it can be completely ‘reformed.’

In any case the bottom line is that one should be able to follow any cult as long as they do not attempt to foist their beliefs onto others. IMO a statement like “In God We Trust” is vacuous if there is no god so I find it ridiculous not offensive.

Annar on July 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Btw, please add me as friend, if you aren’t the HA friend I added just now :-)

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM

AP always reminds me of my 5th grade self when he breathlessly reminds us that he’s an atheist.

But here’s the thing: no one cares.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Oh, but you SHOULD!!! What kind of Christian are you if you don’t help him run up his hits try to convert him?!!

(snicker)

kg598301 on July 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM

What’s a prudent atheist to do?

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

kg598301 on July 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM

15 years at MS, but never in the Office group. Mostly Windows and IE.

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Ah. I figured you would have had him added if you’d worked together.

Btw, please add me as friend, if you aren’t the HA friend I added just now :-)

DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Just now did. My name’s Kelly.

Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I take offense to the title. Saying “Atheists” want this, because a few of our left-leaning idiots (and caustic brethren) are making a stink over this, is offensive. It’s like saying Muslims want to blow themselves up. Most don’t and are tolerant live and let live types — but the few percent give the rest a bad name.

FWIW, I actually ADVOCATE prayer in school. A moment of non-denominational silence (or meditation) before class, is a good thing for kids to center themselves and prepare for work. And it demonstrates TOLERANCE for all sides.

suzy.denim@gmail.com on July 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

In any case the bottom line is that one should be able to follow any cult as long as they do not attempt to foist their beliefs onto others. IMO a statement like “In God We Trust” is vacuous if there is no god so I find it ridiculous not offensive.

Annar on July 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Then if others find those words comforting, the existance of those words shouldn’t really bother you right? You’re way above such rediculousness.

Ernest on July 18, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Do you really think that if you can prove evolution that somehow this invalidates the existence of God the Holy Trinity?

LOL!

MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM

That’s completely unnecessary. The existence of “God the Holy Trinity” is invalid prima facie.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM

That’s completely unnecessary. The existence of “God the Holy Trinity” is invalid prima facie.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM

1. You do not know what prima facie means.

2. It has nothing to do with max’s comment
sheesh you are an idiot

CWforFreedom on July 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

1. You do not know what prima facie means.

prima: ablative singular form of 1/2 decl. adjective prim -us,-a,-um: first
facie: ablative singular form of 5th decl. noun faci -es, -e: shape; face; look; presence; appearance

prima facie is, literally, on the first face

2. It has nothing to do with max’s comment

Max’s comment was that proving the validity of evolution would not invalidate the concept of the christian god. My comment was that the concept of the christian god ought never to have been considered valid to begin with: Dixit insipiens in corde suo, “Deus est.”

sheesh you are an idiot

CWforFreedom on July 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

projection

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Then if others find those words comforting, the existance [sic] of those words shouldn’t really bother you right? You’re way above such rediculousness [sic].

Ernest on July 18, 2009 at 2:16 PM

If others find the words “There is no god,” or “There is no god but Allah,” or “Hail Satan” comforting, would you object to their being engraved on a government building?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Of all of the knowledge that exists in the universe, the sum total of humanity’s knowledge is equal to less than 0.001 percent.

The infinite knowledge of our creator is incomprehensible to mortal men. Perhaps answers to these questions will become more clear as we evolve spiritually after our brief stay in this mortal world.

garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Did you have in mind something like Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Personally I’m more of a “God is in the details” sort of person. It is not an unreasonable belief for me to believe that the first seven “days” aren’t 24 hour days as we know them. God is eternal, “days” can be substituted with eons, or some other form of time unit. The idea that God guided evolution does not seem unreasonable. Doesn’t mean that I can prove God exists to an atheist, but I can prove it to myself.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Good point. Although I’m not sure a satanist finds “Hail Satan!” as comforting, more of a reaffirmation of their hedonistic beliefs. I mean Satanism as I understand it isn’t about an afterlife, more about an extreme version of carpe diem. That’s slightly off-topic, though.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Good point. Although I’m not sure a satanist finds “Hail Satan!” as comforting, more of a reaffirmation of their hedonistic beliefs. I mean Satanism as I understand it isn’t about an afterlife, more about an extreme version of carpe diem. That’s slightly off-topic, though.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Yes, that’s quite accurate—I took a bit of license to make my point. Interestingly, it is widely alleged that The Satanic Bible is a plagiarism of Atlas Shrugged. Consider, for example, the following from among “The Nine Satanic Statements” on page 25:

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.

Statement 6 conjures up images of Hank Rearden’s family, and 7 is the thesis of Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM

If others find the words “There is no god,” or “There is no god but Allah,” or “Hail Satan” comforting, would you object to their being engraved on a government building?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Allah and Satan are more specific than the term God, and need to be avoided. One could argue that avoiding the word God altogether is the most neutral. However, there is some comfort for even the non-religious to have lawmakers acknowledge a force, in vague terms, that is greater than themselves. Something that serves to limit the power of the federal government would seem to have benefits.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM

All in all their beliefs aren’t too unreasonable. The problem occurs because they ALSO believe that if someone hurts you, you should destroy them in return(among some other weird beliefs). I believe in compassion and tolerance in most cases.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Well Allah is the same as my God. The disagreement occurs between Judaism, Christians, and Muslims because for Jews, the savior hasn’t arrived yet. For Christians, the savior has arrived. For Muslims, Jesus was a prophet, but Muhammed was the ultimate prophet of God.So essentially these three groups are arguing about what amounts to splitting hairs. We all believe in the EXACT SAME God.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

However, there is some comfort for even the non-religious to have lawmakers acknowledge a force, in vague terms, that is greater than themselves. Something that serves to limit the power of the federal government would seem to have benefits.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Why call this force “God”? Why not call it “the Constitution and the Rule of Law”?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

I don’t really believe that we must continually acknowledge the presence of God in order to reaffirm he’s there. For atheists, it smacks of evangelism. I’m all for people having their own belief system that makes them happy. The second their belief system, intrudes on mine, though, there is a problem.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Why call this force “God”? Why not call it “the Constitution and the Rule of Law”?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Because the Constitution is on a piece of paper that can be torn up or “improved”.

Backing rights by a God who can zing lightning bolts if you mess with a fundamental right can make them seem more secure.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM

We all believe in the EXACT SAME God.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

OK, but that God has expressed very different laws depending on which religion you subscribe to.

More generally though, my point was that “Allah” has a more theologically-specific connotation than God does. “Satan”, very much so.

I read “In God we Trust”, “Nature’s God” or any other invocation of “God” by our government as acknowledging the fact that we’ve all been “created”, and by that fact (not Congressional wisdom) we have rights. (Thank “God” not the government that we do).

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM

For atheists, it smacks of evangelism.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

For atheists, evangelism would constitute printing “In the Absence of God We Trust” on our money. This lawsuit is not atheist proselytism; it is a prevention of the use of tax dollars for Christian proselytism.

If that is the case, why is there such widespread opposition to this lawsuit, you ask. Well, with apologies to George Bernard Shaw, a government that robs Peter to evangelize Peter with Paul’s religion can always count on the support of Paul, First Amendment be damned.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Backing rights by a God who can zing lightning bolts if you mess with a fundamental right can make them seem more secure.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM

In Zeus We Trust?

Further, compare:

Because the Constitution is on a piece of paper that can be torn up or “improved”.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM

vs.

OK, but that God has expressed very different laws depending on which religion you subscribe to.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Basing a system of government on a religion is subject to the same problems. Just look at the mess in Iran–the ayatollahs cannot agree on whose interpretation of Shia Islam is the One True Faith, so no one knows whether or not their theocracy is a legitimate theocracy.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

I read “In God we Trust”, “Nature’s God” or any other invocation of “God” by our government as acknowledging the fact that we’ve all been “created”, and by that fact (not Congressional wisdom) we have rights. (Thank “God” not the government that we do).

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Compare the wording in Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which predated Jefferson’s Declaration by a few months:

SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

No mention of “Nature’s God” there.

Compare also the following clauses from Jefferson’s 1779 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
… that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;

The first phrase applies directly to the lawsuit at hand; the second applies to the foundation of the Self-Evident Truths regarding the Rights of Man mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Basing a system of government on a religion is subject to the same problems. Just look at the mess in Iran–the ayatollahs cannot agree on whose interpretation of Shia Islam is the One True Faith, so no one knows whether or not their theocracy is a legitimate theocracy.

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

I’m contending that “God” is not a sufficiently descriptive term to constitute a religion. Perhaps it is Zeus or Vishnu. I read “God” in the founding documents as the one of “special creation”, who gave man self-awareness, identity, judgment–qualities that separate man from animals.

As long unalienable rights are sufficiently out of reach for “innovative” legislators the supernatural blessing isn’t necessary for me; however, if it serves to reinforce the understanding of those rights as beyond politics then I don’t have a problem with it.

Plenty of Constitutional countries have fallen to dictators who used a crisis to assert their judgment above the rule of law. Rome comes to mind. Shortly after Julius Caesar the emperors were anointing themselves God.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM

I’ll be screwing this up simply by posting but I find it oddly appropriate that an item about atheists wanting to remove something referencing God should have 666 comments.

Allah, I hope you remember that you don’t have a right to not be never be offended.

http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Humor/bill_of_no_rights.htm

NTropy on July 18, 2009 at 5:37 PM

novaculus – You remind me of my husband. When my Catholic mother expressed concern that I was marrying a second husband who was without any religious beliefs, after the disaster my agnostic first husband was, I told her that not all “agnostics” shared the same motivations.

My ex was childish and selfish, and he rebelled against anything or anyone that tried to “tell him what to do”. God was at the top of his hit list, but, by the end, I had a prominent place myself. You know, the tyranny of “Please, get a job before I die of exhaustion” and “No, you can’t sleep with other women” were more than he could bear. Thank God. He left. Thank God. (Yes, I was a stupid doormat then. I’m aware of that already, thanks, and my 11 years of therapy were better than any that could be offered on the fly from a blog comment, so thanks anyway to anyone thinking of offering any.)

My new, true husband is from a completely different mold. He has no religious beliefs, but he respects the Judeo/Christian faiths as the source of positive ideologies. The values embodied and expressed in these religions are the source of our modern concepts of individual rights, the inherent value of human life, and compassionate action.

An atheist can argue that he doesn’t require a belief in any god to inform his moral values, but that doesn’t change the fact that our commonly accepted morals weren’t seen as obvious or inevitable until the Judeo/Christian model became prominent. Saying that you can find a path, that doesn’t stem from biblical teachings, that leads to “knowing” that murder is wrong, is all well and good, but, until that particular path was laid, not many societies in history managed to reach that conclusion. Individuals, maybe, as history doesn’t have a record of them, I can’t say they don’t exist, but what we know of pre-J/C societies is that they were short on what we now recognize as justice.

We honor our founders for having the wisdom to examine contemporary philosophies and the consequences of their application to government, and carve out a new framework for a new country, still unmatched by any other country in existence. It isn’t perfect, and we’re still tweaking it (too much for my tastes), but it remains the best model for a society that values liberty and respect for humanity.

I don’t particularly care when someone claims that the founders *could* have conceived of this framework without their Judeo/Christian beliefs, because it smacks of sour grapes; their conception *was* based on their religious beliefs, and the beliefs of the other philosophies that they drew from, so the attempt to discredit that basis seems petty and foolish.

Atheism can do it just as well, if not better? Okay, fine, if that makes you feel smug and smart, but it damn well hasn’t so far. At least honor the concepts, if not the beliefs behind them, and let us know when Atheism makes its first major improvement to human existence.

ral514 on July 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM

What’s a prudent atheist to do?

Nothing. It’s the national motto, regardless of when it was adopted. And the Establishment clause is a two-edged sword, to borrow the words of Jesus: Congress can make no laws at all concerning religion. It is outside their jurisdiction. Period.

That means that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (and that group DOES have a fair number of commies in it) has no standing at all in the suit. They are objecting to the national motto, at the bottom line. It is not an expression of a national religion, but a motto adopted by the majority of Americans through their elected officials efforts. Since “God” is not specified either in the original decrees or later interpretations of the resultant laws, the motto CANNOT be the establishment of an official religion of the United States. It is a straw man arguement on the part of the FFRF.

While I respect Allah as one of the more rational atheists around, this is an example of just how irrational the “rationalist” movement has become. And they call people like me “sheeple” (which is ironic since it was preacher Billy Sunday that coined that phrase refering to people like the FFRF.)

Tom Bryant
B.A. Religious Studies, Clemson University, C/O 2008.

papabryant on July 18, 2009 at 7:26 PM

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” Psalm 14.1

I regret to inform you that you have not changed anyone’s mind here who truly believes that statement. But hey, more power to ya- have at it my friend! We still live in a free country (at least for now) because we were founded on Judeo-Christian values which are tolerant of other faiths.

Check out all of the other major belief systems in the world & note how those countries treat anyone who rejects their “god”. Or, just keep on lying to yourself if that works for you.

kg598301 on July 18, 2009 at 7:37 PM

If others find the words “There is no god,” or “There is no god but Allah,” or “Hail Satan” comforting, would you object to their being engraved on a government building?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I would expect “There is no God but Allah” to be on government buildings in the Middle East just as I would expect “In God we Trust” on buildings in the United States.

I really can’t think of any country that has had Satanism as their official religion. My point is that these were important aspects of the histories of these nations (Middle East and America) and the words actually offend very few. And truthfully I doubt that they really offend you that much. It’s just that it’s such a fun arguement that (frankly) you grow out of eventually.

Ernest on July 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM

I would expect “There is no God but Allah” to be on government buildings in the Middle East just as I would expect “In God we Trust” on buildings in the United States.

Ernest on July 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Let’s avoid having our children fight to the death over some guy’s interpretation of what God/Allah is saying to him.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM

In the church that I go to, there is, prominently displayed, an occupancy permit; issued by the town, and subject to review and inspection (and the payment of a fee.)

And, churches pay many fees, and taxes – local, state, and federal. The myth that churches are un-taxed is just that; a myth.

And, for more irony; any legislation on this matter will be considered by congress. The same congress that has a chaplain, paid for by the citizens (through taxes,) who invokes God’s blessing at the start of each session.

And, in the case of a court challenge – should it go all the way to the Supreme Court, the matter will be discussed in a room decorated with biblical imagery.

massrighty on July 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM

It may be that the Establishment Clause was intended to make room for the States to establish their own, respective religions.

Kralizec on July 17, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Bingo! The federalist papers clearly state that the establishment clause was intended to prevent the nascent federal government from establishing any one religion from being established. This to avoid another “Church of England” situation.

Individual states did, in fact, establish official religions within their own constitutions. Massachusetts, for one, did this, and Episcopalianism was the official religion until the late 19th century.

massrighty on July 18, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Well Allah is the same as my God. The disagreement occurs between Judaism, Christians, and Muslims because for Jews, the savior hasn’t arrived yet. For Christians, the savior has arrived. For Muslims, Jesus was a prophet, but Muhammed was the ultimate prophet of God.So essentially these three groups are arguing about what amounts to splitting hairs. We all believe in the EXACT SAME God.

Rightwingguy on July 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Not possible. The God of Christianity is a God of reason, Who works in reasonable ways that are knowable by revelation and by Natural Law. Allah is outside of reason, conforms to no known pattern of reason, and does not reveal himself to anyone. Ergo, murderous terrorists can coexist with Allah, but not with the God of Christianity. They are not the same at all.

Read some of JPII’s theology. It may enlighten you on this topic, whether you ascribe to Catholicism or not.

tcn on July 19, 2009 at 12:23 AM

tcn on July 19, 2009 at 12:23 AM

My whole point was that the Islam, Christianity, and Judaism revolve around the same God. Not that they share similar tenets. I don’t agree with Islam at all, btw. I was simply pointing out we share lots of commonalities.

Rightwingguy on July 19, 2009 at 5:23 AM

Let’s avoid having our children fight to the death over some guy’s interpretation of what God/Allah is saying to him.

dedalus on July 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM

This view of the history of human conflict is naively pretentious. It will not change human conflict, nor its inseparable connection with faith riddled abstracts.

Atheists are being used to destroy the old faith, because it has become an obstacle to the new power elite. They are preparing the granite for their new statues and symbols as we speak.

Our children, and our children’s children, will fight to the death over some’s guys interpretation of his own place in the exertion of power as atheism reaches for the heavens to define itself and legitimize it’s creed…in full fledged contradiction.

And since when has atheism shown an aversion for the taste of human blood?

Saltysam on July 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I think God and churches should be removed from all public view. As long as someone has a problem with anything, it should be removed. Religious imbeciles should have to hide their moronic beliefs and faiths so that the Atheists should never be bothered by those troublesome signs of belief in some “sky fairy”…

In case you couldn’t tell…/sarc

BTW, to those Atheists out there; your rights come from man, so they can be removed at any time. There is no such thing as inalienable (or unalienable) rights, they are all privileges now. Thanks for that.

Geministorm on July 19, 2009 at 12:06 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Huckabye-Romney on July 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM

per the Establishment Clause, they do have a point.

How does mentioning God establish a state religion?

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (same year Congress enacted the First Amendment), stated in Article III: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Atheists have no integrity in this debate because they must ignore such facts to advance their cause. Christians aren’t coming out of left field to enact fanciful novelties, but are conserving what already exists.

Akzed on July 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Jay to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

But what would the first Chief justice of the Supreme court know? And what would an author of the Federalist Papers know?

Any atheist with any integrity (!!!) would admit that this curren kerfuffle over “In God We Trust” would be shocking to ALL the founders.

Akzed on July 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM

And since when has atheism shown an aversion for the taste of human blood?

Saltysam on July 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM

A couple of thoughts:
–Men kill for power, defense, independence. Historically, they’ve done it across a spectrum of beliefs or non-beliefs.
–My view, posted further upthread, is that the word God on the government buildings is OK, or even healthy.
–My point about people killing each other was that people take the differences in interpretations of the divine seriously enough to support violence. It would be more honest if people rallied to war over territory or wealth, but perhaps it wouldn’t be as popular.

dedalus on July 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM

“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.”

“The First Amendment was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

Just a couple of quotes from that soft-headed believer, President Ronald Reagan.

pannw on July 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Should we replace that language with something more poignant and timely….. “Kill all Infidels” (non-believers). Give me a break people… Our country, because of the fact we Trusted In God has been the greatest source of good in the history of the world… What do you not understand???

highninside on July 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, eh? Nice name for an organization!

Granted the separation of church and state is very important and must be maintained. But we do encounter a gray area in that the founders obviously based their thoughts on their beliefs–beliefs of a most ENLIGHTENED nature. They still are ENLIGHTENED. Yes, these beliefs remain in fabric woven by the founders. That is solid American History and should be left in place. To be ignored or not. I would think such a wonderful organization as the above would focus on the oppression of Islam. Much more useful!

Sherman1864 on July 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM

If others find the words “There is no god,” or “There is no god but Allah,” or “Hail Satan” comforting, would you object to their being engraved on a government building?

hicsuget on July 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Artwork and slogans glorifying Man (as The Worker) as the ultimate figure in the universe abounded in the Soviet Union. Today in North Korea, the Dear Leader’s visage is displayed everywhere as an object of veneration. I’m pretty sure than in India, government holidays coincide with Hindu religious festivals. And of course in pagan Rome, the entire city was expected to turn out for Saturnalia and other religio-civic holidays. (That’s what helped get the early Christians in trouble – they separated themselves from civic life.)

“In God we trust” does not establish a religion. It merely acknowledges that most Americans have one.

skydaddy on July 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM

“In God we trust” does not establish a religion. It merely acknowledges that most Americans have one.

skydaddy on July 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Of course it does not and the court will agree. What we have here is the king of pomposity -Hicsuget just spinning b.s.

CWforFreedom on July 19, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Medium | Larger | Largest
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Let us ban the Dec of Independence

Hicsuget imagine if it used the word Allah

Your stupidity is only eclipsed by your immense unearned ego

CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM

They simplisticly blame religion for all the ills in the world, when in fact, religion is just another vehicle for the power mad to distort in order to justify totalitarianism.

RadClown on July 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Yeah, I know what you mean…every night thousands of battered women and their children are attended to by those “power mad” people.
Every day in thousands of hospitals, people are attended to and cared for by those “power mad” people.
Every day, during inclimate weather, thousands of people and familys are taken care of by those “power mad” people.
And times of natural disasters, throughout the world, those “power mad” people are their “taking over”.
Doctors are flown in to care for people who would never have a chance of a normal life…flown by those “power mad” people.
You live in a fantasy world of evil, if you think religion is made up of “power mad” people.
Every major church has hundreds of stories of extending a hand to the “least among us”, and receiving nothing in return.
The only “power” the “power mad” people have, is the power of healing from Christ.

right2bright on July 20, 2009 at 7:14 AM

My whole point was that the Islam, Christianity, and Judaism revolve around the same God. Not that they share similar tenets. I don’t agree with Islam at all, btw. I was simply pointing out we share lots of commonalities.

Rightwingguy on July 19, 2009 at 5:23 AM

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, are all Abrahamic religions…that is the common thread….Abraham.

right2bright on July 20, 2009 at 7:18 AM

I will never understand someone’s absolute obsession to something that doesn’t exist.
If atheists are so rationale, why can’t they see this.?
They want something that does not exist, to not exist…okay, we get it, you don’t think it exists, then it shouldn’t bother you, since it doesn’t exist.

right2bright on July 20, 2009 at 7:26 AM

Atheists aren’t too happy with the new bronze sculpture of Lincoln in Louisville’s Waterfront Park. Black sculptor Ed Hamilton depicted Lincoln sitting on a rock, holding a law book, with two books stacked near his right knee (left side as you’re facing the statue). The three books indicate the works that Lincoln said influenced him so much.

The book on the bottom says “Shakespeare” and the one on top very boldly says “Holy Bible.”

You can see the sculpture at http://www.edhamiltonworks.com.

KyMouse on July 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8


You must be logged in to post a comment.