How we have changed in two centuries

[Solus]

Are Supreme Court justices sworn in with a Bible?  The President?  Senators and Congresspersons?  Are not the appointed judges across the country sworn in with a Bible?  Governors?

The 10 Commandments and Sharia Law don't belong in the same conversation as far as I'm concerned.

I believe you can choose your book to be sworn in upon, or none if none apply.

And I agree that I much prefer the 10 Commandments over Sharia law, but neither belong in a court of law.

[Solus]

The words in the pledge indicate THE NATION was founded under God which is a simple historical fact. It has nothing to do with the person reciting the pledge.
If they have a problem with it, they could always leave.

I'd think that was what the words were intended to imply if it were not for the circumstances under which they were added to the Pledge....as an anti-communism reaction (not that I favor communism at all)

Here is a statement from a link on the history of the pledge

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

The link is here http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

While I have no idea of motives or beliefs of the author, I tend to believe that making it a public prayer WAS the intent when the phrase was added.

[MikeBjerum]

I was getting at the posting of the 10 Commandments in a court house. 

But I agree that a politicians expression of his personal religious beliefs is not a problem...as long as he does not bias his judgment against those of other faiths.

I tend to believe you should elect folks based upon their character rather than how well they will bend to the whims of the voters, do they follow what they believe in or do they follow the changing winds of opinion.

However, to me, putting the 10 Commandments in any court of law, other than one convened by groups that follow that belief, is not to be allowed. 

"In God We Trust" as a motto on currency is such a small issue, it in no way infringes on the rights or imposes adverse consequences on anyone.  You can earn and spend the money without any active support of that motto.

However, "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance or spoken prayer in public schools both require a non-believer to avoid completely taking the Pledge as official sanctioned or to avoid joining in the school prayer, an act that will put them apart from believers, a state that can lead to problems for the non-believer.

   

Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.

In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.

[fightingquaker13]

Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.

In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.

If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). . As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of  conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). . As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of  conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13

Bullsh!t. You know FQ, if you twist facts to insinuate an untruth you are still lying.
While it is true that different sects tried to f*ck each other every chance they got, and they all hated the Catholics, it does not change the fact that pretty much all of the founding Fathers were strong believers in some Christian faith.
Not one camel humper in the bunch.
I will point out that while I do not consider myself a Christian, my thinking is that it is the dominant philosophy of the people who built this nation, so either deal with it or leave.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.

In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.

If you wish to post a list of the 10 Commandments to use as a reference for this conversation, please do so.  I have found several versions but am only used to the one taught by Catholics.

My point is that some of the Commandments have no business being held up in a court of law or made laws themselves.

For instance, the 4th Commandment as taught by the Catholic Church pertains to   "Honor thy father and mother"

While I will not disagree that this is not as it should be, I can't come close to believing it has any business being dealt with in a court of law or arrests being made for kids who disobey their parents in front of witnesses who report the voilation.

Further, the Catholic Commandments have two that refer to "covet".  One for thy neighbor's goods and one for thy neighbor's wife.  The definition of Covet is  yearn to posses.  The whole thing is something you are thinking.  Again, I don't want any court or law directed at what folks are allowed to be thinking.

There are more to the list.

[Pathfinder]

I believe you can choose your book to be sworn in upon, or none if none apply.

And I agree that I much prefer the 10 Commandments over Sharia law, but neither belong in a court of law.

And yet, much of our foundational law comes from the 10 Commandments. Where else do the prohibitions of murder, stealing, adultery etc. come from?

Without those, the law is debased to a personal view of right and wrong. And to avoid Godwin's Law, I will note that Mao probably thought he was doing a pretty good thing by killing 10s of millions of his fellow Chinese (as well as the Chinese ethnics he thought no one would miss). Stalin too. With out a foundation that everyone can point to and say "That's why we have this the law", then it is fair game on everyone and everything - and there is no law except what those in power say is the law, which is what we are seeing in DC these days.

[fightingquaker13]

Bullsh!t. You know FQ, if you twist facts to insinuate an untruth you are still lying.
While it is true that different sects tried to f*ck each other every chance they got, and they all hated the Catholics, it does not change the fact that pretty much all of the founding Fathers were strong believers in some Christian faith.
Not one camel humper in the bunch.
I will point out that while I do not consider myself a Christian, my thinking is that it is the dominant philosophy of the people who built this nation, so either deal with it or leave.

Who said anything about muslims? And as far as beliving in the Bible, well yeah, but thats means bugger all in terms of unity if their interpretations were so different they were persecuting one another over the matter. The fact is they were mostly Christian with a few deists and agnostics, no question, but the unifying principles were federalism and republicanism as much or more than faith, because on those two principles they could agree.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

That's why Franklin called for a prayer before the final debate, so they would have something different to fight over ?
They were so much in agreement over Federalism and Republicanism that they debated the Constitution word by word for weeks ?

[Pathfinder]

If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). . As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of  conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13

So, when George Washington declared a National Day of Prayer for the day after his inauguration, that was what, just a figment of our historical imaginations?

No one is arguing against the notion that there were different flavors of Christians, rationalists, "Liberals" (as you often lecture us), atheists and even - gasp! - Jews at the formation of this country. However, to deny the religious - and that means overwhelmingly some flavor of Christian - foundations of this country is an exercise in foolishness. You can spin the facts, quote any obscure tome or letter, but the overwhelming truth is that these men were religious to one degree or another, basing their religious nature in their Judeo-Christian education. Not wiccan, not mooslim, not buddhist, none of the above.

Go look up "Cynic" in Bierce's Devil's Dictionary - your picture is right there next to the definition! You have all of the facts, none of the wisdom.