> 2) The phrase was placed on US coinage by act of Congress in December of 1863.
I should have been more explicit. The lame "In God We Trust" was made the national motto in 1956 (guess what: a poem does not define national mottos), and it didn't show up permanently on paper money till '57.
>> It replaced the much more accurate and magnificent E Pluribus Unum.
> Bzzzzt. Another loser. "E Pluribus Unum" is still used on American currency.
BZZZZT, wrong again: "IGWT" repalced "EPU" as national motto in '56. The fact that EPU is still occaisionally used does not change the fact that it was usurped by something far, far lamer.
> The document that literally asserted the independence of this nation, detaching it forever from the sovereignty of Great Britain and establishing a "new order of Nature" is not a framing document?
It is not. It in no way defines what sort of nation the US would be, how it would be governed, what the laws and rights were... nothing.
> I said that the Board was free to select the Moonbat ... er, I mean, "priestess" for the invocation, then leave the room.
Then they should nto be let in. if the prayer is an official part of the proceedings, then they should attend, or give up their taxpayer-funded jobs. If it's *not* an official part of the proceedings.... then they should *pay* for the priveledge of using their time for personal purposes.
> since you seem to want to fixate on this trivial aspect of law
Where things coem from is *not* trival. Would you complain if Muslims started spouting that all of Western Civ was cribbed from the Caliphate?
To claim that the law came from a purely or even largely Christian basis is simply a *lie.* It's bearing false witness. I seem to recall that some religions frown on that.
> It is arguable that Saxon law was defined by the Capitulary of Charlemagne (the HOLY ROMAN EMPORER Charlemagne, that is) in 775 A.D.
Irrelevant. We're talking about England, and the introduction of Saxon law in the 500's. But you already know that, don't you?
> You're not an idiot, are you?
Nope. Not been suckered in by the same ideology that you have.
> Your Saxon diversion notwithstanding, we are a Christian nation. Period.
OK. Where is that laid out in the Constitution?
> Well, it can probably be said that everyone was a "pagan" at one time or another. Most civilized cultures overcame that shortcoming a few millennia ago.
And then discovered the "civilized" practice of holy war, inquisition, and fraudulently claiming that the achievements of pagans before them are actually their own.
Do you want to define your terms increasingly more narrow until you have just the definition you want? It's a common forensic device among those who can't debate substance and choose to argue rhetoric instead. The fact is, the sentiment reflected in the motto "In God We Trust" has been around at least since the mid nineteenth century, if not the founding of the country. I'm sure that it's pure coincidence that the words Francis Scott Key used in the anthem were the same used in the motto on US coinage. And I'm equally sure it's coincidence that the language Key used is almost identical to that used in the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
BZZZZT, wrong again: "IGWT" repalced "EPU" as national motto in '56. The fact that EPU is still occaisionally used does not change the fact that it was usurped by something far, far lamer.
If "occasionally" means on every single dollar bill in circulation in the world, then yes, I'm "wrong." However, that numbers somewhere in the billions, if not trillions of occurrences, so I'm not sure that "occasionally" would be an apt adverb. By the way, all other documents that bear the Great Seal also bear the phrase. Which adds to the "occasions" on which it occurs.
It [the Declaration of Independence] in no way defines what sort of nation the US would be, how it would be governed, what the laws and rights were... nothing.
Nothing? Not at all? So the second paragraph ("We hold these truths to be self-evident ...") and the ensuing list of grievances don't define what a government should and should not be? They don't establish a moral framework for the separation of the Colonies from England and the institution of a new government among men, "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed?" Darn! I knew I should have learned to read English at Humpty Dumpty's school, where words mean exactly what you want them to mean.
By the way, this country celebrates the anniversary of its founding on July 4th, from the date the Declaration of Independence was published, not the date the Constitution was ratified. Not only is the Declaration A defining document, it is THE defining document of our country. The Constitution is Chapter Two.
Then they should nto be let in. if the prayer is an official part of the proceedings, then they should attend, or give up their taxpayer-funded jobs. If it's *not* an official part of the proceedings.... then they should *pay* for the priveledge of using their time for personal purposes.
"Not be let in" to what? Their own chamber? Let me get this straight. The Wookie ... er, I should have said Wiccan ... gets to come into the chamber, but the people who are holding the meeting don't? Are you trying a new medication for the first time?
If the prayer is an official part of the proceedings, why should they be required to attend? If they find the invocation offensive, shouldn't your liberal tolerance permit them to leave the room, rather than being subjected to such corrupting influences? Or does that just apply to Christian invocations?
Would you complain if Muslims started spouting that all of Western Civ was cribbed from the Caliphate?
Yes, because it's not true.
To claim that the law came from a purely or even largely Christian basis is simply a *lie.*
No, it's not. I've proven that. Your opinion doesn't make it fact.
It's bearing false witness. I seem to recall that some religions frown on that.
Wicca?
Irrelevant. We're talking about England, and the introduction of Saxon law in the 500's.
Once again, we redefine the ground rules until we've got things exactly where we want them.
You can't have it both ways. Either Saxon laws -- including the Capitulate -- defined English law or they didn't. I daresay the evolution of English common law stemming from post-Charlemagne days more powerfully influenced Jefferson et. al. than pre-Charlemagne custom.
Not been suckered in by the same ideology that you have.
You know nothing about my ideology. But if you are an adherent of Wonka ... er, I meant Wicca ... then you probably shouldn't be talking about "suckers."
Where is that laid out in the Constitution?
It isn't. The Constitution is a legal document. A nation is more than the sum of its laws.
And then discovered the "civilized" practice of holy war, inquisition, and fraudulently claiming that the achievements of pagans before them are actually their own.
All "sins" committed 500 to 800 years ago. Can't you come up with anything more recent? By the way, one of the common practices of pagan religions is human sacrifice. So they're not exactly without their warts either.
It's always interesting on these threads to know when to break off a discussion. Too early and you seem to concede the ground. Too late and you just seem to belabor the point. You're obviously not going to change your mind, so I'm not sure there's much point in going on with this. My original assertion was that the Board should invite the Wobbly ... darn! I mean Wiccan wacko ... drat! I mean "priestess" ... to address the assembly, then walk out the door and let her jabber for her allotted two minutes, then reconvene. I see nothing in any of this argle-bargle that changes my position.