Posted on 11/27/2006 11:02:39 AM PST by News Hunter
"In God We Trust," the official national motto since 1956 and a familiar sight on U.S. coins and currency, will be hard to find on the new presidential dollar coins scheduled for release to the public Feb. 15, 2007.
The new gold-colored dollar pieces, featuring images of U.S. presidents, will move the inscription from the face of the coin to the thin edge, along with the year and the previous national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of Many, One."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well said
Then why is China a growing power?
because God is allowing it for the time being- I assure you though that they are anythign but 'blessed' as we here in the states are.
no sorry jude- NOWHERE does it say we shall remain neutral- to do so would deny rights to the majority to freely express their beleifs- People of no faith are freely excersizing their lack of faith as well- noone is impinging on that right- simply seeing words of faith is NOT an intrusion on your lack of faith- Yes, we object to people teaching our kids Islam against our will JUST as you would object to teachers teaching your kids about God. In a Christian nation, again, majority sentiment dictates foreign religions should not be taught our children against a parents objections.
It is not 'utterly useless as a rule of law' and infact has legal backgrounds that find in favor (of course over the objections of htose who wish to throw God out completely)- Those whop rail against religion in government whining about 'seperation of church and state' have attempted to make the constitution say what it clearly does not state- The bumper sticker "NOT freedom FROM religion" is absolutely appropriate to the discussion. http://sacredscoop.com
The speration of church and state nonsense that is so often brought up by those opposed to religion in government and public right to expression was meant to keep the government FROM imposing one religion standard on people NOT from preventing the right to freedom of expression. There have been major cases on this topic, and it has been found that relgion IN government and freedom OF people's right to expression do NOT violate the constitition
Seperation does NOT mean abandonment by government altogether it simply means government can not force their religious beliefs on anyone ever again, like they did in England. A public display on governmental property is NOT forcing ANYONE to beleive one way or another, and the government has EVERY right, as do our citizens, to express their beliefs- contrary to what the ACLU deceitfully tells you.
VERY well said...
and once again...
they can choose to ignore the facts all they wish, but the opportunity for furthering their education is right here (AGAIN):
http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/constitution01.html
but you can bet they'll simply ignore the comments about deliberate revisionism! :)
So let me break down your argument:
You have the right(?) to tell the government to coerse my wealth from me in order to build a public display depicting symbols from your religion?
BTW: what is the meaning of a right to you? Just to be fair here's where I'm coming from.
"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries); a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." [Ayn Rand "Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness, 124; pb 93.]"
OK, you're familiar with the arguments, but wantonly ignore and revise the truth.
Oh and btw...I noticed you left some very very important information out of your treaty of tripoli arguments:
Did you know??????
http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/constitution08.html
You might want to pay particular interest in how those attacking and revising our Christian heritage here are dismantled at the bottom of the page!
OR you can keep digging your hole and victimizing yourself. You can simply become part of the long list of the pitifully debunked. YOU get to choose! It's your choice! Isn't it great this free country and society that God has blessed upon us!!!???
OK, fine. Semantics aside, privelege, rights...it's just the reality of it all I suppose. It's just how things work.
I don't get how by exercising my rights and priveleges, you're so defensive that you perceive this as somehow impinging on your rights! I mean to the point you're so insecure that you're going to do what again????
"If you want to make a case about "contributing to this country" I will call your ass out anytime, anywhere."
and...
"Remember, not just Christians, but every other religion under the sun (and lack thereof) "contribute" to this country."
And you got to this point how again? I implied otherwise somewhere in my posts?
I don't see as how you being an atheist or anti-Christian impinges on ME in any way. You're free not to say Under God in the pledge for instance, but this doesn't mean your view is so important that it trumps the majority Christians' view!
BTW...it tickles me to no end how even THAT isn't clear to the left...on one day the big bad evil Christians are indeed in the majority, and then another one comes along and declares Christians are NOT in the majority after all! Can't even get agreement on something as simple as that!
As far as contributing...I'm truly happy and thankful you served!
I was in the Air Force for 10 years. A medic and served in Desert Storm.
My father was in the U.S. Army for 30 years. 82nd airborne paratrooper. He was also in the 5th Special Forces Gp. and served in Veitnam in 1966.
In 1970 he went back as a helicopter pilot in the 7th Air Calvary. Custer's old unit and he filled Kris Kristopherson's spot when he rotated back to the states.
He has 23 Air Medals. The Legion of Merit, The Distinguished Flying Cross, 3 bronze stars with valor, 2 purple hearts and I forget how many oak leaf clusters on a total of 43 medals all together. He was nominated for the medal of honor and declined.
He's one of the most decorated CW-5's in the HISTORY of the U.S. Army.
He has a master paratrooper badge/jump wings, master army aviation wings, and a master infantry rifleman's badge, german jump wings, & various others.
And yes, my grandfathers on both sides were in the Army, in WW2. One served in both theaters, survived the battle of the bulge as an MP AND served in the Korean War. He has a silver star, two purple hearts and various others. He had 10 children, 5 boys, 5 girls and my grandmother has a letter from President Nixon thanking her for her patience for having two of her 4 surviving sons in Vietnam at the same time.
All are Christians.
And almost anyone can thump their chests, as is their right/privelege! Yup, even us mean ole Christians that support having IGWT on our coinage.
And By the Grace of God, I think we've EARNED that particular privelege!
When you're calling asses out next time Junior, make sure yours isn't on your shoulders!
Go Army, BEAT Navy! ;)
Riiight.
Just noticed your sign up date. You might want to read a little around here before beating your chest and lecturing jude24 and Junior.
Oh, and by the way, historical revisionism has been a specialty of the "christian nation" crowd, so caution isn't a bad idea with that accusation either.
Ummmm....the symbols are/were already there! THAT'S the entire point here! This is hardly a battle about Christian's erecting NEW symbols, but anti-Christians dismantling OLD ones! OR removing things like IGWT from money, Under God in the pledge and so on and so forth! These symbols were here from the country's inception! The founding fathers were mostly Christians! This is a CHRISTIAN country!
But only in your world, only you could see that it's no big deal to have taxpayers foot the bill for chiseling out the ten commandments all over the portico IN STONE over the supreme court building!
What's next? Yanking the crosses (and stars of David) out of Arlington Nat'l Cemetery???
BTW, anyone know if there are any muslim crescents in Arlington? Someone asserted that people contribute to this country from ALL religious and non-religious persuasions. For that matter, are there any satanic symbols in Arlington, you know where all the satanists died and spilled their blood in contributing to the freedoms of this country? Any unmarked graves where atheists served and gave the supreme sacrifice? Just curious.
Or how about having taxpayers pay to dismantle ALL vestiges of Christianity from public places like the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego.
As if that kind of lunacy weren't enough...the ACLU sued the city of Las Cruces New Mexico to have the crosses removed from the town's logo! Bear in mind the NAME Las Cruces MEANS, the crosses! But if the ACLU were to have free reign, I'm sure they would terrorize the people there to change their name or else!
Same for Los Angeles and suing them for having a cross in their city logo!
BTW, socialist, secular humanists somehow don't impress me too much when it comes to lecturing peoples about morals and rights!
sign update????
You got it all backwards...I was merely responding to attempts at lecturing and revisionism.
Oh well, there's mountains of people out there not understanding they've been disarmed/dismantled!
And you too are free to choose to become part of that group, free country and all! ;)
"You do not get to choose what is or is not a virtue. Virtues, morals, values are culturally ascribed and not decided upon by individuals. Perhaps you should return to school and educate yourself."
Yeah, Heil Hitler.
You might want to pay particular interest in how those attacking and revising our Christian heritage here are dismantled at the bottom of the page!
ooooooh.... conspiracy theories......
The founding fathers were in part Christian and in part deist. And this is a deliberately secular country governed by the rule of law. It is decidedly not a theocracy. Hence a Constitution that contains no operative language establishing or favoring a selected religion.
But only in your world, only you could see that it's no big deal to have taxpayers foot the bill for chiseling out the ten commandments all over the portico IN STONE over the supreme court building!
The ten commandments are not chiseled in stone on the portico of the Supreme Court building. Moses is depicted both on the exterior of the building (holding blank tablets) along with Confucius, Solon, and several other allegorical figures, and on the friezes inside the courtroom, along with Menes, Hammurabi, Draco, Octavian, Blackstone, Marshall, Napoleon, Justinian, Mohammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Grotius, Lycurgus, Menes, etc. The tablets on the interior frieze contain portions of commandments 6-10 written in Hebrew, chosen because these are not inherently religious.
There is no threat to Christians in this country precisely because all religions are tolerated, along with the freedom not be religious at all. It is when one religion is chosen by the state that your freedoms of conscience and belief are imperiled.
In short, should you decide tomorrow that you no longer believe in any God, your rights as a citizen of this country would remain unimpeded.
You were right the first time.
He can trust or not trust in what he wants. He just has to recognize that he doesn't speak for everyone.
"A frieze on the Supreme does not trump the Constitution and a treaty ratified in the first decade of this country's existence."
Wow....and you leapt to this leap of logic how????
Where oh where does the Declaration of Independence fit in? I guess it's an unimportant document since it dares mention a creator?
BTW, there are 3 major players in our government, the congress, the supreme court and the executive office of the President. And most certainly citizens are beholden to the Laws of the Land, enfocred by? Yup...the Supreme Court of the Land...
Which is why Michael Newdow was scolded and sent back west with his tail between his legs! As such an intelligent expert on constitutional law, he couldn't even get his case HEARD because he basically hijacked his own daughter! But I hear he's gotten someone else's child and he's back. It'll be most interesting to see this issue finally resolved!
But aside from your leaps of logic, the SC takes some basic tenets from the 10 Commandments. And Christian morals and laws.
Once again, you've passed on education:
yup....you're free to call them conspiracy theories. While many of the rest of us may choose to recognize it exactly for what it is: a dismantling of revisionist propoganda!
But you might get that if you actually went there and READ it! :)
Idiot. I'm not an atheist or anti-Christian. I'm Catholic. I was pointing out your infantile view that the majority trumps everything. Are you incapable of understanding that this is not a Democracy, but a Republic?
Of course not. Your emotions trump logic. To you, if it feels good, regardless of the consequences to others, it must be right. You're in the majority, so what you want goes. In a few decades, however, when you're in a minority (Moslems having outbred you) you'll feel different. But by then you won't have a leg to stand on. It isn't about Christians being bad, or even wrong. It's about everyone being equal.
You'll never see that. And that is the tragedy of all this.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal effect. It is a useful historical document, but the Constitution is the basis for our laws - NOT the Declaration of Independence.
You have 1.75 lawyers on this board patiently explaining to you Constitutional law - patiently, I might add. You could try listening, and asking respectful questions rather than flaming out of ignorance and paranoia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.