Some voice concern over president's religious rhetoric

Boston Globe ^ | February 16, 2003 | John Donnelly

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON - In the midst of a war on terrorism and before a war in Iraq, two combatants are not shy about invoking the name of God.

And both President Bush and Osama bin Laden fervently assert that God is on their side.

[KDD]

You dodged the question.

Then I will address it...

Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." But what does this mean for the principle of religious liberty?

The answer is: nothing. Our dating system is an historical artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans; we naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our cultural heritage.

In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it's sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.

To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words "Year of our Lord" in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it's hard to imagine why. "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.

[P-Marlowe]

You dodged the question again.

Which "LORD" were they referring to?

Just a one or two word answer will suffice. After you answer the question, then feel free to post any explanation you want. But FIRST, answer the question.

Thanks.

[KDD]

But one thing is undeniable...Islam sees this nation as a Christian Nation and has declared a religous war on us. Our own history shows us that there are no bloodier or uncivilized wars then religous wars so we'd better be prepared to defend our country, and for those of us who are Christian, our religion. But government does only one thing well and that is conduct war. Every time it intrudes into domestic social problems, it steals more of the moral authority of the Church whose proper role in the formation of a moral society is usurped.. I do not want the State involved in any way with the Church.

That way there be Dragons.

[P-Marlowe]

****Then I will address it...****

The operative word there is "I"

Boy KDD I thought you were pretty quick with that answer, but it appears that you cut and pasted the whole answer from the "Separation of Church and State Home Page". Like THEY don't have a bias, eh?

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10c.htm

Did you write that? If not don't you know it is a sin to plagerize without providing reference? Repent!

BTW I asked what YOU thought. Not what Barry Lind or someone of his ilk thought.

[KDD]

Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution.

Skim right over it did you?

[KDD]

Attack the source...not the substance.

How progressive of you.

[P-Marlowe]

Your answer on post 39 was lifted from INFIDELS.ORG

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

And I thought you could think for yourself.

Repent!

[P-Marlowe]

Post # 30 was lifted from the American Atheists Inc. website.

http://home.att.net/~utahatheistnews/till.html

Do you even have an original thought?

Repent!

[P-Marlowe]

Not only did you dodge the question, but you lifted your answer from here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Shame on you!

[KDD]

This is a debate format...not a chatroom, as much as many of you newbies have tried to make it. I use much material to make my points, much of it taken from .edu websites and articles that are unacsribed, such as the above. The ideas are mine or mirror mine. Refute and debate them you will, but I am not a chatty person.

[P-Marlowe]

***Attack the source...not the substance.****

Acknowledge the source.

KDD....Plagerist and Atheist.

[Libertina]

At such a time when the American people elect certain "scholars" as our presidents, they can say what they want. Until then they can lump it. I very much like what President Bush is saying.

[KDD]

P-Marlowe...Christian Taliban. I will use unascribed articles as I choose.

That is why they are unascribed...Is President Bush a Plagerist when he takes credit for a speech written and authored by a speechwriter.

[marajade]

he does have a direct line to God...

[Just mythoughts]

One very important thing you have left out.

What the founders did leave in was the Declaration of Independence. What our Heavenly Father gives to man no government can take away.

Those words are what separate this country from all others in the world. Our rights are God given not man given.

Therein lies the battle line of the "LEFT" vs.. "RIGHT"

[sanjacjake]

Just more of the zillion little spears that President
Bush has to put up with. My $0.02....Bush is sincere,
Bush is compassionate, Bush takes his office as a sacred
obligation, Bush respects human life, including the fetus
in the womb, Bush is not...a Clinton - (who is also out
there bashing this good man- anyway he can)...I will go
on and support this man..with all my heart, God willing.

[P-Marlowe]

I answered a point you made which was lifted from an online source without reference to that fact by you. I then asked you a simple question. You dodged the question and pasted a bunch of unsourced quotes from various atheist sites without acknowledging that they were lifted word for word. You left the appearance that it was you who were stating these ideas and thoughts, but it was obviously a false impression.

You still have never answered my question. I pointed out that in dodging my question you lifted wholesale the work of others and then, rather than answering my question IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you call me a "Christian Taliban"

As if that is your own registered trademark, huh? That's really orginal.

Well KDD there are ATHEIST TALIBANS as well. If you don't believe me, read the History of the USSR under Stalin or the History of Cambodia under Pol Pot. Do you need more?

Now will you answer my question?

Which Lord did they refer to?

[carolina_rn7]

" He does have a direct line to God....and so would you if you believe that Christ is your Saviour. "

A BIG AMEN!

[RnMomof7]

An even greater tragedy is that they many times hoodwink the public into believing that they are only trying to make our nation what the founding fathers would want it to be. Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and we must never allow anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise.

propaganda..there is no seperation of church and state in our constitutuion...it offers you freedom to worship as you will .It makes it your right to believe or not to believe, you have the right to be any faith you like..The constitution simply says there will be no state religion or a religious test for office (such as the democrats exert on the courts)

President Bush simply restates the prayer and faith of our founding Fathers..That were all men of faith..

[verity]

Only when the President states that "my God can beat up your God" will I be concerned.;~)