Saturday, 20 of March of 2010

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.

• About
• Ask for Help
• FAQ
• Posting a Diary
• Report Abusive Behavior
• Rules of the Road

Print

USA Founded For God?

For those of you who have been following the discussion in the post I made earlier entitled Bob Smith and the Tree Huggers, you’ll note that USMarine has recently stated that the USA was founded for god and also basically told me to leave the country if I didn’t believe in said god.

Damen,

First off if you dont belive in God, why dont you get out of the country that was founded for him, your contridicting your own ideals, obviously you do belive in him why else would you live in America, hmmm how does it go ” I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Yes, that’s all well and good but when you look at history without a handy-dandy set of Bible-Noculars in front of your eyes you’ll see things quite differently.

I have already said this before but it bears repeating because I fear that our good friend USMarine will skip over what I said a second time.

For those who may think USMarine is right and the USA is somehow founded for god I want you all to take a moment to direct your attention to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems kinda cut and dry there. No religion in the government. Kinda hard to miss, what with it being in the first sentence and all. But apparently USMarine missed it, or he just didn’t really know what it meant. Well, that’s fine, but then he went on to say to Jim

Jim,

Sir, how is that claiming superiority over anyone, I am stating that it would be contridictory to say I dont belive in shoes but yet still wear them every day kinda get where im coming from?, no sir they are the ones that need to “own what they say” if you dont belive this country was founded for God then you dont know history or the pledge of allegiance. nor should you live here.

Now this is a shocker to me. USMarine wants to talk about knowing history? Okay, let’s just take a look at history and see if he’s right, shall we?

In the Treaty of Tripoli (which was signed by John Adams) it states in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There it is, a little something from history which states that the United States is not founded on the christian religion. So one must ask how, if the USA is not founded on the christian religion, can it be founded for the christian god? The answer here is, it’s not.

USMarine also uses the Pledge of Allegiance to justify his stance because it has “Under God” in it. Well, he wants to tell us to look at history? He should look at it first because the Pledge of Allegiance did not have Under God in it when it was adopted in 1892.

A quick search on Wikipedia.org will show you what I mean, but I’ll just save you the time.

Addition of the words “Under God”

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the “American way of life.” In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation “under God.” He took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Rev. Docherty had opportunity to converse with President Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Representative Charles Oakman (R-Mich), introduced a bill to that effect.

Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress, March 10, 1954, said that “the introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped.” This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law appropriately on Flag Day (June 14, 1954).

A little history lesson and you’ll find that until 1954 the words “Under God” were never mentioned.

What many people fail to remember is that despite what the Founding Fathers may have believed in, whether they were religious or not, they set up a secular government, one of the first in history, and they did it because they knew what happens when you mix religion into the government. When religion is allowed to take part in the proceedings of the government, it will open the door to tyranny. But I think I can do better to quote one of the wiser men of our nation.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. ~Thomas Jefferson

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. ~Thomas Jefferson

~Damen

---

Date: April 28, 2006

Author: Damen

Categories: ethics, general, history, legislation, liberty, politics, religion

Tags:

(560 votes, average: 3.01 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 14 comments

• 

  Jose

  in April 29th, 2006 @ 20:51

  What people like USMarine don’t understand is this; The United States does NOT sponsor religion. Hence this document that you’re obviously not to familiar with called the First Amendment. Not only are we free to practice religion, we are free to NOT practice it as well.

  People like you give the Marines a bad name.

  ---

• 

  Terry

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 07:28

  Once again, I suggest that we should not condemn him for his lack of knowledge. Rather we should condemn the institute of higher learning that has filled his mind with worthless twaddle. USMarine is as much a victim of his education as we are of his logic.

  Let us be kind and hope that somehow after all this time and the efforts of many divers correspondents, USMarine may somehow get to understand that each time he sets up a challenge, He is totally unable to respond to the scholarly research which so confounds him.

  I wrote earlier of USMarines ability to defend an indefensible position. I see now he is standing alone in his own sea of confusion unable to move for fear of drowning in his ignorance.

  I would suggest that since USMarine refuses to aknowledge that his arguments have no value, that he should withdraw from the forum. Or seek another battle that he might, by chance or good luck, win.

  ---

• 

  Scott

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 10:25

  Hi Terry,
  I suspect that USMarine doesn’t see counter-evidence and counter-argument as being a problem.
  The reason is that many who are steeped in the thinking that USM is so deeply immersed in identify faith as being either a virtue or a sign of virtue.
  I am speaking in very broad terms here…(though I’m still sure this is going to come back to bite me on the arse)
  In Protestant (Calvinist) traditions, folks are either elect or not. So being a true believer is a mark of election or preference by God.
  In many traditions, faith, being a gift from God, is contingent on righteousness. So being a true believer is an indicator of moral superiority.
  And as faith goes beyond evidence, it requires an act of volition. Combined with the above points, lack of belief is taken to be a lack of effort, a sign of moral weakness.
  That being said…
  If making a leap of faith is virtuous, making a greater leap of faith makes one more virtuous.
  From what I’ve read of USM, he seems like this type of thinker; by arguing with him, we might have had the unfortunate effect of more deeply entrenching his will to believe.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 12:42

  A lot about USMarine doesn’t really add up. I never was satisfied with his explanation about that brick throwing thing. Where did all those hundreds of bricks come from and why wasn’t there any report in the news about brick-throwing demonstartors? He admits he knows where one brick came from..inside the military area, so how do the demonstrators have access to a military area to take a brick out? He seems to know way too much about bricks and makes a lot of assertions, but when he was challenged, he just melted away. I think that if any bricks were thrown, he threw them or he knows who did.

  The other thing that doesn’t add up is the time line. He is 23 years old and has been in the marines for 4 years, since he was 19. If he took the ususal 4 years to get a degree he would have had to start college at the age of 15. It’s very hard to get into college at the age of 15, especially when you don’t know how to use spell check and have not learned about topic sentences, English composition, and the use of the apostrophe. He doesn’t write like an educated person. I went to a small liberal arts faith-based university for a short time and the students were incredibly smart (and well off).

  He seems more like what we could call co-dependent, trying to prove his self-worth by examining someone else’s life rather than his own. All those scapegoat/hero/caretaking/rescuing/controlling behaviours.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 13:22

  Scott, I was sneaking up behind you filing my teeth, before I pulled out Calvin’s “Institute of the Christian Religion,” his textbook of religious tennents from 1536. Yow.
  “Whatever sin is, therefore, it is accompanied with the wrath and vengeance of God. he is justified who is considered not as a sinner, but as a righteious person, and on that account stands in safety before the tribunal of God, whrere all sinners are confounded and ruined.” okay it looks like Calvin believes both in justification by works and by faith, in predestination, and in a group of the ‘elect’ who are known only to god. (Chapt 11,II) He seems to be clear on this, that only God knows who is of the elect, there is no “mark ” or external sign.

  There was a very public debate between Calvin and Wesley; Calvin had 4 major points, Wesley agreed with the first one but not the last 3. Among them Calvin thought once you were saved that was it, Wesley said no, you could mess up. Then Wesley said eveyone is a sinner and no one could be justified except by god being magnanimous, therefore justification by grace.

  I don’t know if any group actually follows Calvin today, maybe the Moravians? Where do Baptists get their doctrine? USM claims to be a graduate of a Texas Baptist school, no doubt southern baptist (they split with the northern baptist over slavery, as other denominations did, but unlike other denominations never reunited after the Civil War.)

  Most religious groups start with a lot of energy and emotion, but are short on dogma. Eventually someone writes some dogma, but the average true believer probably doesn’t know it. Since USM likes the Old Testament so much, he needs to go back and look at that 9th commandment about bearing false witness. That thing about the bricks just doesn’t add up.

  ---

• 

  Scott

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 13:31

  Thanks Alan, I should have been clearer. I was not intending my comments to actually accurately portray Calvin, nor any official dogma. What I meant is that there is a general psychological characterstic, especially within those groups that trace their spiritual lineage back to Calvin to perceive faith in this way.

  ---

• 

  Scott

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 13:34

  Alan Post 5: “Scott, I was sneaking up behind you filing my teeth…”
  Me, post 3:”I am speaking in very broad terms here…(though I’m still sure this is going to come back to bite me on the arse)”

  Now you’re just making me nervous.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 16:05

  Scott, That was funny sort of, am I really that mean? This website seems to be atheistic rather than pluralistic, so I think it’s appropriate to challenge people who make broad undocumented statements against religion, especially when they seem to be aggressive rather than reflective. (this is obviously not you.)The point I am trying to make is that Protestant established religious groups can be receptive to scientific truth, openly inclusive of gays, tolerant of choice, anti-war, pro-environment, ant-racist, and in general open-minded. Not all Christians or even all Protestants are part of the religious right; there IS a different religious perspective.

  The ‘Calvinistic tradition’ seems to be followed among “reformed” churches. The closest this comes to what you are talking about is in the paragraph on “Christian Reconstruction” but if you keep following links you will eventually come to the conclusion that no one in the christian right claims this viewpoint.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

  So if you look at the roots of the Southern Baptist Convention, which was taken over in 1979 by the christian right, they don’t really seem to be related to anything Calvinistic.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

  So, no, i don’t agree with your conclusion in #3 that USM has concluded “If making a leap of faith is virtuous, making a greater leap of faith makes one more virtuous.”

  The way I read the Baptitst/religious right/RTL crowd is

  The bible is meant to be read literally as a scientific document.
  the bible does not agree with what science says about creationism, dinosaurs, etc.
  Therefore, science is wrong and scientific fact and reason will challenge faith of the believers
  So believers need to be isolated from the outside world to keep from being corrupted.
  Believers have to try to inject their beleifs back into the outside world, (school prayer, RTL, creationism, etc) becasue the world challenges and corrupts and weakens their religious group

  So USM is just trying to get heavenly brownie points by trying to convert us heathens to whatever unreasoned viewpoint he has been fed by some religious authority. It goes with his ‘rescuing’ codependent outlook. I think he is really sincere and trying to get approval (whether it is by ‘kicking ass’ or regurgitating RTL viewpoints) but he is too afraid of being himself to be independent of whoever feeds his religious worldview.

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in May 3rd, 2006 @ 20:13

  The odd thing about Calvinism in my above post, still waiting moderation, is that when it gets into the hands of the Christian Right, in the form of “Christian Reconstruction” it becomes a rejection of pluralism, and an argument for theocracy, making the Bible, or Old Testament the standard for all human governmnet. But when the same Calvinism morphed into German “neo-orthodoxy” it produced the “confessing Church” of Barth, Niemuller, and Bonhoeffer that rejected tying God to cultures, rejected the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible, and resisted the Nazi ideology of the Protestant Reich Church.

  The same Calvinist idiology responsible for both promoting theocracy of the American religious right and rejection of theocracy under the Nazis. The main difference seems to be literal interpretation of the Bible. So maybe as yo.be says “the bible is can hold up to criticism, but it can’t hold up to the heresy of literalism.”

  ---

• 

  Anonymous

  in May 4th, 2006 @ 15:10

  “am I really that mean?”
  –Just funnin’ with ya
  “This website seems to be atheistic rather than pluralistic, so I think it’s appropriate to challenge people who make broad undocumented statements against religion, especially when they seem to be aggressive rather than reflective.”
  –Though I don’t characterize myself as a believer, I agree that intellectual honesty is to be defended.
  “(this is obviously not you.)”
  –thank you
  “The point I am trying to make is that Protestant established religious groups can be receptive to scientific truth, openly inclusive of gays, tolerant of choice, anti-war, pro-environment, ant-racist, and in general open-minded.”
  –in principle you are correct. But the key word is “can” be receptive. This will vary fron tradition to tradition, from congregation to congregation, and especially from believer to believer.

  The points you make in posts 8 & 9 are interesting historically and theologically, and I can agree with most of them. My point however is more about the psychology (and to a lesser degree the sociology) of religious belief.
  I really haven’t said anything controversial. Many Christians (and Moslems) of all stripes believe that non-belief is a sign of moral weakness or moral inferiority, regardless of the “official” doctrines of their particular brand of belief.
  Being a practicing Christian yourself you are doubtless surrounded by many with this attitude.

  ---

• 

  Scott

  in May 4th, 2006 @ 15:11

  Post 10 is me, Scott

  ---

• 

  Alan

  in May 4th, 2006 @ 17:16

  I can’t speak to any of the “psychological” stuff you are talking about. It doesn’t ring true with my own tradition or any that I know about secondhand. We don’t spend a lot of time trying to differentiate ourselves from other groups, like certain moslem websites i could point to.

  “This will vary from tradition to tradition, from congregation to congregation, and especially from believer to believer.”
  -our church spells out what it believes about everything, which is agreed on in a sort of convention. The part about gays and transexuals is specific only to certain churches actively engaged in the dialogue and is printed in the bulletin every sunday in case anyone wants to walk out, which has happened. I don’t suppose everyone agrees with everything, but if that happens we pray about it and try to listen with open mind.

  ‘Struggle with doubt’ is probably more a more common theme, having just passed Easter in the church calendar, when Thomas had his famous rondevous with doubt and belief. A polite phrase I used with Moslems, and I thought I was pretty original to make it up, was that God is so big and we are so small, we can never understand God. It was meant as a way to keep to my own religion without disagreeing with theirs, but I have since heard someone else make exactly the same statement in a different context.

  I just happened to stumble on a used copy of marcus borg’s “The Heart of Christianity‘. His “Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time was strongly recommended to me and has been on my reading list for a while. Anyhow there is a whole chapter on the four meanings of faith, maybe I’ll look at it and post something tonight if it’s as good as I think it will be.

  Okay, here is a quickie from the 4th meaning, “earlier in this chapter i emphasized that for many in the modern world, faith means primarily “believing”, with believing understood to mean accepting uncertain claims to be true…I want to emphasize that the premodern meanings of the English words “believe” and “Believing” and the Latin word credo are very different from what believing has come to mean in our times….
  We commonly translate credo as “i believe” And becasue most modern people understand “i believe” as “I give my assent to ” many christians have difficulty with the creeds…
  but credo does not mean “i hereby agree to the literal-factual truth of the following statements.” Rather, its Latin roots combine to mean “I give my heart to”. as mentioned earlier in this chapter, the heart is the self at its deepest level, a level below the intellect. as the giving of one’s heart, credo means “I commit my loyalty to,” ” I commit my allegiance to.”

  ---

• 

  Simonek

  in May 12th, 2006 @ 04:22

  Osoba zatrudniona na stanowisku Kierownika produkcji ma bardzo http://barbiejeep.superfreehost.org/ – barbie jeep szeroki zakres obowiazkow. Z jednej strony ma bardzo duze mozliwosci decyzyjne a z drugiej bardzo duza odpowiedzialnosc za podjete decyzje – wazne wiec,
  aby stosowala wlasciwe rozwiazania majac na uwadze sytuacje i sprawne funkcjonowanie calego przedsiebiorstwa.

  ---

• 

  megametrix

  in June 9th, 2006 @ 21:11

  Well! If the moronicity demonstrated by USMarine wants Damen to leave the US because he doesn’t like his views on God, then i would like to join Damen– but with one difference: I wish to Jesus Christ i COULD leave this fascist country!! I can not even leave it!! Does anyone want to give me a one-way ticket the hell out of here? I’ll gladly take you up on it, so help me, God!!

  ---

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion uses WordPress as content manager.