Traitor to state dies.

Post Reply New Topic

Careful on your history there. Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. And treason is defined very strictly in the Constitution, and would never extend to anything like this. America's secular roots have been greatly exaggerated; Biblical instruction instruction in schools was taken as a given by most people in America's earlier history. America was intended to respect people's freedom to worship as they pleased (and yes, this includes the "none of the above" option, Benjamin Franklin didn't belong to any church) but it is debatable whether it was ever intended to be so strictly secular.

As far as the two sayings, the government printing "In God we trust" on money dates from the Civil War, though it was not officially adopted as the US motto until the same time as "under God" was inserted into the Pledge as a way of fighting the "Godless Communists." Also, neither of those were, strictly speaking, laws passed by Congress (making "In God we Trust" the national motto was by joint resolution, which is different from a law) and so would not violate a strict interpretation of the First Amendment- "Congress shall make no law blah blah blah..." It could be argued that, as long as Congress is not passing a specific law, it's fine for government to make religious references. At one point, one could claim that since the First Amendment referred to Congress, it did nothing to establish freedom of religion at a state level, but the Supreme Court has since incorporated the First Amendment, making it binding on individual states.

Now, AAA. If you feel the need to launch a diatribe against me for this post, please be sure to be careful about it. I'm a history major and I will point out any inaccuracies.

You beat me to it, Merle, though this does leave out a bit of the story that was completed during the McCarthyist era. Generally, it is considered appropriate to attribute verbatim quotes to their sources, so I will post the link to your source HERE.

it's not anyone. it's the person with the hubris to violate one of the core principles of the government and circumvent it by abusing his position at the pulpit. well intentioned or not, his encouragement of the secularization of the government (he wasn't the first nor the last but all are guilty) has had only negative results.

this isn't about personal belief. this is about someone abusing their influence to corrupt the government.

* In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."
* In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".
* In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.
* In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.
* In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.
* On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.


there you go for your first of the traitors to this country's balance.

As a private citizen and not a public servant, he was perfectly within his own First Amendment rights to express his thoughts on the subject. American citizens are legally permitted to advocate for socialism, capitalism, monarchism, theocracy, anarchism, or anything else that they want to support. Blame Eisenhower and Congress if you have such an objection to anything outside the secular; the government officials are the ones who are supposed to stay within those bounds. Surely you aren't calling for a secular clergy?

i'm calling for a clergy that doesn't interfere with government business.

He delivered a politically motivated sermon over a rather petty topic, that doesn't seem too horrible to me. My church has given several sermons that definitely had politically leftist undertones, so it goes both ways. I will merely repeat: the clergy who reside in America are as much citizens as you and I, and they have the same rights. A clergyman can vote, be a political activist, even run for office if they want. I'm not sure what you mean by "interfere with government business" but I suspect you are abusing loaded terminology. Am I interfering in government business when I vote? What if I organized a rally for some political issue I felt strongly about? Would that be "interfering with government business?"

i see how you spun that around and i should have stopped it sooner but i thought you'd be reasonable. no psycho* (theistic believer) is ever reasonable when it comes to their own delusions.


i'm talking about men of the cloth, not some lay person like you. i'm talking the ones with influence...not joe schmuck. they have no place in government. that's why they don't pay taxes.



*the only problem is sanity is a judgment made by committee, not by results. someone believing something exists that there is no physical proof of would normally be a form of schizophrenia or disassociative disorder. because theistic religion holds the vast majority, this issue has been ignored.

I hold the same view for people who do not hold my particular "delusions" as you like to call them. What have I spun around? I am asserting that American citizens have the right to speak up if they so desire, regardless of the content of that speech. I personally don't see any point in printing "In God we Trust" on the coins or having "Under God" in the Pledge and would as soon be rid of them.


What, because someone might be listened to they no longer have the right to free speech? That rather negates the purpose of free speech, don't you think? They are still human being and US citizens, and they have all the rights that go along with that. The pastor from my old church back home was active in several pro-Obama groups. Would you deny her that right because she belongs to the clergy and therefore should not be permitted to participate in government? And get your facts straight, ska. Clergy still pay taxes. It's the churches that are tax-exempt as non-profits.

There is a difference between secularism and political oppression of the religious. Secularism means the government does not legislate a certain faith or make any distinction among people because of their religious beliefs. Political oppression is when you say that someone forfeits their political rights as a consequence of belonging to a particular group, in this case the clergy. The two concepts are incompatible. Fortunately, America is secular and does not oppress anyone on religious grounds.

EDIT:
The truth or falsehood of the beliefs expressed is irrelevant to whether one has the right to express them. If you are going to ban untrue speech, then you have already embraced the Thought Police. I'm not going to waste my time debating theism vs atheism with you, as I've had more than my fill of arguments with internet atheists. Besides, this is not really the time or thread to do so.

those who push to secularize the government betray* the government. how plain is that? how can you not comprehend that? is it because you think there's no repercussions for such an action as having "in god we trust" on all forms of money? because there is. it grants the misconception to the people that we are a religious government. this is not the case and isn't legally the case either.


*betray is a bad word to use but i meant along the lines of betrays the balance original purpose of the government founded here. maybe corrupt would be a better word?

I'll assume you mean "desecularize." The government is already secularized, and I doubt many preachers are pushing hard for more secularization.

Betray the government? Strong words. Do people who push for socialism also betray the government? What's wrong with a private citizen expressing opinions contrary to those of the Founding Fathers? Is that not our right as Americans to do so if we so desire? Corrupt is possibly a better word, but has connotations that are still a bit strong for this context. I suspect you would not object to "corrupting" the "original purpose" of the government (of which there was none, as the Founders couldn't even agree among themselves) if the changes suited your own ideals better. Basically, I just think you are looking at this through an overly biased perspective and not being very analytical or thoughtful about what you are saying.

Fine then, take "In God We Trust" off the money. I'm all for that. But don't deny others their fundamental rights to advocate to the contrary in the process. I can say that the government ought to erect a monument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be perfectly within my rights.

just wanna break the tension real quick and say i love you all the same even though we don't agree.

just religious leaders...you know, the people who don't pay taxes.

you're welcome to express your opinion all you want on government issues. just, rev wright isn't.

Religious leaders pay taxes, as I've already told you. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417.html Reverend Wright may be a nut job, but he has just as much right to express his opinion as I do. And since when has paying taxes been a requirement for expressing an opinion anyways? Do we have a "rights tax" now that you have to pay before being granted your natural rights?

yeah, it's called income tax.

Not really. What if you have no income? And failure to pay taxes has never caused anyone to forfeit their Constitutional rights. But anyways, religious leaders do pay income tax, so even by your reasoning they should be permitted to express their opinions on political matters. Frankly, the fact that we're even discussing whether a certain group is allowed to have an opinion is frightening.