UPDATE: The measure passed and California is safe for the moment. The display will be allowed in ALL classrooms.
I had to post about this quickly. HERE IS ANOTHER STORY about how the public school system in this country has lost its way and is doing not only a disservice to our children, but creating a hordes of morons that will actually vote one day.
A school district trustee wanted to promote patriotism by having posters in the class reflect the history of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST, which is on American currency, was to beo n one of the posters.
THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND TWO MEMBERS OPPOSE THIS! They are opposed to it because they say it is a spiritual agenda.
My questions are thus:
1) If our currency reflects a spiritual agenda, doesn't this mean that our founders did indeed base our nation on Christian principles?
2) Does this mean that the school district will no longer accept federal funds because it imposes on them a spiritual agenda?
3) If the historical reference to IN GOD WE TRUST is offensive, then how can you teach American history? If you can't teach American history, shouldn't you lose federal funding?
4) Why do reasonable people continue to endure this stupidity? Is it possible to allow deserters from the military get by with no punishment if they say that the sacrifice is no longer worth it? If I were serving today, I might seriously consider the argument as valid.
And to think that Abe Lincoln believed that the preservation of the Union was of utmost importance. Is there anyone who will sympathize with the Confederate States now in their desire to escape the federal government and all things yankee?
You Are Among The Elite!
Monday, November 05, 2007
Can We Vote California Out Of The Union?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 Posts From Readers:
Great post Robert and very good questions. I think what always strikes me as funny, is that people hate the phrase "In God We Trust" but have no problem spending money with that logo on it. Do they just pick and choose where it should be? I never thought I would see the day when this country is terrified of Christians. And I see more everyday that points to that fact. Islam is the religion that wants to kill all that don't believe what they do, but we are the ones getting constantly harassed. Are people that threatened of us. I guess we have more power than any of us realize. Maybe we should channel it and defeat these idiots in the story you posted about. I think Lincoln was wise beyond his years!
Don't you think it's sacreligious to mention god on money?
Btw, according to the department of treasury, "in god we trust" was added to the currency during the Civil War, not by the founders.
great post, robert. but dora is correct - it appeared on coins during the civil war era and on paper money in 1957. but it was placed on there by a sanctioned act...
but still these are valid questions and we should continue to ask them and we should demand answers. i would have sympathized with the southerners then, and still would now.
I lost your email. please email me again at admin@anewtone.com. I added you to the feed reader, now I'd like to add you to the Truth Surge.
God has no problem with money, why should I?
Yes, I am such a moron that I had no idea when the phrase was added to our currency. I just made it up.
Congress approved the addition in 1865. Congress. A third of the federal government with the power to propose changes to our laws.
I find it interesting that the same body that passed this measure only 78 years after the document was ratified, is now the body that stopped religious messages from accompanying flags flown over the capital to honor veterans.
I find it interesting that the same body that passed this measure only 78 years after the document was ratified, is now the body that stopped religious messages from accompanying flags flown over the capital to honor veterans.
If I remember correctly, it was the Architect of the US Capitol who wanted the word "God" removed from messages accompanying flags flow to honor veterans. But that did not go anywhere. So no harm, no foul.
And getting all upset over one school district and wanting to kick California out of the Union because of it is a bit over the top, isn't it?
I should think that the Maker of the Universe and every atom within it wouldn't have to have his little creations running around in hysterics everytime someone wants his name removed from filthy lucre or a flag.
I would imagine God doesn't need your or anyone's protection.
It's all rather childish and insecure--on the humans' part.
But it gives people something to rage about instead of focusing on important things.
Robert, thanks for trying to change the subject. Care to change your post such that it doesn't contain blatant falsehoods?
Shaw, right as always.
PS God has no problem with money? Have you heard of this "Jesus and the money changers" business?
My post contains no falsehoods. The democratic speaker of the house supported the architect. Interestingly enough, she is from California.
The money changers was not about money. It was about the church.
Shaw, there is harm. The attempts to carry out these things is a threat. The fact that too many people get away with it is foul.
California is host to every liberal wacko with an agenda. THis is one example, denying the Marine Corps the opportunity to shoot a commercial is another, the signs at a SF protect that say "Military bases are terrorist training camps" is one, and the 9th Circuit being the most overturned court in the country is another.
God does not need my protection, and as usual in your attempt to bash all things religious take this as a comment on God. It is a comment on the state of our nation and the refusal to respect anything in the historial context.
Shaw said:
"And getting all upset over one school district and wanting to kick California out of the Union because of it is a bit over the top, isn't it?"
I say:
Why not, I'm also for kicking out the Banana Republic of Florida; their populace doesn't know who they want to vote for in a national election (this in reference to a woman on the news who said she had wanted to vote for Al Lieberman) and can't seem to get their polling system to work. Pathetic!
I'm chuckling at the moment because this post just triggered a memory of dear old Senator Jesse Helms, an NC icon who, when the general assembly was deciding on whether to designate funds to establish our zoo said to all those present, " What do we need a zoo for? Just throw up a fence around Chapel Hill." To appreciate it this fully, you need to know Jesse is a dyed in the wool, God and country, Republican and that Chapel Hill is a liberal college town. I haven't always agreed with his views or politics but you have to give him credit for the strength of his convictions.
"My post contains no falsehoods. The democratic speaker of the house supported the architect. Interestingly enough, she is from California."--Robert
But you leave out an important coda to that statement. Pelosi agreed with allowing the mention of God to continue as before. In other words, she respected the majority’s will.
"Shaw, there is harm. The attempts to carry out these things is a threat. The fact that too many people get away with it is foul." --R.
I respectfully disagree, Robert. There is no harm. It was the Architect of the Capitol who reversed the tradition, and Pelosi abided by his decision, then changed her mind when she understood how others felt about the matter.
"At a press conference this morning, Pelosi said the Architect of the Capitol decided to reverse a 2003 policy that said certificates would list only the date flags were flown over the Capitol, the name of the person who requested the flag, and the person in whose honor the flag was flown.
"I don't think that the Architect's Office should be in the business of censoring what members want to say on those documents," Pelosi said. "I spoke earlier to the minority leader about this issue and said that it was my understanding that the Architect's Office was going to put forth this statement ... The Architect's Office came to its own conclusion."
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/pelosi_reverses_capitol_flag_p.html
Nancy Pelosi is a devout Catholic. I understand how the Right wishes to portray her as a godless witch, but that’s simply not true. She’s one of you. A Christian. And she loves Jesus as much as you do. Some of you just don’t like her brand of Christianity—you know, kinda like the way the Sunnis don’t like the Shiites.
"God does not need my protection, and as usual in your attempt to bash all things religious take this as a comment on God." --R.
I don’t care to bash religion. Religion interests me only to the extent that it could infringe on my right to be free of it. Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever gets him or her through this life.
I’m amazed at how you and other conservatives find this as a threat and not this.
BTW: If you get rid of California, you get rid of Orange County and San Diego County--whacko crazy Republican strong holds. LOL!
Shaw you have no right to be free of religion. In your home perhaps. But you have no right to have it removed from public view to spare you the inconvenience.
SO you are saying Pelosi has no convictions? She agreed with the decision before she agreed with the majority of people? How about actually saying what yu believe instead of following the polls?
Jesse Helms was a funny guy...
Shaw you have no right to be free of religion.--Robert
Be careful what you say, Robert.
Europe is fast becoming a Muslim majority. And what's to stop that from happening here? Will you be happy to see thousands of Mosques erected in villages and towns across America and hear the call to prayers 5 times a day from the minarets?
You just told me I have no right to be free from religion. This will apply to you as well should Muslims outpopulate the Christians here in this country and insist that your grandchildren listen to prayers from the Koran everyday in school and invoke Allah. "In Allah We Trust." Is there a problem with that?
I'm assuming you have absolutely no problem with that, since you claim we have no right to be free from religion--any religion.
I shall let that sophomoric statement stand on its own.
so far the only thing NOT being banned from public or separated from public funds are displays of the muslim variety. what you described, shaw, could very well happen if we continue to cowtow to the islam crowd and not allow christians and jews the same "air time" if you will.
Awe man California is my home dude!
But I believe in God We Trust!
"If our currency reflects a spiritual agenda, doesn't this mean that our founders did indeed base our nation on Christian principles?"--Robert
Please enumerate the Christian principles that are in the Constitution. The Constitution is the legal foundation of this country, not the Declaration of Independence.
"Does this mean that the school district will no longer accept federal funds because it imposes on them a spiritual agenda?"--Robert
And you characterized my post upthread as “sophomoric?”
"If the historical reference to IN GOD WE TRUST is offensive, then how can you teach American history? If you can't teach American history, shouldn't you lose federal funding?"
See above.
"Why do reasonable people continue to endure this stupidity? Is it possible to allow deserters from the military get by with no punishment if they say that the sacrifice is no longer worth it? If I were serving today, I might seriously consider the argument as valid."
And what exactly does this have to do with the phrase “In God We Trust?”
The money changers was not about money. It was about the church.
OMG! You are really stupid, aren't you?! Honestly!
The moneychangers has everything to do with mixing up what is holy with matters of business. "Render unto caesar what is caesar's" is the same. Mixing god with money is so against everything Jesus ever preached, but that doesn't even occur to you because it is so commonplace, and has been for hundreds of years. Why that is the case is another discussion. Let's just leave it at the fact that "In God We Trust" being stamped on money is pretty damn absurd in the context of Jesus' teachings.
Shaw you have no right to be free of religion. In your home perhaps.
Perhaps? Just Perhaps?
But you have no right to have it removed from public view to spare you the inconvenience.
No, but nor do you have the right to force it upon everyone by use of the government's funds or power, i.e. through schools.
Two interesting factoids:
- Teddy Roosevelt wanted to have all references to god removed from the government.
- Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
No "so help me god." No god at all.
The reference to rendering to Caesar what is his is the validation of worldly government, and that the duty to pay taxes is not contrary to God's dictates. It has absolutely nothing to do with blending the curch and business in the way you think. It is a statement that the house of God is to be used for Godly purposes, and not in habited by those who seek to take advantage of the poor and weak.
There is also the possibility that the presence of livestock in the temple indicated homage to the tradition of sacrificing animals, but I am not a biblical scholar so the finer points of the discussion are better left to those more knowledgeable than I.
The stamping of the motto on money is not absurd, nor is it contrary to the teachings of Jesus. I would ask you to show me a biblical reference to Jesus insisting that government not acknowledge God.
"In God We Trust" is not forcing religion on anyone. It is the national motto of the United States, and it is perfectly legitimate to display anytime, anywhere.
"In God We Trust" is not forcing religion on anyone. It is the national motto of the United States, and it is perfectly legitimate to display anytime, anywhere.
Really? Because it mentions god. I don't trust in god, you know.
Or are you saying that by virtue of being the national motto, it is automatically not religious? Suppose the motto was "All non-Christians are going to Hell"? Would that be religious?
Then my suggestion would be that you move elsewhere to practice law so that you aren't offended by your paycheck.
I tire of this absurdity. I said nothing about the mention of God being religious, although we could have the debate about the difference between spirituality and religion but that isn't the point of this post. I said that it wasn't forcing religion on anyone. No one takes an oath to our currency, no one is forced to bow down on payday, and most people couldn't tell you a single thing about what is printed on U.S. Currency except for the numbers in the corners.
I am not even sure what your point is anymore. Is it religious or not?
Post a Comment