# This Country is Going Down



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

By the same rules given to us by our founding Fathers extreme groups like the ACLU continue to have their views recognized. 

What a shame for America.



===============================================

U.S. 

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go


Published August 08, 2014
Â·Associated Press


Facebook
120 
Twitter
97 

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall.

(removed the most of this as it was a direct copy and paste of an article, that was a direct copy and paste of an AP article. Full article copy and pastes is NOT allowed on any forum in Homesteading Today. - Angie as Admin of site)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*George Washington*
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."


*John Adams*
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."


*Thomas Jefferson*
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."


*John Hancock*
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."


*Benjamin Franklin*
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

The 1st amendment to the constitution reads as follows:
"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."

Some questions I have for the judge, city council, the ACLU, and others - - So how did they establish a religion by having the 10 commandments on a monument? Did Congress establish this or did city council? Since it was put in by city council resolution, which religion did they establish by having this monument? By having this monument did they prohibit the free exercise of religion? Did city council ever tell anyone that they couldn't exercise their religion just because the 10 commandments was on display? 
In other words - the ACLU is wrong for bringing the suit, and the judge is wrong for siding with the ACLU on this one. There wasn't a religion established by having the 10 commandments on the monument, and from what I understand no one was told they couldn't worship the way they want to. Also the ACLU, the judge, and whoever else that has their panties in a bunch about this - needs to reread the 1st amendment, the writings of our founders, and understand that the establishment of religion was to keep the government from saying well so and so is in the presidency and his supporters are in congress, so now we are all Methodist, and in a few years when so and so is president and if he has supporters in congress - well now we are all Baptist, etc. They saw the abuses of kings in regards to religion and how when a new king came to power that religious preferences could change based on what the king wanted. 

It is obvious that the ACLU and the judge really don't have an understanding of the Constitution, the intent of the founders, etc.


----------



## unregistered358895 (Jul 15, 2013)

Maybe it's because I was raised in a baptist church, but I don't really understand why having a sculpture of the 10 commandments is so offensive to people. It, along with many ancient rule sets, are pretty basic and generally are a good baseline for law.

Maybe towns should pull the historical "eye for an eye" text and display that instead? Or would it be too offensive to realize that in another time and place you wouldn't have had the option for mercy... Whatever you done would be done right back to you.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

hmmm,whatever happened to freedom of worship?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Just one more reminder that when we deny one mans freedom.... someone else will inevitably deny our own. We cannot have it both ways.... either we are all free or no one will be.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

By making his ruling he violates the first amendment simply because it concerns religion. The federal government is prohibited from even taking interest into a situation that involves religion.Thats what "No law respecting religion" means.

This is a sad turning point in our society. I started a thread about if there is a war against God. It turned into a debate about abortion and ignored the question. This thread gives the answer. If you don't believe me, look at the state of our nation today.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

The issues involved are much larger than the one monument. If you have purposely limited your sources of information and history to those that agree with your point of view, I doubt that I can make you understand just how important the separation of church and state is.

The confluence of religion and government inevitably destroys any sort of tolerance and progress. It doesn't matter which religion. Governments rule by force and intimidation. The original religions of great teachers grew and held power by convincing people to _voluntarily_ accept a belief system that lifted them above the petty squabbles of the time.

When government and religion merge, the _best_ that can happen is that the lofty goals of the religion get sullied by the depravity of humanity. What more often happens is an intolerance that history looks back upon as positively evil.

What happens when religion and government merge:
The Jews get driven out of Egypt
The Jews drive those who would become the Carthaginians out of Judea and Israel
The Romans drive the Jews out of Israel
The Carthaginians fight the Romans
The Romans exterminate the Carthaginians
The Christians drive the Jews out of Europe
The Jews drive the Palestinians out of Palestine
The Catholics kill off or force convert the Wiccans and Druids and Pagans
The Anglicans kill off or force convert the Catholics in England
The Catholics drive off, kill or force convert the Jews in Spain
The Moslems drive off or kill the Christians
The Catholics mount crusades to kill off the Moslems
The Puritans engage in witch hunts
The Moslems impose Sharia law
The Protestants kill and drive out the Mormons
The Mormons kill and drive out outsiders
The Federal government starts to lay siege to the Mormons
and on, and on...

If Jesus himself came down again today in all his glory and with angels hovering around him, governments that are entrenched with religion would kill him for fear of losing power. Fighter jets and missiles would take out the angels.

Government without religion is frightening enough. If you were to give someone like a nameless President the ability to say "I speak with the word of G*d" your best course of action would be to fall upon your sword quickly.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I don't think it is a merger of religion and government as much as government becoming religion.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

bigjon said:


> hmmm,whatever happened to freedom of worship?


 Nothing.
Not having a monument to your religion on the courthouse lawn has NOT affected your 'freedom to worship'.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Nothing.
> Not having a monument to your religion on the courthouse lawn has NOT affected your 'freedom to worship'.


Nor does having one affect someone's 'freedom to not worship'.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

_ guess the thing that gets to me is these things were fine for hundreds of years. Now, people like Greg and Ed , the ACLU and others want them taken away because they are offended. I don't think folks like me want to file lawsuits to take away things that others like that have been around forever, I just accept it and go on. 
I think this Country is going to heck in a hand basket at a high rate of speed. But y'all go on, have it your way. This Country is close to dividing._


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> I think this Country is going to heck in a hand basket at a high rate of speed. But y'all go on, have it your way. This Country is close to dividing.


No, demographics are just drifting to the left as traditional democrat minority groups become a majority. But you knew this was going to happen.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> No, demographics are just drifting to the left as traditional democrat minority groups become a majority. But you knew this was going to happen.



And that is why this Country will go down; my point exactly. I'm glad that you understand, At times we have to get our crayons out.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

rambotex said:


> By the same rules given to us by our founding Fathers extreme groups like the ACLU continue to have their views recognized.
> 
> What a shame for America.


Why is it a shame?

The founding Fathers were predominantly Christians, so their views, were certainly predominately Christian.

Things are different today. Not everyone is Christian.

Whether they have a right to have the stature removed, is debatable and should be. Their right to want it removed, should not be in question.


FWIW I distinctly remember Christians freaking out, because Muslims want to put a center near ground zero, in New York.

Maybe the problem, is that there are too many self-centered busybodies, than united Americans.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

And maybe the problem is that this once great Country is being taken over by a bunch of Busy Body Liberals always complaining* about things that have been a part of this Country's history for over 200 years.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

I just retracted my entire reply because sniper 69 had me beat with his way of looking at it and he is 100% correct.
However I wish I hadn't been so hasty and deleted it so fast so allow me you give the general idea I had again. 

The City should have an open bid to sell of the land the monument is setting on with all the churches in the city involved in the biding as a whole, and given the chance to purchase that particular area of land, and if the churches win the bid, sell the Monument to them for a buck, and leave it right where it is at. 


GODSPEED

Ranger


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BadFordRanger said:


> I just retracted my entire reply because sniper 69 had me beat with his way of looking at it and he is 100% correct.
> However I wish I hadn't been so hasty and deleted it so fast so allow me you give the general idea I had again.
> 
> The City should have an open bid to sell of the land the monument is setting on with all the churches in the city involved in the biding as a whole, and given the chance to purchase that particular area of land, and if the churches win the bid, sell the Monument to them for a buck, and leave it right where it is at.
> ...


And how would you feel if a group like Freedom from Religion won the bid, took down the monument in question and erected their own monument to atheism? Or is the bidding only open to approved religous groups?


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

As a pagan, if I were to walk into that court room to defend myself and pass that monument I would immediately believe myself done for. The trial would be a sham in my eyes. I would be a "dead man walking".


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

gweny said:


> As a pagan, if I were to walk into that court room to defend myself and pass that monument I would immediately believe myself done for. The trial would be a sham in my eyes. I would be a "dead man walking".


Where do you think Western law came from?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> No, demographics are just drifting to the left as traditional democrat minority groups become a majority. But you knew this was going to happen.


I don't think that's it at all. What we see is that over the last 50-60 years, the Supreme Court has been expanding the meaning of the Establishment Clause. 100 years ago, monuments of the 10 Commandments were not considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Congress is the only entity restricted by the first amendment. Not local or state governments. The Founders wanted the states to decide for themselves whether or not to choose a state religeon and which one, and not have the federal government telling them what to do.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> FWIW I distinctly remember Christians freaking out, because Muslims want to put a center near ground zero, in New York.


And do you remember the Christians taking the Muslims to court over it?

Of course not. It was not a 1st Amendment issue. 

People used public opinion to try to prevent the building of a mosque on what was considered by many to be sacred ground.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

my3boys said:


> Congress is the only entity restricted by the first amendment. Not local or state governments. The Founders wanted the states to decide for themselves whether or not to choose a state religeon and which one, and not have the federal government telling them what to do.


The Supreme Court has expanded this to federal and state, which includes all governments within the state.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The Supreme Court has expanded this to federal and state, which includes all governments within the state.



Actually it is the 14th amendment that expanded the Bill of Rights down to the state and local level. Here's the applicable part:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

If it were not for this, gun rights decisions such as Heller and McDonald would have gone against individual freedom.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gweny said:


> As a pagan, if I were to walk into that court room to defend myself and pass that monument I would immediately believe myself done for. The trial would be a sham in my eyes. I would be a "dead man walking".


You really shouldnt ever defend yourself, not even really good lawyers defend themselves.... bad idea.... hire a lawyer, pay the man, and be exonerated from any wrongdoing whatsoever. Thats how our justice system works best. PAY the man! Just be sure to pay the right man!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Actually it is the 14th amendment that expanded the Bill of Rights down to the state and local level. Here's the applicable part:
> 
> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
> 
> If it were not for this, gun rights decisions such as Heller and McDonald would have gone against individual freedom.


The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. it wasn't until 1947 that the Establishment Clause was applied to a state.



> _Everson v. Board of Education_, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature


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


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Where do you think Western law came from?


China.... everything else does.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

gweny said:


> As a pagan, if I were to walk into that court room to defend myself and pass that monument I would immediately believe myself done for. The trial would be a sham in my eyes. I would be a "*dead man walking"*.


Correct you are.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Where do you think Western law came from?


Sumeria. Code of Hammurabi. So you are a worshiper of El?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. it wasn't until 1947 that the Establishment Clause was applied to a state.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States


OK - no argument, I just objected to your phrase about the SCOTUS expanding the rights when it comes from a plain language reading of the constitution, even if it did take the SCOTUS a century to enforce it. It is certainly not the first time it took SCOTUS time to get it right. You'll note the process of individual freedom to keep and bear arms has been a slow process over many decisions to get to what we enjoy in a majority, but not all states today. And 2A is written much more plainly than 14A.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

What ever happened to "In God we trust" our motto.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

It's "Goddess" now. ound:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> By making his ruling he violates the first amendment simply because it concerns religion. The federal government is prohibited from even taking interest into a situation that involves religion.Thats what "No law respecting religion" means.
> 
> This is a sad turning point in our society. I started a thread about if there is a war against God. It turned into a debate about abortion and ignored the question. This thread gives the answer. If you don't believe me, look at the state of our nation today.


The problem is the court is out of control and is just making up anything it wants then saying its in the USC _somewhere_. If you read the USC you will see that the 1st ONLY applies to laws passed by the US House and Senate. It does not have anything to do with ANYTHING else. It can not be logically applied to state ran schools, state buildings and unless the congress passes a law saying that the 10 Commandments must be posted in federal buildings it doesn't apply there either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> The issues involved are much larger than the one monument. If you have purposely limited your sources of information and history to those that agree with your point of view, I doubt that I can make you understand just how important the separation of church and state is.
> 
> The confluence of religion and government inevitably destroys any sort of tolerance and progress. It doesn't matter which religion. Governments rule by force and intimidation. The original religions of great teachers grew and held power by convincing people to _voluntarily_ accept a belief system that lifted them above the petty squabbles of the time.
> 
> ...


There's a problem with you logic if you read about when Israel was being ruled by leaders who were following God things went very well for them. And if you read the Bible you will see that no matter what government is "in charge" it was placed there by God. That's why Christ told us we are to follow those in charge unless doing so would force us to violate God's laws.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Actually it is the 14th amendment that expanded the Bill of Rights down to the state and local level. Here's the applicable part:
> 
> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
> 
> If it were not for this, gun rights decisions such as Heller and McDonald would have gone against individual freedom.


So you are saying that the feds can use the 14th to take all power/rights from the states?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> So you are saying that the feds can use the 14th to take all power/rights from the states?


Nope, I am pretty sure dishonest Abe used cannon to accomplish it. well before the 14th amendment.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> So you are saying that the feds can use the 14th to take all power/rights from the states?


No, that is a complete misunderstanding of what I am saying.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

davel745 said:


> What ever happened to "In God we trust" our motto.


Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to put "In God we trust" on our currency?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> No, that is a complete misunderstanding of what I am saying.


If the feds now have the power via the 14th to extend any power it has over states then the states no longer have any rights under the USC. In effect the 14th over rides the 10th.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> If the feds now have the power via the 14th to extend any power it has over states then the states no longer have any rights under the USC. In effect the 14th over rides the 10th.


The feds do not have any additional powers via 14A. 14A extends constitutionally recognized rights and protections down to the states. Prior to 14a, in theory, a state could have a state authorized religion, deny free speech rights, and limit gun rights. Now, again in theory, the US Cons prevents all that. I admit it is sometimes hard to believe when you see all the anti-gun laws out there.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to put "In God we trust" on our currency?


it is our country's motto nothing to do with the constitution.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

watcher said:


> There's a problem with you logic if you read about when Israel was being ruled by leaders who were following God things went very well for them. And if you read the Bible you will see that no matter what government is "in charge" it was placed there by God. That's why Christ told us we are to follow those in charge unless doing so would force us to violate God's laws.


You have fallen down the slippery slope.

"no matter what government is "in charge" it was placed there by God."

That statement denies the concept of free will and any power of individuals. As such it is fatalistic and absolutist. Using that statement as an axiom, the government of this country cannot be going downhill because G*d placed it there and it was HIS intention for it to be in power. 

Josiah was following G*d by not allowing the sword of Neco to pass through (Leviticus 26:6). He was slain at Megiddo (609 B.C.). Oopsie.

"That's why Christ told us we are to follow those in charge unless doing so would force us to violate God's laws."

VERY simplistic and revisionist interpretation. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is a non-confrontational damning of the secular values compared to spiritual values and greater morality. It infers that the coin (of taxation) is not worth worrying about and is foreign while at the steps of the Temple and greater power/knowledge. While it does also infer that obeying the laws (following those in charge) is a good course of action, in context it does so in a dismissive fashion rather than as a directive aimed at increased compliance with Roman law. Remember that J. also touted giving up worldly goods and pursuits. Giving up money to taxes freely fits that goal.

(There are other persuasive interpretations as well. The above is just food for thought.)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

We expect a monument to reflect the values of the people who erected it or on whose property it appears, thus to display a symbol of a particular religion on government-owned property is inappropriate, IMO, as it conveys the message that the government endorses that particular belief system. 

Well, no. It's my government, too. 

The only acceptable compromise I can see is to allow all interested parties to erect a monument of their choice, which is liable to lead to a lot of silliness. IMI, it's better to avoid that and allow individuals or groups to express their beliefs on private property.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is a non-confrontational damning of the secular values compared to spiritual values and greater morality. It infers that the coin (of taxation) is not worth worrying abou


Hmm. Most Christians nowadays seem to get pretty worked up about taxes ... how much they have to pay and how they're spent. Funny, that!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Hmm. Most Christians nowadays seem to get pretty worked up about taxes ... how much they have to pay and how they're spent. Funny, that!


When taxes take more than half of what our labor earned, and freely given to those that don't/won't work.....yeah....i get pretty worked up! How about you take up the slack! If you don't have it to pay, I surely don't mind if you go into debt to help all these poor folks! Have at it!


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to put "In God we trust" on our currency?


That's the point of this thread. Why do you give a rat's behind that In God we Trust is on our currency. It's been there since this Country started. Why do folks like you feel the need to change it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> That's the point of this thread. Why do you give a rat's behind that In God we Trust is on our currency. It's been there since this Country started. Why do folks like you feel the need to change it?


Actually, just since 1956.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Actually, just since 1956.
> 
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law


Jeez.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Actually, just since 1956.
> 
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law


the article you linked says it has been on coins since the Civil War.

Would you like it taken off?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> the article you linked says it has been on coins since the Civil War.
> 
> Would you like it taken off?


Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I just asked where it was authorized by the constitution.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I just asked where it was authorized by the constitution.



Maybe the same place your SSA and Obamacare is authorized.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

rambotex said:


> the article you linked says it has been on coins since the Civil War.
> 
> Would you like it taken off?


so what was it, 1956 or since the civil war? Maybe the article is from 1956.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Tabitha said:


> so what was it, 1956 or since the civil war? Maybe the article is from 1956.


He posted a link


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

davel745 said:


> it is our country's motto nothing to do with the constitution.


No it's not it was only added in the cold war.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> When taxes take more than half of what our labor earned, and freely given to those that don't/won't work.....yeah....i get pretty worked up! How about you take up the slack! If you don't have it to pay, I surely don't mind if you go into debt to help all these poor folks! Have at it!


Ehh. I am partly self-employed, so I get hit up pretty hard already. I'm not a Christian, though, so there is nothing in my religion telling me I shouldn't mind or protest! ound:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I just asked where it was authorized by the constitution.


Was the federal reserve authorized by the Constitution?


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Was the federal reserve authorized by the Constitution?


No it should be abolished.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Ehh. I am partly self-employed, so I get hit up pretty hard already. I'm not a Christian, though, so there is nothing in my religion telling me I shouldn't mind or protest! ound:


Protest away! How about kicking in some of that cash to help planned parenthood out, you know, to help ease the burden on those that pay lots! Sounds fair!


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

Just an FYI by any religious identity I might go by. In god we trust violates my religious freedom.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Protest away! How about kicking in some of that cash to help planned parenthood out, you know, to help ease the burden on those that pay lots! Sounds fair!


Ehh. Doctors Without Borders got my spare change this month -- y'know, the Ebola thing. Seems a tad more pressing at the moment. Maybe next month?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Ehh. Doctors Without Borders got my spare change this month -- y'know, the Ebola thing. Seems a tad more pressing at the moment. Maybe next month?


Right! Someone else gets to pay.....As usual!


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

watcher said:


> There's a problem with you logic if you read about when Israel was being ruled by leaders who were following God things went very well for them. And if you read the Bible you will see that no matter what government is "in charge" it was placed there by God. That's why Christ told us we are to follow those in charge unless doing so would force us to violate God's laws.


Wow. That is some of the best propaganda I've ever heard!


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

This thread and others of late have pointed out the huge differences in thoughts and opinions amongst our HT Community. I believe these feelings are shared by the majority of the nation and eventually, sadly, there will some sort of division. I don't really know how but I'm to the point that even though I certainly can get along peacefully with anyone, I don't want to associate with them and I dang sure am not going to support them much longer. Apparently, according to Nevada, I, The Old Fashioned ******* Christian Country Boy is and will be in the minority of the now Democratic/Liberal Movement is going to take control. Well, I've been in business for many years and when you have more with their hands held out PLUS all of the Government waste of tax $'s by the thieves in DC than you do paying in, the jar will be emptied.

If it weren't for Grandkids & the hope that my SS benefits may still be there when I turn 65 in a few years I'd leave. 

Good morning & have a Great Week


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Right! Someone else gets to pay.....As usual!


Tell ya what -- you go send some money to Doctors Without Borders, and I'll shake out the piggy bank and send some to PP. Deal? ound:


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Doing the despicable here by not first reading this thread, but want to comment on making charitable donations. I try to spend all dollars local and by that I first spend/donate in this county. Anything left after that might be donated to a state wide service charity. I used to put it in the church offering plate, but I'm no longer supportive of funding upkeep of a huge building that stays empty the biggest part of the time.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

rambotex said:


> This thread and others of late have pointed out the huge differences in thoughts and opinions amongst our HT Community. I believe these feelings are shared by the majority of the nation and eventually, sadly, there will some sort of division. I don't really know how but I'm to the point that even though I certainly can get along peacefully with anyone, I don't want to associate with them and I dang sure am not going to support them much longer. Apparently, according to Nevada, I, The Old Fashioned ******* Christian Country Boy is and will be in the minority of the now Democratic/Liberal Movement is going to take control. Well, I've been in business for many years and when you have more with their hands held out PLUS all of the Government waste of tax $'s by the thieves in DC than you do paying in, the jar will be emptied.
> 
> If it weren't for Grandkids & the hope that my SS benefits may still be there when I turn 65 in a few years I'd leave.
> 
> Good morning & have a Great Week


My post - Go West - was along those same lines. We also see this in Right Track - Wrong Track question on recent polls with 69% of voters saying the country is headed down the wrong track (Rasmussen Aug 214).

Couple that with a July 2014 Gallup poll that shows confidence in Obama at 29% and Congress at 9%. So most Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction and don't have confidence that either the president or the Congress can change things for the better.

So Go West was really about our state of mind as a nation - not an actual place. How can we restore the belief in the American Dream? And even more importantly, how can we make the American Dream a reality for as many Americans as possible? We spend way to much time arguing about things that really don't make much difference either way.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Check out Haypoint's thread in this Forum about more folks wanting things banned. where do those Folks in town think their food comes from;? the Grocery Store?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Was the federal reserve authorized by the Constitution?


No, the Fed was authorized by the Federal Reserve Act, but the act is assumed to have been authorized by the Implied Power Clause (McCulloch v. Maryland).


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

rambotex said:


> He posted a link


 Well so wil I and the date is way earlier then what Nev. posted.


> In God We Trust
> 
> From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that* God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861. An Act of Congress, approved on April 11, 1864,* authorized the coinage of two-cent coins upon which the motto first appeared.


 You know it is so easy to find things on the net why would ANYONE try to make something up. 

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts5


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

That's what i was saying Knight. In Nevada's own thread was the information of the coins.:goodjob:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> That's what i was saying Knight. In Nevada's own thread was the information of the coins.:goodjob:


As I said, I don't really care one way or the other. Having a religious slogan on money doesn't really hurt anything, unlike teaching creationism as science.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

I'll be the salmon swimming against the stream in this thread too i guess. I don't see things as getting worse. People are living longer, people are generally "healthier" all though obesity and diabetes is a growing problem.

We have technology that has made the world smaller and I believe many people fear that and I'm not sure why.

In the 50s, people used to look forward to the future and we had cartoons about it and TV shows about it. We used to think we would be flying past jupiter by now and have had man explore our local solar system.

Something happened in the 80s and we stopped dreaming by and large and we started down this philosophical idea that government is bad and that government is/was the problem and we switched from a savings economy to a credit economy. We stopped having affordable homes and switched to 30+ year mortgages. We killed pensions and retirements and setup 401k's that feed back into the corporate "System" and we granted corporations person-hood that some people feel more compelled to vote for than themselves.

We launched ourselves into a completely non winnable war that will have costs in the trillions of dollars and do nothing but further instability and drive up energy costs and worst of all, we didn't fund the war. We gave ourselves a huge tax break and said "good luck" and we put it on our credit card. Our veterans are coming home to people who are so politically spent and biased they're threatening "War" on our own soil just because they can't have something their way or see the world differently and we can't even fund our VA benefits and programs sufficiently enough because heaven forbid there are people who are against healthcare for whatever reason that may be... so veteran suicide rates are at an all time high. Worst of all, we have evidence that shows Trauma prior to enlistment is a great cause of high suicide rates so whatever it is they think is being fixed by the military isn't being fixed.. and as a nation, we're practically the ONLY industrialized nation that won't face this reality. We base our views on fear.. fear.. and more fear.

In the 50s and early 60s we didn't do that. We looked at the future and we said "give me more".

What happened? i dunno..

reality is though, it's not as bad as what people make it out to be and the problems we do face can be fixed if we bothered to fix them. 

i think its that internal struggle of wanting to stand for something and against something as if a badge of honor and pride is at stake creates an artificial barrier that people will uphold even if that pride goes against their own interests and well being. Thus, we have people wanting to vote against health insurance... when we all know darn right *something* has to change... but we won't agree on what that is... and we will point fingers and blame everyone else, but ourselves. We have but one life to live.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Tell ya what -- you go send some money to Doctors Without Borders, and I'll shake out the piggy bank and send some to PP. Deal? ound:


I donate to my own causes. Your the one that supports PP and what they stand for!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> As I said, I don't really care one way or the other. Having a religious slogan on money doesn't really hurt anything, unlike teaching creationism as science.


I fail to see what harm is caused by teaching creationism in a science class. The science guys have no issues with teaching their own version of how life began without a shred of evidence to back it up.... I think it goes something like... "and then one day, in the bottom of the sea, life sprang forth with a strike of lightning" or some such drivel.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what harm is caused by teaching creationism in a science class. The science guys have no issues with teaching their own version of how life began without a shred of evidence to back it up.... I think it goes something like... "and then one day, in the bottom of the sea, life sprang forth with a strike of lightning" or some such drivel.


how life began isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis. I think this has been said 100 times in the dinosaur thread. Evolution is how life evolves and the mechanisms therein.

Creationism is religious studies class, not science. There is no scientific method implied or used in creationism.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

If Jesus himself came down again today in all his glory and with angels hovering around him, governments that are entrenched with religion would kill him for fear of losing power. Fighter jets and missiles would take out the angels. 

Well , he will return and they wont kill him. They will bow down to him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what harm is caused by teaching creationism in a science class. The science guys have no issues with teaching their own version of how life began without a shred of evidence to back it up.... I think it goes something like... "and then one day, in the bottom of the sea, life sprang forth with a strike of lightning" or some such drivel.


Teaching creationism in science class is a problem because it's not science. Creationism is not based on evidence, it's based on scripture. Science only addresses knowledge that is obtained from observation and deduction. To teach scripture as an alternative to science stunts kids' education.

But we don't teach any version of how life began, because we don't know. We have deduced that life began as a single cell and evolved from there, but there is no set theory about how that single cell came to be. There are a few hypotheses, but that's about it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

supernovae said:


> how life began isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis. I think this has been said 100 times in the dinosaur thread. Evolution is how life evolves and the mechanisms therein.
> 
> Creationism is religious studies class, not science. There is no scientific method implied or used in creationism.


Reread my post.... did I say squat about evolution? No, I did not. Creationists teach that an intelligent force waved his/her/its hand over the waters and life was created.... without any evidence to support it... and science teaches that life began at the bottom of a swamp.... without any evidence to support that either.... whats the difference here? NONE. teach one... teach them both. no harm will come of it either way.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Teaching creationism in science class is a problem because it's not science. Creationism is not based on evidence, it's based on scripture. Science only addresses knowledge that is obtained from observation and deduction. To teach scripture as an alternative to science stunts kids' education.
> 
> But we don't teach any version of how life began, because we don't know. We have deduced that life began as a single cell and evolved from there, but there is no set theory about how that single cell came to be. There are a few hypotheses, but that's about it.


And yet abiogenesis IS being taught in schools, with the very same enthusiasm as many other "unknowns". Offering other alternatives is not stunting education.... it is enlarging it.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet abiogenesis IS being taught in schools, with the very same enthusiasm as many other "unknowns". Offering other alternatives is not stunting education.... it is enlarging it.


I have no clue what you're talking about. What schools are teaching abiogenesis and other "unknowns"? If anything they just say "here is what we have experimented with but we don't have any conclusive data so the question is open" and i can find absolutely nothing wrong with saying that. Can you?

Evolution is very well known BTW.. same with math, physics, geometry, algebra, calculus, trigonometry, biology and many other "Studies"..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right. Creationism has no business being Taught In Science classes Period~! Teach that in Sunday School, Church study groups, In Church.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet abiogenesis IS being taught in schools


What are they teaching? No kidding, I really don't know how it happened and would like to know.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What are they teaching? No kidding, I really don't know how it happened and would like to know.


That we came from primordial ooze! That's what is being taught!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> That we came from primordial ooze! That's what is being taught!


Thats the basic jist of it. and no they dont spend a lot of time on it...but thats their answer when questions are asked. Kids are inquisitive little buggers and will ask the durndest sort of things. It goes a little like this... if man decended from some primitive creature.... whered that critter come from.... and then of course where the previous one came from until we end up back at the swamp with a single cell critter that everything came from... then invariable one of the little buggers will want to know what that first life form came from.... They are then told that we..... the gods of science who NEVER make mistakes in the mind of a child.... believe it must have been when lightning struck the outhouse.... erm pond and formed that very first life form. Of course there is no more evidence for that hypothesis than there is for the real God having created it.... but we must never mention that possibility! After all... its a science class! Where students are to learn all about everything the real God created and how scientists "believe" He did it based soley upon their observations of His work.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

supernovae said:


> I have no clue what you're talking about. What schools are teaching abiogenesis and other "unknowns"? If anything they just say "here is what we have experimented with but we don't have any conclusive data so the question is open" and i can find absolutely nothing wrong with saying that. Can you?
> 
> Evolution is very well known BTW.. same with math, physics, geometry, algebra, calculus, trigonometry, biology and many other "Studies"..


Evolution really is NOT all that very well known... at least not the version being taught in our elementary and high schools. there is enough evidence to suggest its a possibility.... but seriously with all the gaps and missing links... thats about all that is actually "known".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What are they teaching? No kidding, I really don't know how it happened and would like to know.


Thats the thing Nevada.... NOBODY really knows.... but the science teachers are teaching it as if they do know! Its what I was taught way back in the sixties... its what my first three were taught in the 80s and what my youngest boy was taught in 20teens.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

gweny said:


> As a pagan, if I were to walk into that court room to defend myself and pass that monument I would immediately believe myself done for. The trial would be a sham in my eyes. I would be a "dead man walking".


I don't know why you would feel that way. It's not as if pagans are the world's most persecuted people.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

Sumatra said:


> I don't know why you would feel that way. It's not as if pagans are the world's most persecuted people.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say because your link won't load. I am mobile, so maybe that's why?
Therefore all I can really say to that is I don't think anyone needs to be on a list to be persecuted. It also doesn't require validation, so thanks anyway?


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

Sumatra said:


> I don't know why you would feel that way. It's not as if pagans are the world's most persecuted people.


http://www.google.com/search?client...a=X&ei=gPfpU-rxJub-8AG6kYCIBw&ved=0CAsQ_SowAA

'pagan' is any religion other than Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

Many pagan religions (like Wicca and or witchcraft which I'm assuming you believe I was referring to) have been so persecuted that secrecy is part of their doctrine. Physical laws like 'do not share your faith with fools' ,'do not identify others of your faith', and a requirement that the 'place is safe' to teach the religion have existed for centuries. A book of shadows is traditionally written in code to maintain secrecy. To this day many pagans practice in secret, do not organize, or designate a place of worship because of persecution.

How can an undesignated, undefined, uncounted, and uncooperative religion ever make some silly persecution list? Yet, to say they have not been persecuted is clearly falicy.


----------

