Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

In our Nation?


Recommended Posts

Very interesting article Teresa by Shelly Strauss Rollison.

I can agree with just about everything in it except that I do not see how praying for others without their consent could limit their free-will. Praying for others even without their knowing it does not take their free-will away. Prayer for others only allows God to make more decided impressions upon their hearts without taking their free-will away. These people still have the choice to resist or follow these impressions. Do they not?

I cannot agree more with the author of the article about all this spiritual manipulation that is going on re: prayers in the school for example and I couldn't agree more with what she says about all th ose phony religious e-mail letters that most of us have been receiving almost on a daily basis.

These people are determined to bring the nation back to God by the power of Caeser.

But Jesus never said to render unto God by Caeser that which is God's.

sky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ultimate goal of spiritual manipulation - absolute control over our fellowman.

Quote:
I can agree with just about everything in it except that I do not see how praying for others without their consent could limit their free-will. Praying for others even without their knowing it does not take their free-will away. Prayer for others only allows God to make more decided impressions upon their hearts without taking their free-will away. These people still have the choice to resist or follow these impressions. Do they not?
Agreed. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
agreed

When one reads and follows the Word in order to find Wisdom, one need not fear the manipulators.

"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."Jeremiah 29:13 NKJV

"Getting wisdom is the wisest thing you can do! And whatever else you do, develop good judgment."

Proverbs 4:7 NLT

Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.

Proverbs 4:6 NLT

God blesses! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

TRESEA

THANK you for posting this article it was interesting

And substantially incoherent.The author's subjective take on the appropriate methods preaching the gospel and the allowance of "God" in the public arena defies American history as well as Biblical fact. Sorry, this merely appeals to the already bigoted mindset.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting response. It was essentially the knowledge I grew up with in the SDA church when it comes to the separation of church and state. Or perhaps I escaped before the turn-around?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, let's see what is so "extremist" about it...

Quote:
What we were attempting to get rid of by "getting God out of our schools, etc." was not an individual's personal relationship with God, but a state-defined God. By doing so, we sought to guarantee that all who worship may worship as they see fit without feeling that the state is telling them they're wrong— even Christians!
Soooo, do "SDA"s want a state-defined God?

How about this?

Quote:
We are a constitutional republic, and as such, the rule of the majority is subject to restrictions: those restrictions are simply that the rule of the majority can't violate the civil rights of even one individual. This is not a Christian nation: it was never meant to be one and hopefully never will become one.
Do I err in understanding this to mean that if the majority want a Sunday law and that Sunday law would violate the rights of the minority then it is unconstitutional?

Was Thomas Jefferson's sentiments wrong here?

Quote:
"they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan [Muslim], the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination."
How many know that this is true? Part of the manipulation tactics of those who would have us believe this country was always intended to be Christian? And how about the "under God" clause that was snuck in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Quote:
The founding fathers probably rolled over in their graves when we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Truth is, "In God We Trust" didn't appear on ANY US currency until 1864 and then it was on only a few coins. It didn't even appear on paper currency until 1957. So it's not something that's always been a part of our nation's heritage as some would like you to believe.
Quote:
In light of recent events...terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

This is full of emotional manipulation. First, terrorist attacks and school shootings are the work of either extremists or very disturbed individuals, not the average American. What I find more disturbing is that, during the time when there was prayer in schools led by school officials, virtually the entire nation felt it was okay to lynch blacks if they "got uppity". Or to hold parties under the dead body of a black man hanging from a tree. That it was okay to enslave an entire race of people and to consider them only three fifths human and therefore not entitled to the most basic of human rights. That it was okay for a man to beat his wife if she refused to have sex with him or even rape her. That child abuse was not talked about and no one advocated protecting children from being forced to work in sweatshops. ALL of that was not only legal but condoned by almost the ENTIRE NATION. It wasn't the work of a few extremists or some very emotionally/mentally disturbed individuals. It was part of the nation's psyche! Utterly acceptable behavior even in the most upper-crusts of families. Perhaps even expected in the most upper-crusts of families.

So no, terrorist attacks and school shootings didn't start with Mrs. O'Hare's suit to get school led prayer out of schools (where it never belonged in the first place.) She only sought to force the government to abide by the US Constitution's First Amendment. Simply because a law is popular or "traditional" does not make it constitutional. Slavery was once popular and traditional, but it was utterly unconstitutional and rightly overturned.

And finally, the mention of Mrs. O'Hare's murder is almost like saying, "Ha! She got what she deserved!" or more subtle fear-mongering: "See what might happen to you if you don't believe in God!"

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

This is spreading misinformation. Reading the Bible is still legal in school. What is NOT legal is being forced to read the Bible as a work of religion. Or having the school teach you that you should believe the Bible says. Any student has the right to take a Bible to school and read it during their free time. Any student who is barred from doing so should contact the ACLU and alert them to this violation of their civil rights.

I again point out that when the Bible WAS required reading in school, all the same stuff I mentioned above was going on in spite of the Bible saying, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." It's just that the folks back then seemed to have added "unless they're black" to those commandments from God.

Personally I'll be an extremist any day, and pray to God that those reading these forums, that some here feel the need to preach to, just may do some research... Things have changed so rapidly that many do not know what it was like before.

Nor were blacks the only group that suffered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rainbowsendpress.com/ministry/nation.html

We forget that religious persecution was still going on in the time of our founding fathers. Nor is the history of religious persecution taught in our schools as it used to be.

Quote:
Meaning that Creator, NOT MAN, bestows these rights and that MAN has no right to take them away FROM ANYONE. It is extremely important here to note the use of the words "their Creator". This was no accident. These two documents were gone over word by word for MONTHS and there is not one word that's in there by mistake. The use of the term "Creator" and NOT "the God of Abraham" or "Jesus Christ"— indicates that they had no wish to define Creator. They used a "generic" word for deity— a word that implies no particular faith and indeed, not even a paricular GENDER, which means that it was meant to appeal to EVERYONE'S beliefs— to the deity defined by the INDIVIDUAL'S faith. Notice too that they did not say "THE Creator", which would imply that there was only TRUE Creator, but instead chose to use "THEIR Creator" to signify that how Creator is defined is up to each individual.

Jefferson's autobiography speaks of the attempt by some members of the Virginia state government to insert the words "Jesus Christ" into the preamble of the Virginia state constitution. The autobiography reads like this: (remember, these are Jefferson's own words, not that of some biographer relating something someone once said Jefferson said: these are HIS words.)

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the article is one extremist reacting to another extremist. The Adventist position is in the moderate middle which is one of the reason I live being an Adventist.
Adventists were historically aligned with the position that is now labeled extremist. I was raised to believe that God had providentially and miraculously intervened for the establishment of this nation. From the earliest settlers (Puritans and Pilgrims) it's founders openly professed faith in God and taught that the country's future success depended upon it's moral and religious foundation and NOT upon it's secularism. The Declaration of Independance stands as the one public admission of "In God we trust". The extermination of every Christian (notice that the attacks are always against the Christian religion and not the Indian,Hindu, or Muslim religious expressions) has had it's consequences on the nation's moral compass.The overwhelming majority of "right-wing fanatics" do not want the stereotype nation that their opponents (like this author)falsely attribute to them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the desire for liberty of conscience that inspired the Pilgrims to brave the perils of the long journey across the sea, to endure the hardships and dangers of the wilderness, and with God’s blessing to lay, on the shores of America, the foundation of a mighty nation. Yet honest and God-fearing as they were, the Pilgrims did not yet comprehend the great principle of religious liberty. The freedom which they sacrificed so much to secure for themselves, they were not equally ready to grant to others.

“Very few, even of the foremost thinkers and moralists of the seventeenth century, had any just conception of that grand principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the sole judge of human faith.”—Ibid. 5:297.

The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors.

While the Reformers rejected the creed of Rome, they were not entirely free from her spirit of intolerance. The dense darkness in which, through the long ages of her rule, popery had enveloped all Christendom, had not even yet been wholly dissipated. Said one of the leading ministers in the colony of Massachusetts Bay: “It was toleration that made the world antichristian; and the church never took harm by the punishment of heretics.”—Ibid., vol. 5, p. 335.

The regulation was adopted by the colonists that only church members should have a voice in the civil government. A kind of state church was formed, all the people being required to contribute to the support of the clergy, and the magistrates being authorized to suppress heresy. Thus the secular power was in the hands of the church. It was not long before these measures led to the inevitable result—persecution. {GC 292.3}

Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the New World. Like the early Pilgrims he came to enjoy religious freedom; but, unlike them, he saw— what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. He was an earnest seeker for truth, with Robinson holding it impossible that all the light from God’s word had yet been received. Williams “was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.”—Bancroft, pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 16.

He declared it to be the duty of the magistrate to restrain crime, but never to control the conscience. “The public or the magistrates may decide,” he said, “what is due from man to man; but when they attempt to prescribe a man’s duties to God, they are out of place, and there can be no safety; for it is clear that if the magistrate has the power, he may decree one set of opinions or beliefs today and another tomorrow; as has been done in England by different kings and queens, and by different popes and councils in the Roman Church; so that belief would become a heap of confusion.”—Martyn, vol. 5, p. 340. {GC 293.1}

...to drag to public worship the irreligious and the unwilling, seemed only like requiring hypocrisy.... ‘No one should be bound to worship, or,’ he added, ‘to maintain a worship, against his own consent.’ ‘What!’ exclaimed his antagonists, amazed at his tenets, ‘is not the laborer worthy of his hire?’ ‘Yes,’ replied he, ‘from them that hire him.’”—Bancroft, pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 2. {GC 294.1}

...The application of this new doctrine, it was urged, would “subvert the fundamental state and government of the country.”—Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 10. He was sentenced to banishment from the colonies, and, finally, to avoid arrest, he was forced to flee, amid the cold and storms of winter, into the unbroken forest. {GC 294.2}

The regulation adopted by the early colonists, of permitting only members of the church to vote or to hold office in the civil government, led to most pernicious results. This measure had been accepted as a means of preserving the purity of the state, but it resulted in the corruption of the church. A profession of religion being the condition of suffrage and officeholding, many, actuated solely by motives of worldly policy, united with the church without a change of heart. Thus the churches came to consist, to a considerable extent, of unconverted persons; and even in the ministry were those who not only held errors of doctrine, but who were ignorant of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Thus again was demonstrated the evil results, so often witnessed in the history of the church from the days of Constantine to the present, of attempting to build up the church by the aid of the state, of appealing to the secular power in support of the gospel of Him who declared: “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36. The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world. {GC 297.1}

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the quotes you are posting would be correct. Many seem to want to go to extreme positions for a not so hidden agenda. Founding fathers/groups wanted the freedom of worship for them selves, but not others in many cases. Religion has been used to hide the darkest side of mankind. The uproar over prayer and Bibles in Public Schools has been an issue to inflame others, claiming it to be a persecution of christians when in fact the freedom from state/guv sponsership was to keep christians from persecuting others, legally. Although, christianity has never stopped trying to use the government to enforce its belief systems. A secular guv is the only protection all religious believers have, regardless of the system of belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adventists were historically aligned with the position that is now labeled extremist.

Adventists promoted Adventist education long before "God" was removed from the public school. The "God" that use to be in the public school depended on the composition of the local school board. If it was a Baptist community, the "God" was Baptist. Same held true with Lutheran, Methodist and other such communities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the desire for liberty of conscience that inspired the Pilgrims to brave the perils of the long journey across the sea, to endure the hardships and dangers of the wilderness, and with God’s blessing to lay, on the shores of America, the foundation of a mighty nation. Yet honest and God-fearing as they were, the Pilgrims did not yet comprehend the great principle of religious liberty. The freedom which they sacrificed so much to secure for themselves, they were not equally ready to grant to others.

“Very few, even of the foremost thinkers and moralists of the seventeenth century, had any just conception of that grand principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the sole judge of human faith.”—Ibid. 5:297.

The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors.

While the Reformers rejected the creed of Rome, they were not entirely free from her spirit of intolerance. The dense darkness in which, through the long ages of her rule, popery had enveloped all Christendom, had not even yet been wholly dissipated. Said one of the leading ministers in the colony of Massachusetts Bay: “It was toleration that made the world antichristian; and the church never took harm by the punishment of heretics.”—Ibid., vol. 5, p. 335.

The regulation was adopted by the colonists that only church members should have a voice in the civil government. A kind of state church was formed, all the people being required to contribute to the support of the clergy, and the magistrates being authorized to suppress heresy. Thus the secular power was in the hands of the church. It was not long before these measures led to the inevitable result—persecution. {GC 292.3}

Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the New World. Like the early Pilgrims he came to enjoy religious freedom; but, unlike them, he saw— what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. He was an earnest seeker for truth, with Robinson holding it impossible that all the light from God’s word had yet been received. Williams “was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.”—Bancroft, pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 16.

He declared it to be the duty of the magistrate to restrain crime, but never to control the conscience. “The public or the magistrates may decide,” he said, “what is due from man to man; but when they attempt to prescribe a man’s duties to God, they are out of place, and there can be no safety; for it is clear that if the magistrate has the power, he may decree one set of opinions or beliefs today and another tomorrow; as has been done in England by different kings and queens, and by different popes and councils in the Roman Church; so that belief would become a heap of confusion.”—Martyn, vol. 5, p. 340. {GC 293.1}

...to drag to public worship the irreligious and the unwilling, seemed only like requiring hypocrisy.... ‘No one should be bound to worship, or,’ he added, ‘to maintain a worship, against his own consent.’ ‘What!’ exclaimed his antagonists, amazed at his tenets, ‘is not the laborer worthy of his hire?’ ‘Yes,’ replied he, ‘from them that hire him.’”—Bancroft, pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 2. {GC 294.1}

...The application of this new doctrine, it was urged, would “subvert the fundamental state and government of the country.”—Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 10. He was sentenced to banishment from the colonies, and, finally, to avoid arrest, he was forced to flee, amid the cold and storms of winter, into the unbroken forest. {GC 294.2}

The regulation adopted by the early colonists, of permitting only members of the church to vote or to hold office in the civil government, led to most pernicious results. This measure had been accepted as a means of preserving the purity of the state, but it resulted in the corruption of the church. A profession of religion being the condition of suffrage and officeholding, many, actuated solely by motives of worldly policy, united with the church without a change of heart. Thus the churches came to consist, to a considerable extent, of unconverted persons; and even in the ministry were those who not only held errors of doctrine, but who were ignorant of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Thus again was demonstrated the evil results, so often witnessed in the history of the church from the days of Constantine to the present, of attempting to build up the church by the aid of the state, of appealing to the secular power in support of the gospel of Him who declared: “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36. The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world. {GC 297.1}

Right on!

Thanks teresaq for posting this.

sky

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the quotes you are posting would be correct. Many seem to want to go to extreme positions for a not so hidden agenda. Founding fathers/groups wanted the freedom of worship for them selves, but not others in many cases. Religion has been used to hide the darkest side of mankind. The uproar over prayer and Bibles in Public Schools has been an issue to inflame others, claiming it to be a persecution of christians when in fact the freedom from state/guv sponsership was to keep christians from persecuting others, legally. Although, christianity has never stopped trying to use the government to enforce its belief systems. A secular guv is the only protection all religious believers have, regardless of the system of belief.

Interesting thoughts CoAspen. I had read a number of years ago an article that mentioned that the Christian Right, not sure if that's what there still called, has been getting its candidates elected into office within the republican party. When they get to be the majority, guess what there agenda will become, and especially when they control the house and the senate, etc. That is definitely something to keep an eye on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion has been used to hide the darkest side of mankind.
It has also been (here in the US)the source of the very protections that allow for a secular government. It was exclusively religious people (mainly Christians) who established the very Constitutional protections that allow for every citizen in this country to worship or not. It was those same founders who also recognized that if religion did not influence this society it (the constitutional guidelines)was doomed and the freedoms along with it. All of the above quotes were specifically addressing the era before the formation of the United States and it's constitutional protections.Few of today's religious rightists want a return to those days of a Catholic Maryland of a Puritan Massachusetts contrary to the lie that's been spread about them. They just want a return to the pre:Bible out of school, prayer is gone, 10 commandments illegal, world evolved, religion is evil, abortion providing, gay's ok, days of the pre-1960's. A time when no SDA believed that those things now illegal were an imminent threat to religious freedoms.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I had read a number of years ago an article that mentioned that the Christian Right, not sure if that's what there still called, has been getting its candidates elected into office within the republican party. When they get to be the majority, guess what there agenda will become, and especially when they control the house and the senate, etc.
THey've been telling this same old lie for 30 years now and history has proven it just that.Those most responsible for the creation of the lie are, in fact, the very ones who are openly enforcing their agenda in a manner in which religious Republicans would be crucified for.Notice what happens when the progressives get into power? Governmental promotion of everything immoral that the religious right(and historically SDA's)has opposed; While the anti-religious are busy tearing down the moral (and legal)foundation of this country many in the religious community are convinced that the real evil comes from those who would stop them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-15

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated 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 tranquility, 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.[16]

16 For full text see "The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816; Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796" Avalon Project

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[17]

Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.[18] The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

17 Frank Lambert (February 3, 2005). "Introduction". The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12602-9. Retrieved June 21, 2008. "By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago there was a short segment showing Connie Chung infiltrating one of their secret meetings that told how to make sure their candidate was elected.

I rarely watch the 700 club, but happened to turn to it one time (again years ago) when I heard Robertson state that they were going to take over this nation district by district.

Things have changed so rapidly over such a short space of time that the "youngsters" may not be aware of all that is involved. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 Frank Lambert (February 3, 2005). "Introduction". The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12602-9. Retrieved June 21, 2008. "By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

___________

Excellent. Thanks for sharing this teresaq

sky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: CoAspen
I believe the quotes you are posting would be correct. Many seem to want to go to extreme positions for a not so hidden agenda. Founding fathers/groups wanted the freedom of worship for them selves, but not others in many cases. Religion has been used to hide the darkest side of mankind. The uproar over prayer and Bibles in Public Schools has been an issue to inflame others, claiming it to be a persecution of christians when in fact the freedom from state/guv sponsership was to keep christians from persecuting others, legally. Although, christianity has never stopped trying to use the government to enforce its belief systems. A secular guv is the only protection all religious believers have, regardless of the system of belief.

Interesting thoughts CoAspen. I had read a number of years ago an article that mentioned that the Christian Right, not sure if that's what there still called, has been getting its candidates elected into office within the republican party. When they get to be the majority, guess what there agenda will become, and especially when they control the house and the senate, etc. That is definitely something to keep an eye on.

That's right.

sky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago there was a short segment showing Connie Chung infiltrating one of their secret meetings that told how to make sure their candidate was elected.

How secret could it have been if Connie Chung was able to "infiltrate"? And if I'm not mistaken every political group has strategy meetings to determine how best to sell their candidate. These are generally not open to the public either (like the Packers allowing the Vikings announcers into their pregame planning sessions)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely watch the 700 club, but happened to turn to it one time (again years ago) when I heard Robertson state that they were going to take over this nation district by district.

And if they were successful what exactly did Robertson say they would do, impose Sunday restrictions,demand that every US resident read the Bible and pray,use tax dollars to fund the 700 Club?
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="teresaq(sda)

Part of the manipulation tactics of those who would have us believe this country was always intended to be Christian? And how about the "under God" clause that was snuck in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The founding fathers probably rolled over in their graves when we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Truth is, "In God We Trust" didn't appear on ANY US currency until 1864 and then it was on only a few coins. It didn't even appear on paper currency until 1957. So it's not something that's always been a part of our nation's heritage as some would like you to believe
And speaking of manipulation, this is a prime example of manipulating selective historical facts to prove the opposite of what the truth is. But perhaps it was because the author accidentally forgot to read the last few words of our nation's founding document which read:"...appealing to THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions...WITH A FIRM RELIANCE ON THE PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Honor." Or maybe she neglected to sing the last stanza of our Country's National Anthem written a few moments before 1957. Or maybe she merely overlooked the lyrics of the song America the Beautiful, our almost National Anthem. Maybe she was too busy to research Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address (or maybe she didn't have the guts to call him out on his distortion of history)or FDR's 4th Inaugural address, or JFK's inaugural address, or tens of thousands of other historical utterances. Given the documented religious commitment of our nation's founders and their own practices in the public arena it would seem pretty obvious which historical interpreter would make them roll over in their graves.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of,

Quote:
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not,

in any sense,

founded on the Christian religion;

[16]

did you not understand?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...