the religious test- alive and well

[peggy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20128587-503544/house-to-vote-on-in-god-we-trust-motto/

Yea, don't tell me there isn't a religious test. This is shameful. Just shameful! This is how the republicans want to spend their days, wasting time and thought and man power on this kind of crap. Forget the millions out of work, or losing their homes, or hungry or without basic health care. Gotta blow that dog whistle! Gotta get the base on board.
NO ONE was trying to erase this 'motto' although they should. Just like the goofy sharia law 'controversy' this is so transparently manipulative. Why oh why do people fall for this crap over and over and over! :(

[Alan]

Maybe I'm missing something, where's the test?

[peggy]

http://nation.foxnews.com/congress/2011/11/01/see-which-congressmen-voted-against-god-we-trust

Here is the 'results' of this republican test. Let's not have any doubt as to why the republicans did this. We both know why they play this game, but any democrat who went along with this should be voted out of office. Shame on them. This is NOT a theocracy, and we DON'T trust in god (who has a pretty bad track record, if anyone cares to notice) and this nation was not built on Christianity! Allowing these nasty manipulative tactics to creep into our government goes against everything this country WAS built on. And why is it the republicans who always blow these dog whistles. I think it says more about their constituents than anything.

[mtnlaurel]

This is such a 'Whatever Dude' topic to me.
We have such bigger fish to fry, why would we armchair pundits even waste our time on this board to talk about it.

Stop worrying about what's printed on the green and let's get that green circulating around our economy again -- and I don't mean hand-outs.

[creaker]

The House obviously doesn't have much on their plate - or at least anything they actually want to bring to the floor.

I read recently Republicans wanted a lot of days off in the House next year - if this is the most important thing they have to do, I can see why.

[Alan]

http://nation.foxnews.com/congress/2011/11/01/see-which-congressmen-voted-against-god-we-trust

Here is the 'results' of this republican test. Let's not have any doubt as to why the republicans did this. We both know why they play this game, but any democrat who went along with this should be voted out of office. Shame on them. This is NOT a theocracy, and we DON'T trust in god (who has a pretty bad track record, if anyone cares to notice) and this nation was not built on Christianity! Allowing these nasty manipulative tactics to creep into our government goes against everything this country WAS built on. And why is it the republicans who always blow these dog whistles. I think it says more about their constituents than anything.
Just for the sake of conversation, I think you're wrong on every point. There is no effort to declare the US a theocracy and, as a nation, we do trust in God. The nation was not built on Christianity but on the notion, which was codified in our founding documents, that our individual rights were given by God rather than man, therefore they were inalienable. Most folks can separate God from individual religions.

I think it's good to remind liberals of that from time to time, plus, it's fun to watch the faux outrage. ;)

[iris lily]

Agreed that Whatever, Dude is the overview. For me, who just wishes that the Congress would pack up and go home and stop passing scads of legislation, this is a 2nd best alternative. Let them focus on this kind of thing. It keeps them busy, and keeps them from interfering in things they should not be.

[peggy]

And they should be doing the things they were elected to do. Like a jobs bill, or maybe just thinking really really hard about some of the problems our country faces, and some solutions.
Maybe some of the founding fathers were Christians and believed in this, but that doesn't mean our country was 'founded' on any of these christian/religious principals. I'm guessing some of those founding fathers also believed in beating slaves and sleeping with little boys but that doesn't make it a 'founding' principal.

And the whole 'inalienable rights' argument kind of looses something when you realize it only applied to land owning men. Not women, not blacks, not the rabble who merely worked the land but didn't own it. This was a belief of theirs. Does that make it a 'founding' principal?

Some Americans believe in god. Some Americans don't. But the collective WE doesn't.

[Alan]

And they should be doing the things they were elected to do. Like a jobs bill, or maybe just thinking really really hard about some of the problems our country faces, and some solutions.

I agree, the Republican led House has passed somewhere around 15 jobs bills that the Democrat controlled Senate have refused to take up. I would encourage you to write to your favorite Democrat Senator's and to President Obama and ask them to do what they were elected to do.


Maybe some of the founding fathers were Christians and believed in this, but that doesn't mean our country was 'founded' on any of these christian/religious principals. I'm guessing some of those founding fathers also believed in beating slaves and sleeping with little boys but that doesn't make it a 'founding' principal.
I think you're confusing religion with Christianity again.

If you ever get a chance to read the Declaration of Independence you might observe one of the "founding principle's" is clearly laid out in the second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..


Now, just who do you suppose they were talking about in that sentence?

Personally, I've always found that sentence to be the most important of the entire document. It clearly lays out the premise that no human, such as Kings and other assorted despots, can take away certain rights since they are not dependent upon, or subject to man's benevolence. We couldn't say that without the understanding that we are a Nation under God, rather than a Nation under Man.

[peggy]

All rights are subject to man's benevolence. It isn't an 'inalienable' right if I can take it from you by force or legislation. Or if the force of the countries legislation is behind me, as in the US. Or like the founding fathers, who wrote those lines with LAND OWNING MEN in mind. They didn't have women or blacks or 'serfs' upon the land in mind. So actual human men spouting pretty words about inalienable rights means diddly squat when those 'inalienable rights' only apply to them, and they write the legislation to back them up. Doesn't mean squat!
Our rights are what the state says they are, period. And since we are the government and the government is us, our rights are afforded by us. Thinking there is some 'snake talking over lord' and that you know what he intended and will govern in 'his name' is getting seriously into Taliban territory.
Really, it is a very freeing thing to know that we are in charge of the destiny of our country, and can steer the direction without being slaves to some 17th century ideals, crouched in 17th century realities. This isn't the 1700's, as it turns out, and we are the masters of our destiny.
You know, it's funny how conservatives find as one of their main objection to immigrants is that they 'refuse' to learn the language and integrate themselves into our society, yet keep trying to pull us back to the 16th century in political ideals and governance. Why can't they integrate into the 21st century?

[Zoebird]

i thought it was a waste of time and a needless process.

a lot of things in congress go that way.