America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamentalism

[Abide]

Fear of God
Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, has written in a new book that George W. Bush'sfrequent references to God in their meetings before the Iraq war had made him wary of Mr. Bush's political decisions. Mr. Schroeder also suggested that America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamists who impose their beliefs on entire nations.
<snip>
"Quite rightly, we criticize that in most Islamic states the role of religion in society and the secular character of the legal system are not clearly separated," he said. "But we haven't taken note as readily of the U.S. Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible that show similar tendencies."

You're inputs?
Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061023-121814-1091r.htm)

[saggyjones]

I agree there are similarities, but these can be seen in almost all religions. Of course people are going to attempt to preach their beliefs, and even though I think the Bible is a bunch of bull**** I still respect it and the people who follow it, and their right to say whatever they want. So yes there are similarities, especially when Christians try to incorporate their beliefs into the law, but there are more differences and IMO Christians are less radical and in general less hateful toward others than most, especially the radical Islamic groups.

[USMC the Almighty]

Religion had been an inherent part of this country and its politics until about the Vietnam. Our Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. Benjamin Franklin, arguably the greatest American of all time, proposed that Congress open each session with a prayer.

The Jeffersonain Memorial has his famous quote etched in: "“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

God and Christianity are on our currency, in many of our founding documents, in the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, etc.

The Ten Commandments and Moses are prominently displayed in the United States Supreme Court.

Without question, the concept of the creator was central to how the Founding Fathers understood America.

During WW2, FDR would often lead the country in prayer the night before a large scale military operation.

MLK was a main of faith who would regularly cite the Bible in his speeches ("free at last"; "Promised Land").

The point I am making is that America is largely a Christian nation and we haven't created terrorists and religious wars the same way Islamic nations, thus you comparison between American Christians and Islam is faulty and I'm ignoring the obvious differences such as women are allowed to show their face.

[curefiend]

Religion had been an inherent part of this country and its politics until about the Vietnam. Our Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. Benjamin Franklin, arguably the greatest American of all time, proposed that Congress open each session with a prayer.

The Jeffersonain Memorial has his famous quote etched in: "“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

God and Christianity are on our currency, in many of our founding documents, in the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, etc.

The Ten Commandments and Moses are prominently displayed in the United States Supreme Court.

Without question, the concept of the creator was central to how the Founding Fathers understood America.

During WW2, FDR would often lead the country in prayer the night before a large scale military operation.

MLK was a main of faith who would regularly cite the Bible in his speeches ("free at last"; "Promised Land").

The point I am making is that America is largely a Christian nation and we haven't created terrorists and religious wars the same way Islamic nations, thus you comparison between American Christians and Islam is faulty and I'm ignoring the obvious differences such as women are allowed to show their face.

Our founding fathers did not base this country off of Christianity, that being said. Your massive generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists, women not being allowed to show their face, and religious wars would be somewhat offensive if I were a Muslim. Most middle east countries are relatively secular and just about all of them *gasp* allow women to show their face. What religious war has Indonesia or Malaysia started, both very muslim countries.
The conflicts in the middle east are more closely tied to the region and natural resources than any sort of religion.
And your statement that American christians haven't acted in the same manner is false. The past imperialist ambitions of this country were defended using Christianty, *ahem* Manifest Destiny.

[InterestedParty]

Our founding fathers did not base this country off of Christianity, that being said. Your massive generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists, women not being allowed to show their face, and religious wars would be somewhat offensive if I were a Muslim. Most middle east countries are relatively secular and just about all of them *gasp* allow women to show their face. What religious war has Indonesia or Malaysia started, both very muslim countries.
The conflicts in the middle east are more closely tied to the region and natural resources than any sort of religion.
And your statement that American christians haven't acted in the same manner is false. The past imperialist ambitions of this country were defended using Christianty, *ahem* Manifest Destiny.

curefiend,

While it is not a commandment as we would know it, it is desirable for a Muslim woman to wear a veil. It is an indirect directive for covering the face, which is not actually covering the face but to talk to men from behind a curtain. Allah directed Muslim women to distinguish their appearance from slave girls, by wearing a large cloak over themselves and to make a kind of veil of it, which would protrude to some extent from above their heads. It is actually a directive explicitly for the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), which is usually extended to apply on other Muslim women.

As for the "generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists". Noone can deny that the terrorists that are striking around the world, more often than not, are Muslim. If it offends Muslims to say that, then perhaps they should do something about it. Christians are not strapping bombs on and wiping out crowds of people, Muslims are. The reason you see it more in the MiddleEast and not in other heavilly populated Muslim areas of the world is because in the MiddleEast it is indoctrinated into the radical religious sects of Islam early on in their lives. It is also where the funding for such activities is strongest.

Your saying that American Christians *have* acted in the same way is completely false and if I was a Christian in good standing I would be offended. Not that it matters, I only say that to make a point. Why would you be offended for what USMC has said, but not mention being offended by what the extreme Islamist activists who have performed acts of terror have done? Why is that?

So, while you are disputing USMC, I am disputing you on almost everything you have said. Including what our founding fathers intended for this country. They most certainly did pattern our government after religious freedom and most closely to Christian faith.

[USMC the Almighty]

Our founding fathers did not base this country off of Christianity, that being said. Your massive generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists, women not being allowed to show their face, and religious wars would be somewhat offensive if I were a Muslim. Most middle east countries are relatively secular and just about all of them *gasp* allow women to show their face. What religious war has Indonesia or Malaysia started, both very muslim countries.

Now you are just being politically correct to the point of blindness. I hope you're offended.

We should listen to sensible Muslims like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the al-Arabiya news channel, who wrote in the Arab News a few years ago what our own officials struggle to say:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men.''

But to ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly fanatics intent on killing us – we have a policy that prevents us from highlighting the enemy in order to better hunt them down.

The conflicts in the middle east are more closely tied to the region and natural resources than any sort of religion.
And your statement that American christians haven't acted in the same manner is false. The past imperialist ambitions of this country were defended using Christianty, *ahem* Manifest Destiny.

(1) Manifest Destiny was more driven by the desire to spread a superior form of American Constitutitonal democracy to the world more than Christianity, though certain proponents of it did see it as a religious imperative (Josiah Strong comes to mind).

(2) Manifest Destiny's express purpose was to make the world freer, more democratic, and more prosperous. Islam's explicity intention is world domination where all Jews and Christians are killed and the state of Israel is wiped off the face of the earth (their words, not mine).

(3) What religion is responsible for more deaths since 1992? Of course I can't deny the violence inherent in all religions including Christianity, but right now -- Islam is much more of a concern to me.

Lastly, it's difficult for me to see a religion who commands its followers to "not kill" as opposed to one who commands its followers to "kill all infidels" as equally oppressive.

Islam has made my life more difficult and more dangerous than all other religions combined. I don't hate all Muslims, in fact, I've formed some deep, lasting relationship with devout Muslims in Iraq with whom I keep in touch until this day -- but I still hold more hostility towards Muslims nonetheless.

[Coyote]

The problem is not with Islam or Christianity per se but rather with a fundamentalist way of thinking - whether it is religion, politics, or nationalism. The only reason why Christianity is not behaving as badly as Islam is because most of the predominantly Christian countries are under secular government.

If you wonder what the Christian radicalization would like like had it governmental power as Islam does in some of these countries - google "Christian Reconstructionists".

[Fonz]

Religion had been an inherent part of this country and its politics until about the Vietnam. Our Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. Benjamin Franklin, arguably the greatest American of all time, proposed that Congress open each session with a prayer.

whoaah, thats a nice bit of history revision right there. The founding fathers were not religious at all. Some were deists, some were somewhat religious. Others were simply Agnostic.


The Jeffersonain Memorial has his famous quote etched in: "“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

what does that have to do with religion?

God and Christianity are on our currency, in many of our founding documents, in the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, etc.

They weren't originally. the god thing wasn't added until years later. Not by our founding fathers.

The Ten Commandments and Moses are prominently displayed in the United States Supreme Court.

uhhh...i cry bull**** on this one.

Without question, the concept of the creator was central to how the Founding Fathers understood America.

Wrong. The original Declaration didn't even have the word creator in it. It was added later. the Declaration also has reference to "Natures God".

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't reference God or Creator at all.

And if you really wanna look into it, you'll find ZERO references to religion or a Christian God, and many references to Pagan Gods and symbols.

During WW2, FDR would often lead the country in prayer the night before a large scale military operation.

Again I cry bull**** on this one. Prove it.


MLK was a main of faith who would regularly cite the Bible in his speeches ("free at last"; "Promised Land").

MLK was definitely a Christian, but do you know where he got his doctrine of non-violence from? Not Christianity, but from Ghandi. You know where Ghandi got it from? Jainism.

The point I am making is that America is largely a Christian nation and we haven't created terrorists and religious wars the same way Islamic nations, thus you comparison between American Christians and Islam is faulty and I'm ignoring the obvious differences such as women are allowed to show their face.

America being a Christian nation in modern times is very unique. It really wasn't till the 50's and 60's and the Red scare that the Christians really started to make their emergence.

[vyo476]

whoaah, thats a nice bit of history revision right there. The founding fathers were not religious at all. Some were deists, some were somewhat religious. Others were simply Agnostic.

And if you take a good look at the tenets of deism you'll notice that they bear a striking resemblance to, amongst other things, the First Amendment.




what does that have to do with religion?

Swearing "upon the altar of God" isn't religious?


They weren't originally. the god thing wasn't added until years later. Not by our founding fathers.

Please provide evidence of this.


uhhh...i cry bull**** on this one.

They are, as a matter of fact.
http://www.floridabruce.com/scripture_in_washington_dc.htm
Forget what they're writing and just look at the pictures.


Wrong. The original Declaration didn't even have the word creator in it. It was added later. the Declaration also has reference to "Natures God".

Once more I challenge you to prove this before we consider it further.


Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't reference God or Creator at all.

The Constitution is an organizational document that is meant to be read in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which details where the individual rights of the Bill of Rights came from.


And if you really wanna look into it, you'll find ZERO references to religion or a Christian God, and many references to Pagan Gods and symbols.

I failed to find any references to paganism in the Constitution. It is, like I said, an organizational document and as such it sticks more to the "what" than the "why."


Again I cry bull**** on this one. Prove it.

I can find a few examples of FDR mentioning God in is fireside chats, but as for the actual prayers, I cannot locate them. Perhaps you know of a site, USMC?


MLK was definitely a Christian, but do you know where he got his doctrine of non-violence from? Not Christianity, but from Ghandi. You know where Ghandi got it from? Jainism.

We're not saying he based the whole thing off of Christianity, just that there were elements of it there.


America being a Christian nation in modern times is very unique. It really wasn't till the 50's and 60's and the Red scare that the Christians really started to make their emergence.

This really has to be a joke. You know we didn't have our first non-Protestant President until 1961? Or that one of the most central figures of American politics from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century was William Jennings Bryan, the man responsible for the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
Read the section on "Political Implications." You have to scroll down a little ways to find it.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/GettysbuAd
That's the Gettysburg Address. You'll find that Mr. Lincoln also mentions God.

I'm sorry, Fonz, but the religious roots of this country are undeniable.

[USMC the Almighty]

whoaah, thats a nice bit of history revision right there. The founding fathers were not religious at all. Some were deists, some were somewhat religious. Others were simply Agnostic.

They most certainly were religious. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

what does that have to do with religion?

It recognizes the existence of God.

Wrong.

The Declaration doesn't say that the Creator grants citizens their certain inalienable rights?



Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't reference God or Creator at all.

Technically, you're right, but in spirit you are wrong. The Presidential Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" in my estimation, is swearing an oath to God.

But more importantly, its line "We the people..." echoes the same tenet affirmed in the Declaration's "the Creator" line. It's the notion that the Creator gives people their inalienable rights, and the people, as the sovereign, loans the power to the government through Lockean philosophy. This is unique and originial from the European style where the governments owned the rights and loaned them to the people. That's why the Constitution doesn't state "WE the government..." or "we the lawyers/judges.." It's "we the people".

Again I cry bull**** on this one. Prove it.

What are you talking about. This is a well known fact, I've seen videos of it. Anyone who knows anything about FDR and WW2.

"My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen."

Franklin D. Roosevelt (the atheist) - June 6, 1944

[9sublime]

every fundamentalist of any religion is a dangerous, bizzare individual who should be ignored.

the average believer tends to be a reasonable person who is nice, kind etc. but just with a belief in an upper being i don't follow.

[Fonz]

It recognizes the existence of God.

Recognizing the existence of a creator is not the same as recognizing the existence of a God or of a Religion.



The Declaration doesn't say that the Creator grants citizens their certain inalienable rights?

No it sais, that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The word THEIR is contrary to the idea of singling out any one religion. And, taken in context with the times, the word "Creator" describes a Deistic term in the 1700s.
Nowhere else in the Declaration (or any other founding document) do we find mention of gods or creators.


Technically, you're right, but in spirit you are wrong. The Presidential Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" in my estimation, is swearing an oath to God.

ohh..kay...

But more importantly, its line "We the people..." echoes the same tenet affirmed in the Declaration's "the Creator" line. It's the notion that the Creator gives people their inalienable rights, and the people, as the sovereign, loans the power to the government through Lockean philosophy. This is unique and originial from the European style where the governments owned the rights and loaned them to the people. That's why the Constitution doesn't state "WE the government..." or "we the lawyers/judges.." It's "we the people".

You are stretching quite a bit to draw a link here once again.


What are you talking about. This is a well known fact, I've seen videos of it. Anyone who knows anything about FDR and WW2.

You said he would "often lead the country in prayer the night before a large scale military operation."

So he did it once?

[Coyote]

every fundamentalist of any religion is a dangerous, bizzare individual who should be ignored.

the average believer tends to be a reasonable person who is nice, kind etc. but just with a belief in an upper being i don't follow.


Exactly - but it isn't even religious. Fundamentalism is a way of thinking that can be religious, political, cultural and it is basically the same.

There's an excellent article here: http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html

An excerpt:

The Fundamentalist Agenda

is absolutely natural, ancient, and powerful—but the liberal impulse makes us humane.
By Davidson Loehr

The most famous definition of fundamentalism is H. L. Mencken's: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun. There's something to this. Fundamentalism is too fearful, too restrictive, too lacking in faith to provide a home for the human spirit to soar or for human societies to blossom.

But there are far more fundamental things to understand about fundamentalism, especially in this age of terrorism. An adequate understanding also includes some inescapable and uncomfortable critiques of America's cultural liberalism of the last four decades. The attacks on September 11, 2001, provided us a rare revelation about fundamentalism that arrived in two installments.

First, we became vividly aware of the things some Muslim fundamentalists hate about our culture:

* They hate liberated women and all that symbolizes them. They hate it when women compete with men in the workplace, when they decide when or whether they will bear children, when they show the independence of getting abortions. They hate changes in laws that previously gave men more power over women.
* They hate the wide range of sexual orientations and lifestyles that have always characterized human societies. They hate homosexuality.
* They hate individual freedoms that allow people to stray from the rigid sort of truth they want to constrain all people. They hate individual rights that let others slough off their simple certainties.

Not much was really new in this installment of the revelation. We had seen all this before, when Khomeini's Muslim fundamentalists wreaked such havoc in Iran starting in 1979. We have long known that Muslim fundamentalism is a mortal enemy of freedom and democracy.

The surprise second installment came just a few days after 9 / 11 in that remarkably unguarded interview on The 700 Club when the Rev. Jerry Falwell told Pat Robertson, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'” These men are so media-savvy it's amazing they would say such things on the air. But it's also remarkable because in their list of “causes” of the 9 / 11 attacks, we heard almost exactly the same hate list:

* They hate liberated women who don't follow orders, who get abortions when they want them, who threaten or laugh at some men's arrogant pretensions to rule them.
* They hate the wide range of sexual orientations that have always characterized human societies. They would force the country to conform to a fantasy image of two married heterosexual parents where the husband works and the wife stays home with the children—even when that describes fewer than 25 percent of current American families.
* They hate individual freedoms that let people stray from the one simple set of truths they want imposed on all in our country. Robertson has been on record for a long time saying that democracy isn't a fit form of government unless it is run by his kind of fundamentalist Christians.

Together, the two installments make vivid the fact that “our” Christian fundamentalists have the same hate list as “their” Muslim fundamentalists.

[USMC the Almighty]

Recognizing the existence of a creator is not the same as recognizing the existence of a God or of a Religion.

Now, you're just playing semantics. The Creator is the same as God. At any rate, it doesn't even matter, the purpose it serves is the same.

No it sais, that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The word THEIR is contrary to the idea of singling out any one religion. And, taken in context with the times, the word "Creator" describes a Deistic term in the 1700s.

So?

You are stretching quite a bit to draw a link here once again.

Absolutely wrong. That's why the Framers put the phrase "Creator" in. To ensure that a secular government was not the highest power from whom the citizens were given their rights.

[Coyote]

Now, you're just playing semantics. The Creator is the same as God. At any rate, it doesn't even matter, the purpose it serves is the same.


I agree with Fonz here - it's not semantics. There is considerable difference between the wording (and these were sharp, educated, legal minds here) of:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
and "They are endowed by God with certain unalienable Rights"

"Their creator" - is wide open, "God" is very very specific.

in addition there is a difference between "endowed by" and "granted"

endowed: To equip or supply with a talent or quality
granted: to accord as a favor, prerogative, or privilege:

[USMC the Almighty]

I agree with Fonz here - it's not semantics. There is considerable difference between the wording (and these were sharp, educated, legal minds here) of:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
and "They are endowed by God with certain unalienable Rights"

"Their creator" - is wide open, "God" is very very specific.

But the point is still the same. I never said that the Founders intended for America to be Christian. But in the same vein, they never intended it to be secular. The presence God or the Creator (whatever you want to call it) is central to limiting the power our government has over the people, and that is why I am so ardent about not creating a "wall" between religion (God) and politics.

I don't want America to be a theocracy ruled by a specific religion. But we need religion. The government cannot be the Almighty, and that's why the Framers included the "Creator" in the Declaration. They didn't just do it because it sounded cool.

in addition there is a difference between "endowed by" and "granted"

endowed: To equip or supply with a talent or quality
granted: to accord as a favor, prerogative, or privilege:

Nice catch.

[Coyote]

But the point is still the same. I never said that the Founders intended for America to be Christian. But in the same vein, they never intended it to be secular.

From everything I've read on the people who framed our constitution (and I'm not a scholar) - the following points came out strongly:

- they were predominately the product of "The Enlightentment" - a period in which religious authority over man was questioned and refuted and a time in which traditional forms of governance were being rejected.

- the idea, that man could govern himself with out a king, either earthly or heavenly was very heretical at the time and definately went against prevailing religous thought.

- my impression of the seperation of church and state that they advocated was along the lines of "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and to me, that implies a fairly strict doctrine of non-interference by the government in church affairs and by church in government affairs.



The presence God or the Creator (whatever you want to call it) is central to limiting the power our government has over the people, and that is why I am so ardent about not creating a "wall" between religion (God) and politics.
I don't want America to be a theocracy ruled by a specific religion. But we need religion. The government cannot be the Almighty, and that's why the Framers included the "Creator" in the Declaration. They didn't just do it because it sounded cool.


We need religion - but not in the government, not in our legal system, and not - if choose not to want it - in our private lives.

The idea that God is central to limiting the power of government is absolutely in opposition to what the founding father's had in mind. It is the power of the PEOPLE that limits government - not the almighty.

[Fonz]

Please provide evidence of this.None of the first currency minted in the United States contained any mention of God; no godly images, no religious mottoes, nothing.

First American Coin
The first coin minted in America did not use the motto "In God We Trust." Instead we find Benjamin Franklin's motto, "Mind Your Business." Even the Pagan references appear hidden. However the sundial, invented by the ancient Egyptians suggests its Pagan origins.



http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan/coin.gif



Not until the late 1700s do we finally find any image of a deity on currency and medals and what deity do we find? An image of Allah? The god of Moses? Jesus Christ? NO! Instead we find our Pagan Goddess of Liberty!

"1776" Libertas Americana medal
This 1775 early American medal showing a woman with flowing hair depicts the Goddess of Liberty (also called Lady Liberty) and refers to the Roman Goddess Libertas.

Benjamin Franklin conceived the idea of the Libertas Americana medal and suggested the motifs.

The opposite side shows Minerva (Goddess of wisdom) clad in breastplate and plumed helmet, holds a shield bearing the fleur de lys of France. The infant Hercules (representing the new American nation) kneels in the protective shadow of Minerva's shield, grasping a strangled serpent in each tiny fist. The reptiles represent the defeats of General "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne (17 October, 1777) and General George Cornwallis (19 October, 1781). The British lion stands, forepaws upon Minerva's shield. Its tail is between its rear legs, a heraldic signal of cowardice or defeat, as, indeed, it may also be in nature.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan/libertas.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan/Liberty%20coin.gif

The 1794 American half-cent, above, shows the Goddess Liberty on one side and a wreath on the other. The wreath depicts a Pagan kotynos, an olive branch worn by Olympian champions and Pagan Roman emperors. The idea of putting the image of Goddess Liberty on coins comes from the ancient Romans who depicted Gods and Goddesses on many of their coins throughout the Roman era.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan/MercuryDime.gif


Although we call it the Mercury dime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_%28U.S._coin%29), the official designation refers to it as "Winged Liberty Head." It actually depicts Goddess Liberty wearing a Phrygian cap (typically worn by freed slaves during the Roman Empire), symbolizing freedom of thought. The "In God We Trust" motto (put on coins long after the establishment of our government), must then refer to our Pagan deity Liberty!

The United States Trade dollar depicts the Pagan emperor, Vespasian. Vespasian ruled (AD 69-79) during the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and had charge of the suppression of the Jewish Revolt, which of course put him at odds with the Jews and the Christians.


They are, as a matter of fact.
http://www.floridabruce.com/scripture_in_washington_dc.htm
Forget what they're writing and just look at the pictures.
In the first place, Moses does not sit alone on the Supreme Court Frieze. Moses sits next to two Pagans-- Confucius and Solon:

This also appears on the back of the Supreme Court Building (the east side), not the main entrance, where you would expect him to appear if the sculptor intended him to hold a special place. Moses sits next to Confucius and Solon holding two blank tablets. These fellows represent three lawgivers from the East, thus they appear on the east side of the building. Characters from the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare also appear on this frieze (go figure).

Moreover, Christians don't tell you that figures of 17 other lawgivers appear on the Supreme Court building. Notorious pagans such as Hammurabi, Menes, Lycurgus, Draco, Augustus, and Justinian also appear among the lawgivers. Even Mohammed holding the Koran appears on the building! (Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if U.S. Muslims declared that Constitutional law derived from Allah and the Holy Koran?) Friezes appear on all four sides of the building and on the inside. The Moses statue appears no larger than any of the other lawgivers. According to the Curator's office, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes, a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law. (bold characters, mine).

Also in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building, one will find ornamental metopes which include some our beloved Pagan Gods and Goddesses (Minerva, Zeus, Mercury, and Juno). Not a single Judeo-Christian God appears anywhere.

As for the main entrance to the Supreme Court, Moses does not appear there at all. Instead, we see on the main door, relief panels that depict Pagan reflections such as the Shield of Achilles, the Justinian Code, the Magna Carta, Etc. (Click here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf) for graphic details).

And what do we find on the main entrance frieze to the Supreme Court building? No depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments appear at all, on the main entrance. The three central figures describe Pagans that represent Order, Liberty Enthroned, and Authority. The other figures represent American justices and the sculptor of the pediment, Robert Aitken. The Supreme Court literally reeks of magisterial Paganism.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court building came into existence between 1932 and 1935, long after the establishment of the United States government. It can't possibly represent the founding principles of the U.S. government, simply because it got built well after its formation. Nor should we use the art of obscure sculptors who's aim went toward establishing historical references for artistic sake only, as a bases for our law establishment.

The Constitution is an organizational document that is meant to be read in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which details where the individual rights of the Bill of Rights came from. I reject your biased interpretation of the Declaration.


I failed to find any references to paganism in the Constitution. It is, like I said, an organizational document and as such it sticks more to the "what" than the "why."the Declaration of Independence, describes Nature's God, a Deist Pagan concept, not the God of Jesus , Moses, or Mohammed.

The Constitution reflects an exclusion of religion with no reference to a Judeo-Christian god at all. Yet it does indirectly refer to our Pagan Gods, Janus, Mars, Sunne by using the calendar words "January," "March," and "Sunday."

This really has to be a joke. You know we didn't have our first non-Protestant President until 1961? Or that one of the most central figures of American politics from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century was William Jennings Bryan, the man responsible for the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial? You really didn't read what I said did you? The UNited States being recognized as a Christian nation, didn't happen until the mid 20th century, around the time of the Red Scare.


I'm sorry, Fonz, but the religious roots of this country are undeniable.Wrong again. Only by revising history and cherry picking can you come to this conclusion. Our founding fathers never intended our country to reflect religious principles. They formed a secular government in order to separate religion from politics.

[Coyote]

Fascinating description of the Supreme Court building. It sounds quite beautiful. Ironcially in all the years I used live near DC, I never examined it even though, to me - the Supreme Court represents the primary guarantor of our rights and constitution in this country.

[USMC the Almighty]

The idea that God is central to limiting the power of government is absolutely in opposition to what the founding father's had in mind. It is the power of the PEOPLE that limits government - not the almighty.

Okay, I feel like I'm going in circles here. I know it's the people that limit government -- that's the Lockean philosophy that influenced them so much, but the people get their power from the Almighty, not from the government which made it unique. If they were so opposed to God, then why include it in the Declaration?

[TVoffBrainOn]

I'd like to thank Fonz and Coyote for bringing objective thought to this board. it's a breath of fresh air.

[Coyote]

Okay, I feel like I'm going in circles here. I know it's the people that limit government -- that's the Lockean philosophy that influenced them so much, but the people get their power from the Almighty, not from the government which made it unique. If they were so opposed to God, then why include it in the Declaration?


I am not sure what you mean by the statement "people get their power from the Almighty". Is that in relation to "divine law" vs. "natural law"? Or...don't people get their power from the "consent" of those governed? To be honest - I'm very sketchy on philosphy/political theory. All the things I should have learned and didnt'.

I don't think it's that they are so opposed to God per se - but rather that any particular religion or that religious law should be part of our governing body because they came from a background where state and religion were one.

[USMC the Almighty]

I am not sure what you mean by the statement "people get their power from the Almighty". Is that in relation to "divine law" vs. "natural law"? Or...don't people get their power from the "consent" of those governed? To be honest - I'm very sketchy on philosphy/political theory. All the things I should have learned and didnt'.

The words "endowed by their Creator" means that the Creator endows the people with their inalienable rights, of which includes the power to reform or replace governments that have abandoned the wishes of the people. It's to ensure that future governments didn't think they were the ones who gave citizens their inalienable rights and thus they had the ability to take them away. That is why it is so important to preserve the notion of God in our republic.

I don't think it's that they are so opposed to God per se - but rather that any particular religion or that religious law should be part of our governing body because they came from a background where state and religion were one.

Definitely, I'll agree with that. They ddin't want a theocracy, just as much as they didn't want a secular democracy.

[Coyote]

The words "endowed by their Creator" means that the Creator endows the people with their inalienable rights, of which includes the power to reform or replace governments that have abandoned the wishes of the people. It's to ensure that future governments didn't think they were the ones who gave citizens their inalienable rights and thus they had the ability to take them away. That is why it is so important to preserve the notion of God in our republic.



Definitely, I'll agree with that. They ddin't want a theocracy, just as much as they didn't want a secular democracy.


But they specifically referred to "their Creator" -- they could have used the word "God" but chose not to. Why? If our inalienable rights came from something higher then us - that something is not defined.

The idea of maintaining "God" in our goverment as opposed to private life and churches implies a theocracy of sorts. I think our founders set up a secular democracy and - really - what is wrong with it? It allows all religions to flourish, protected from interference by government entities and taxes.

[USMC the Almighty]

But they specifically referred to "their Creator" -- they could have used the word "God" but chose not to. Why?

Because they didn't want to discriminate against any specific religion. Like I said, they didn't want a theocracy ruled by religion. But they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. Because they used the word "their" instead of "the" doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of adding the word "Creator" was to reiterate that these inalienable rights are not endowed by the government.

I'll ask again, if you don't accept my explanation, why would they include the words "their Creator"?

If our inalienable rights came from something higher then us - that something is not defined.

...which is exactly how they wanted it. They wanted to make it clear that this something higher was giving us our inalienable human rights, not the government.


The idea of maintaining "God" in our goverment as opposed to private life and churches implies a theocracy of sorts.

No, because a theocracy is ruled by a specific religion. The Founders didn't want a specific religion, or religion at all, to be the guiding force behind our government. But they wanted it established that the government was not the almight power. It is the people, with their God-given inalienable rights, that rule.

I think our founders set up a secular democracy and - really - what is wrong with it? It allows all religions to flourish, protected from interference by government entities and taxes.

The problem arises when you have a system of government where the executive or the law makers own the rights of the citizens because it implies that since they gave them, they can also take them away.

All religions can flourish under our American-styled republic, which is why they said "their Creator".

[Coyote]

Because they didn't want to discriminate against any specific religion. Like I said, they didn't want a theocracy ruled by religion. But they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. Because they used the word "their" instead of "the" doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of adding the word "Creator" was to reiterate that these inalienable rights are not endowed by the government.

I'll ask again, if you don't accept my explanation, why would they include the words "their Creator"?

I don't see how using the words "inalienable rights endowed by their creator" necessarily goes on to mean they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. I don't see that at all....what I see is that yes - these rights are endowed independent of any government entity by something unspecified.


...which is exactly how they wanted it. They wanted to make it clear that this something higher was giving us our inalienable human rights, not the government.


Alright - I'll go with you on that.


No, because a theocracy is ruled by a specific religion. The Founders didn't want a specific religion, or religion at all, to be the guiding force behind our government. But they wanted it established that the government was not the almight power. It is the people, with their God-given inalienable rights, that rule.


That I actually agree with also.


The problem arises when you have a system of government where the executive or the law makers own the rights of the citizens because it implies that since they gave them, they can also take them away.

All religions can flourish under our American-styled republic, which is why they said "their Creator".

...agree....

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm glad we could come to a consensus here, Coyote. I enjoyed that discussion. :)

[Coyote]

I'm glad we could come to a consensus here, Coyote. I enjoyed that discussion. :)

heh...me too - didn't expect it! ;)

[The Founders Intent]

Our founding fathers did not base this country off of Christianity, that being said. Your massive generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists, women not being allowed to show their face, and religious wars would be somewhat offensive if I were a Muslim. Most middle east countries are relatively secular and just about all of them *gasp* allow women to show their face. What religious war has Indonesia or Malaysia started, both very muslim countries.
The conflicts in the middle east are more closely tied to the region and natural resources than any sort of religion.
And your statement that American christians haven't acted in the same manner is false. The past imperialist ambitions of this country were defended using Christianty, *ahem* Manifest Destiny.

I think you over-generalize as well. I love all those people that say our government was not based on Christianity. Well that's a straw man. Freedom of religion was the #1 reason for the Constitution. What most people mix up is the government and the people. The government is not religious, but the people are. Not a single Founder believed that atheism or adherence to a moral code differing from that in Christianity would allow our constitutional republic to survive. Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself. That governing was according to principles expressed in Christianity. Read the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[Coyote]

I think you over-generalize as well. I love all those people that say our government was not based on Christianity. Well that's a straw man. Freedom of religion was the #1 reason for the Constitution. What most people mix up is the government and the people. The government is not religious, but the people are. Not a single Founder believed that atheism or adherence to a moral code differing from that in Christianity would allow our constitutional republic to survive. Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself. That governing was according to principles expressed in Christianity. Read the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


Our government was created for a predominately Christian people but that is not the same as saying it was "based on Christianity". It wasn't. It was based on the prevailing ideals of the Enlightenment, and the founding fathers dug deep into history to pull ideas from the Greeks, and others ancients to put together what we have now.

You mention: Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself.

However - the idea of self-governance (that people can control their own destiny and rule themselves) is absolutely antithical to Christian thought.

[DemocratLupis]

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=407&i=4720

[Grounded]

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=407&i=4720

Quit spamming.

:mad:

[Justinian]

I agree there are similarities, but these can be seen in almost all religions. Of course people are going to attempt to preach their beliefs, and even though I think the Bible is a bunch of bull**** I still respect it and the people who follow it, and their right to say whatever they want. So yes there are similarities, especially when Christians try to incorporate their beliefs into the law, but there are more differences and IMO Christians are less radical and in general less hateful toward others than most, especially the radical Islamic groups.

Hey saggyjones, did anyone ever tell you you're a loser like your parents? Don't worry they will. Anyhow, yes there are similarities in that religious communities are conservative. Global conservatism has many similarities and is still the most practiced complete way of life.

[9sublime]

[QUOTE=Justinian;9871]Hey saggyjones, did anyone ever tell you you're a loser like your parents? [\QUOTE]

You really are a ****ing tit.