School Sued Over a Song - "In God We Still Trust"

Heretic wrote:

The usual test applies... Replace the Christian references to one of any other faith and watch their cries of religious freedom quickly and angrily turning to those of oppression.

Mirage wrote:

But since Christian values are inherent in the American culture how can you really know that to be a fact?

Such as? I find little inherent to Christianity that cannot be found elsewhere.

Really? So you think polygamy is OK? Prior to the Romans imposing monogamy on Jews & Christians, which they later adopted willingly due to doctrinal perceptions in the case of Christianity and cultural in the case of Judaism, most cultures thought you could have as many wives & concubines as you could afford to feed. Even the men in many Native American tribes had multiple wives. Perhaps we should have given them an exception for religious reasons like we do with smoking pot? They were here first, after all.

There's one just off the top of my head. Doesn't mean no other culture to that date back then ever believed in monogamy, but it was clearly the greater minority view then.

Funny because there have been times throughout history were polygamy has been present in Christianity.

paul87920 wrote:

Funny because there have been times throughout history were polygamy has been present in Christianity.

Absolutely. But as I said it started with the Romans, mostly for population control reasons. When you read the KJV it may sound like certain church office holders should have only one wife (which some hold as the ideal for all to follow) but I am told in the original language it instead reads at least one wife, so clearly to hold that office specified what was being conveyed is a more well rounded and rooted background and someone not as easily swayed into sexual temptations outside of marriage. My take on it anyways.

As a side note there was also a reference made to certain widows holding a distinction among the congregation who were to be supported by the church but not to remarry, if memory serves. About the only thing in Christianity today that even remotely resembles that is Catholic nuns. So the denominations can at times be selective in what they choose to build a doctrine around and justifying the doctrines they espouse.

Mind you I'm not calling for legalizing polygamy in the US but it seems to me from a Biblical perspective the prohibition is on thin ice as far as justification goes, yet you can thank Christianity for being a driving force in secular acceptance for monogamy in the Western world all the same. From a secular point of view if gay marriage is acceptable there's really no reason to frown on polygamy. But as a practical matter to have both gay unions intertwined with polygamy is utter insanity! Can you imagine trying to apply for a loan or filling out financial aid forms or filing an insurance claim in such a wacky arrangement? Much less filling out an income tax return.

Mirage wrote:

From a secular point of view if gay marriage is acceptable there's really no reason to frown on polygamy.

Using your same "slippery slope argument" (which by the way I don't like because it is a fallacious argument) religion in government can lead to trouble too.

We have laws that allow churches to be tax free, they become multi-million dollar industries with huge say in what happens to our government. Where do we draw the line? Eventually they will have the money to impose a national religion which will almost certainly lead to the persecution of non-believers. They will impose their beliefs on the educational system telling youth what to believe rather than giving them the freedom to determine on their own. This will lead to selective disclosure of information leading the populous to believe what the government tells them. As we seen in the past this will lead to wicked men becoming very rich under the guise of being righteous and of the lord. Where does it stop? Boiling people in oil? Telling them the earth is flat?

So therefore we need to act now and remove God from schools and strip religious organizations of their tax-free status.

I think you're confusing the few TV driven mega churches with the house of worship down the street.

Here's the thing, and the revisionists now dispute it, but the country was founded upon not a particular religion but on common Judeo-Christian principles. Even the non-religious believed publically in that general form of morality. My understanding of their intent was to found a Christian nation that was merely tolerant of other religions.

Few other countries are so tolerant of other religious beliefs but I do not feel there was ever any intent for us to be a God free in the government, as that assertion has crept in over time. Read some of those old documents again for yourself. Notice how many times their words refer to "God" even in official public documents. Then you can see that those who wish to remove all references to God from public proceedings and surroundings based upon some perceived wall of separation to keep God out of the government are either misled or simply are not being honest.

Even in the 1950s and 60s it was no big deal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase One Nation Under God. And it is that mindset which the song in question is referring to. Obviously it's not any sort of effort to proselytize anyone to a particular religious affiliation.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with runaway government spending than any meager revenues a church would render. But the Constitution protects the church from the state, not the state from the church. But now that you mention it the government is already trying to more diminish or entirely remove the charitable tax deduction for churches and acts of charity and I feel it's a huge mistake.

Mirage wrote:

I think you're confusing the few TV driven mega churches with the house of worship down the street.

Here's the thing, and the revisionists now dispute it, but the country was founded upon not a particular religion but on common Judeo-Christian principles. Even the non-religious believed publically in that general form of morality. My understanding of their intent was to found a Christian nation that was merely tolerant of other religions.

Few other countries are so tolerant of other religious beliefs but I do not feel there was ever any intent for us to be a God free in the government, as that assertion has crept in over time. Read some of those old documents again for yourself. Notice how many times their words refer to "God" even in official public documents. Then you can see that those who wish to remove all references to God from public proceedings and surroundings based upon some perceived wall of separation to keep God out of the government are either misled or simply are not being honest.

Even in the 1950s and 60s it was no big deal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase One Nation Under God. And it is that mindset which the song in question is referring to. Obviously it's not any sort of effort to proselytize anyone to a particular religious affiliation.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with runaway government spending than any meager revenues a church would render. But the Constitution protects the church from the state, not the state from the church. But now that you mention it the government is already trying to more diminish or entirely remove the charitable tax deduction for churches and acts of charity and I feel it's a huge mistake.

As I read post after post by you linking Christian faith and the founders of our country, I can't help but wonder what exactly is sparking this new found crusade of yours? The only way that religion really impacts society is if enough members of society are actively involved in those religions and live their lives according to the principles that are taught by those religions. The reason that I bring this up is in all the years I have read your posts, I have never once heard you make a post about attending a church service, nor have I ever heard you mention that you have ever volunteered time helping at a food pantry, youth sports, scouting or any other type of volunteer work that improves a community. So, In light of all the posts you have made regarding Christians and government, are you a member of a church that you support financially or is this just another discussion board topic where you take a contrarian point of view?

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

Hmmm, sounds like the gov't how it wants to intervene in our lives...

Anyway- I propose a new section to this board where we can sit behind a metal gate and confess our sins and what we do in our private lives to make sparks happy. We can call it Sparks Sacrament of Confession. This way he can sit in judgement of what we do or don't do since he feels the need for posting members to produce a personal resume....

BTW-I noticed how you never answered my question in another thread if you were an electrician or architect...Guess you only want other people to answer personal info about themselves, you seem to think you are excluded.

Ohhmama wrote:

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

Hmmm, sounds like the gov't how it wants to intervene in our lives...

Anyway- I propose a new section to this board where we can sit behind a metal gate and confess our sins and what we do in our private lives to make sparks happy. We can call it Sparks Sacrament of Confession. This way he can sit in judgement of what we do or don't do since he feels the need for posting members to produce a personal resume....

BTW-I noticed how you never answered my question in another thread if you were an electrician or architect...Guess you only want other people to answer personal info about themselves, you seem to think you are excluded.

Actually, based on the way you have treated me on this board, I usually don't respond to
your posts at all. You chose to post a vitriolic image meant to represent me on this mesage board and then ask why I don't respond to your questions? Give me a friggin break! I think my question is a valid question within the context of this discussion.I'm really not surprised that you would compare a question that would only require a generic response to a "confession" or a "personal resume". That kind of lame debating tactic causes you to lose quite a few discussions on this board and forces you to resort to personal attacks instead of debating the issue at hand.

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I think you're confusing the few TV driven mega churches with the house of worship down the street.

Here's the thing, and the revisionists now dispute it, but the country was founded upon not a particular religion but on common Judeo-Christian principles. Even the non-religious believed publically in that general form of morality. My understanding of their intent was to found a Christian nation that was merely tolerant of other religions.

Few other countries are so tolerant of other religious beliefs but I do not feel there was ever any intent for us to be a God free in the government, as that assertion has crept in over time. Read some of those old documents again for yourself. Notice how many times their words refer to "God" even in official public documents. Then you can see that those who wish to remove all references to God from public proceedings and surroundings based upon some perceived wall of separation to keep God out of the government are either misled or simply are not being honest.

Even in the 1950s and 60s it was no big deal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase One Nation Under God. And it is that mindset which the song in question is referring to. Obviously it's not any sort of effort to proselytize anyone to a particular religious affiliation.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with runaway government spending than any meager revenues a church would render. But the Constitution protects the church from the state, not the state from the church. But now that you mention it the government is already trying to more diminish or entirely remove the charitable tax deduction for churches and acts of charity and I feel it's a huge mistake.

As I read post after post by you linking Christian faith and the founders of our country, I can't help but wonder what exactly is sparking this new found crusade of yours? The only way that religion really impacts society is if enough members of society are actively involved in those religions and live their lives according to the principles that are taught by those religions. The reason that I bring this up is in all the years I have read your posts, I have never once heard you make a post about attending a church service, nor have I ever heard you mention that you have ever volunteered time helping at a food pantry, youth sports, scouting or any other type of volunteer work that improves a community. So, In light of all the posts you have made regarding Christians and government, are you a member of a church that you support financially or is this just another discussion board topic where you take a contrarian point of view?

This just proves to me that you just don't get it.

sparks wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

Hmmm, sounds like the gov't how it wants to intervene in our lives...

Anyway- I propose a new section to this board where we can sit behind a metal gate and confess our sins and what we do in our private lives to make sparks happy. We can call it Sparks Sacrament of Confession. This way he can sit in judgement of what we do or don't do since he feels the need for posting members to produce a personal resume....

BTW-I noticed how you never answered my question in another thread if you were an electrician or architect...Guess you only want other people to answer personal info about themselves, you seem to think you are excluded.

Actually, based on the way you have treated me on this board, I usually don't respond to
your posts at all. You chose to post a vitriolic image meant to represent me on this mesage board and then ask why I don't respond to your questions? Give me a friggin break! I think my question is a valid question within the context of this discussion.I'm really not surprised that you would compare a question that would only require a generic response to a "confession" or a "personal resume". That kind of lame debating tactic causes you to lose quite a few discussions on this board and forces you to resort to personal attacks instead of debating the issue at hand.

LOL, nice try- we've had discussions since any supposed "vitrolic images". So since your question is purportedly valid, I'm sure I'll see you question the other members who've weighed in on this thread, like Scorpion, Paul, Bill B, Heretic, on what they choose or not choose to do in their personal time- since, of course, it's valid within the context of this discussion and all...

Mirage wrote:

I think you're confusing the few TV driven mega churches with the house of worship down the street.

No. I'm saying the most powerful of them all will rise to power if not stopped.

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I think you're confusing the few TV driven mega churches with the house of worship down the street.

No. I'm saying the most powerful of them all will rise to power if not stopped.

Just like anything- our gov't is perfect example.

Ohhmama wrote:

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

I agree. Mirage's private life is his own business.

Ohhmama wrote:

So since your question is purportedly valid, I'm sure I'll see you question the other members who've weighed in on this thread, like Scorpion, Paul, Bill B, Heretic, on what they choose or not choose to do in their personal time- since, of course, it's valid within the context of this discussion and all...

I'll share... it's just that you'll wish you hadn't asked.

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

I agree. Mirage's private life is his own business.

Point was that this is an anonymous board. People post what they want about themselves, people even post things aren't even true. I think in all these years if a member hasn't posted something personal, there is a reason for it. I don't think someone's opinion is less valid regardless if they do community service or attend church.

Also, I noticed that he only posed this question to another member who he disagrees with, not those whose ideas he agrees with.

But hey- I'm a "lame debater" and this is just IMO; sparks is the master-debater so if our fine Mirage wants to answer he will-

Ohhmama wrote:

sparks is the master-debater

Ohhmama wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So now you want people to list what they do or don't do in their private lives as to justify anything to YOU??

I agree. Mirage's private life is his own business.

Point was that this is an anonymous board. People post what they want about themselves, people even post things aren't even true. I think in all these years if a member hasn't posted something personal, there is a reason for it. I don't think someone's opinion is less valid regardless if they do community service or attend church.

Also, I noticed that he only posed this question to another member who he disagrees with, not those whose ideas he agrees with.

But hey- I'm a "lame debater" and this is just IMO; sparks is the master-debater so if our fine Mirage wants to answer he will-

Well and the other issue at hand is that we've had so much private information leaked out over the years. Names, addresses, photos of member's grocery shopping. I don't think it's right and it really strikes a nerve with me. If a person on here were determined to do so, they could find out plenty about me. I would hope that the members here have enough of a life that they wouldn't be obsessed with mine, and so far... people have left me alone.

Oh, I bet there are one or two on here who are keeping a database on people's private info.

You know what they say- be leary of anyone asking you to post personal info!

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

From a secular point of view if gay marriage is acceptable there's really no reason to frown on polygamy.

Using your same "slippery slope argument" (which by the way I don't like because it is a fallacious argument) religion in government can lead to trouble too.

We have laws that allow churches to be tax free, they become multi-million dollar industries with huge say in what happens to our government. Where do we draw the line? Eventually they will have the money to impose a national religion which will almost certainly lead to the persecution of non-believers. They will impose their beliefs on the educational system telling youth what to believe rather than giving them the freedom to determine on their own. This will lead to selective disclosure of information leading the populous to believe what the government tells them. As we seen in the past this will lead to wicked men becoming very rich under the guise of being righteous and of the lord. Where does it stop? Boiling people in oil? Telling them the earth is flat?

So therefore we need to act now and remove God from schools and strip religious organizations of their tax-free status.

Today, on Oprah, she visited the FU compound that took 493 children away from their parents. She went in and interviewed the mothers, some children in the classroom and separately, teen children - asking them very personal questions (in regards to them), and you could just tell that they had been vetted before Oprah's visit. They are a compound. They know no toys. Their toys are hard work,. The children acted as if they could marry if they wanted to, with some parents agreeing, not agreeing. Long story short, you could tell they were manipulated to tell Oprah what the rest of the world wanted to hear. These children were taken from the compound in Texas, and later returned. What those children denied on Tv were conflicting the true story: Their leader is serving 6-7 years for molesting; I think the number behind the bars arose to 14 or more for moleting the children...yet, Oprah's show - all it did was show the brain-washing of these kids. They are eligible to marry now at 18 per the cult's announcement. What intrigued me the most was, the seventeen to eighteen year olds confessed they got to view some movies that were categorized for a child of 2-3 year olds.

I need to stress one thing...our country has it backwards allowing churches to remain tax-free. I just recently learned my cousin, who holds a high degree in a hospital, runs the pharmacy in another state, as I suspected, being sent to serve as "an altar boy" - was abused profusely by the same church his mom, my aunt served tirelessly, donating time, money and religious crocheted items...to the very church that abused her son. He's in his late 50s' now, but I hate the Catholic church so much now...I wonder why the government gives them tax free status.

I wonder why leaders, such as Louis Farrakhan lives such a lavish lifestyle, but didn't teach his son not to stay off drugs since the late 70s. Why did his son get off in that accident? Why are we exempting these greedy idiots?

Is this not the reason why we are in a religious war with what's going on in the middle east? Yet, if we held these churches in the US to live up to their morals, they possibly would contribute to others that object to their beliefs.

No, that won't happen. As long as they get the tax breaks here, the IRS doesn't know their business. The fact remains...they are a drain on society. All of them. Catholic, Jewish, Gree-Orthos, scum-hags with ficticious teachings...that only come out once in a blue moon...the famous Reverand Louis Farraikhan.

I can guarantee any FBI agent, any cop, any detective, if you pounced on his compound without any warninhg, you can walk in and find drugs, money and dope. Make sure it's where his son resides. And...let's all clap and give him a tax-exemption on whatever they find.

I know this idiot more than the FBI, the IRS....he's a crook and I would love to descend upon him and his "disciples". They hate black people...they love people that look like them. They wrote newspapers back in the '70s how they were going to "wipe out the white people through the middle east". You know what, I think I'll contact the FBI myself. I happen to have the original "Final Call" newspapers I typesetted for him.

Louis Farrakhan, I think I stumbled on some really nice evidence so you can start paying taxes where you lay your butt. Where your foot ends up in your mouth. Never thought I was clever enough to start your new newsletter and when I saw you wanted to eventually wipe the white azzes out of the world...I kept that for a souvinier.

All you churches, cults, etc...I want to see you pay. I am so sick of everyone else making you the "exemption." Especially when you live in multi-millionaire homes and pay no taxes. Those days will come to an end. You can tax tobacco all you want...now is the time to turn the tables on these charitable a-holes that own kids at home past 30 years of age on taxless drugs. That get away with hit and runs, etc. I hate you guys. No, I don't hate you. I pity you. What goes around, comes around. Louis Farrakhan, I have a years worth of your film and production of the "Final Call". And you were right; it's the final CALL to throw your azz towards the FBI and the IRS. I've never forgotten your spooky ways...your fine words, "I hate niggers..."

I made typos, but he isn't worth going back and correcting them. I'm telling all of you cops in NWI, if you want a real thief, go after Louis Farrakhan. He's the biggest tax-dodger, his kid was on drugs since the '70s. If you want a great big bust, go for him.

I'm stating this on the board, 'cuz he can't take a dime away from me...and I have all the evidence. If you think busting Karuso is a 7.1 million big deal...I have a really good bridge to sell you. I have evidence, I have back-up. This is not a religious organization...this is a scammer. Scammed for over 30 years.

I'm sick of churches/whatever, getting tax-exempted. They took five years to pay off a printing bill a normal customer paid on the spot. They are liars. They need to go to jail.

I hate churches that abuse, get away with it, manipulate, and steal. Lie like hell. You can open up a store-front, call it a church, act like you're God, and get away with donations. Not pay taxes.

The time for this has got to come to an end. All churches are rich enough abd enabled enough to report and pay property taxes. All I ever knew from people owning store fronts in South Chicago is all I needed to know how to get rich without being a politician. No taxes, no audits. Do drugs, molest, do what you want. Tax tabacco if you're addicted to pay for "healthcare," but don't you dare touch those churches or store-front churches to support the outrageous abuse and addiction of those that cause a FUNDAMENTAL reason behind people seeking help...from those they believed in.

Lous Farrakhan resides in Indiana for free, while his son has been on DOPE since the '70s. Yeah, let's keep his habit up....(clap and applause). I said what I said because it's the truth. I would love a visit by the FBI and the IRS. I would have his compound down in a minute.

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

From a secular point of view if gay marriage is acceptable there's really no reason to frown on polygamy.

Using your same "slippery slope argument" (which by the way I don't like because it is a fallacious argument) religion in government can lead to trouble too.

We have laws that allow churches to be tax free, they become multi-million dollar industries with huge say in what happens to our government. Where do we draw the line? Eventually they will have the money to impose a national religion which will almost certainly lead to the persecution of non-believers. They will impose their beliefs on the educational system telling youth what to believe rather than giving them the freedom to determine on their own. This will lead to selective disclosure of information leading the populous to believe what the government tells them. As we seen in the past this will lead to wicked men becoming very rich under the guise of being righteous and of the lord. Where does it stop? Boiling people in oil? Telling them the earth is flat?

So therefore we need to act now and remove God from schools and strip religious organizations of their tax-free status.

I agree with you that as a nation we need to be vigilant to keep a strong separation in between church and state. When the bill of rights was draw up, it was very clear that the intent was to ensure that the government never endorsed a national religion or attempted to force religious beliefs of any type on it's citizens. To this day,a church's tax free status can be revoked if it becomes too involved in partisan politics,although it doesn't happen often. I think revoking the tax free status of churches would make it far too easy for politicians to use taxes to punish churches. For example, right after 9/11,Muslims could have been targeted. I had to laugh when when you brought up teaching kids the earth is flat. There is a society devoted to preaching the theory of a flat earth. Here is a picture of the "flat earth"

If you want a really good laugh,go to their website and read some of the convulted explanations of their "theories".http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

Ugggh!!! I wanted people to see how fallacious the slippery slope argument is!!! Do I really believe that religious persecution is the next step up from religious freedom? Not exactly. Nor do I believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamous human/donkey marriage. No.

sparks wrote:

If you want a really good laugh,go to their website and read some of the convulted explanations of their "theories".http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

I'm fairly certain that entire "society" is meant as satire. I've read some of the stuff there. It's really quite amusing, and the site is doing quite well. I just wish I'd thought of the idea first.

Thought this might be interesting to the discussion.

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=488

------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL OATH OF OFFICE:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God."

A government that is large enough to supply everything you need is large enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams was the Father of the American Revolution

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." - George Washington

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/HistoricQuotes.htm

The Judicial Oath, for all Federal Judges and Justices:

"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

In addition, each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office. Section 8 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as amended in 1990: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Oath of Office for all Federal Employees:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath. Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33, Subchapter II, § 3331:
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

http://www.conservativeusa.org/oathsofoffice.htm

Mirage wrote:

Thought this might be interesting to the discussion.

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=488

How is it relevant to the topic of this thread? Does this make it OK for a public school to force the children of Atheists to learn and sing a song that attacks their beliefs?

No, I don't think so.