National Day of Prayer is no more...

[WB9YZU]

Well, deciding what's been around longer really depends on your view of history/religion, and I'm not going to get into that debate.

Marriage existing under a tribal government for the purpose of taxes, property rights, etc makes no sense in a nomadic tribe with a government existing largely to organize for war, distribution of food, etc as you see to be asserting. I'm not asserting that marriage is solely a Christian thing here. If you look at ancient tribes, marriage existed to aid in procreation, you would be guaranteed a partner to bear your children and she would be guaranteed someone to care for her and support her and the children. It was also used as a diplomacy tool. Chief A gives his daughter to Chief B's son to ensure peace between the two tribes.

Again, the gov't usurped marriage to tie in taxes, property rights, health care, etc, when a civil union would've likely worked better.

Now you are just arguing in circles. Substitute your new PC term "Civil Union" with "Marriage" and we have the same basic argument. Why? Because Marriage IS a Civil Union. You can go down to your local courthouse and engage in one right now and not involve religion.

What you haven't worked out quite yet, it that Marriage is not about religion, and it is not about love either. We both stated the reasons for marriage and they are the same reasons.

If any entity usurped anything, it was religion got into the Marriage game, not the other way around.

Ron

 

[ECKSJAY]

You're both wrong. Marriage was a form of slavery in which the man obtained the woman as property under the Code of Hammurabi.

Have a nice day.

 

[Darky]

You're both wrong. Marriage was a form of slavery in which the man obtained the woman as property under the Code of Hammurabi.

Have a nice day.

I'ma go let my wife know about that one, Phil.

And Ron, when did our government, or any modern gov't for that matter, get involved in marriage? By the time any of our gov'ts got involved, it was largely conducted by a person's religious clergy, whichever religion they belonged to. Since the beginning of Christianity, maybe around 30 AD or so, marriage has been a sacred vow between a man, woman, and God. Judaism has long considered marriage a sacred vow. Long before tax benefits and rights of succession came to be, marriage was held as a sacred ceremony.

Let marriage get back to being about a sacred bond/commitment/vow and have the people who simply want to reap the tax benefits go for a civil union.

And yes, splitting the two may not immediately solve the gay marriage debate, but no one can do anything about those who are seeking legitimacy rather than equal rights. You can't legislate what's acceptable to society, well, not immediately at least. However, once they are given equal treatment under tax law, property, etc, over time a side effect will be legitimacy.

 

[Boatwrench]

You're both wrong. Marriage was a form of slavery in which the man obtained the woman as property under the Code of Hammurabi.

Have a nice day.

Yep. My son in law still owes me two sheep and a red top optima.

 

[Otter]

i disagree w/ a couple of your points Zuki-Ron:

1) A national day of prayer IS harmful imo - when our gov't decrees a religious behavior will take place, whether at the behest of the gov't or influential citizens, the gov't is then adopting religious behavior. the harm is in demonstration that the gov't has separated itself into a religious practice that is not embraced by all of the citizenry. Key word = Disenfranchise.

2) Yes, you can remove religion from gov't, our founding fathers did. changes that have brought religious concepts to gov't instruments (money, pledge of allegiance "under god") have been brought about thru congressional mandates, dissolving the secular foundation that was installed in the first place.

Otter

 

[ZomBrady]

You're both wrong. Marriage was a form of slavery in which the man obtained the woman as property under the Code of Hammurabi.

Have a nice day.

I like this.

 

[Boatwrench]

i disagree w/ a couple of your points

2) Yes, you can remove religion from gov't, our founding fathers did. changes that have brought religious concepts to gov't instruments (money, pledge of allegiance "under god") have been brought about thru congressional mandates, dissolving the secular foundation that was installed in the first place.

So... When was the phrase "In God We Trust" added to the currency of the US? I don't know.

The paintings of George Washington's inaugaration where his hand is on a book, that's not the bible? Is it Shakespeare? I always thought it was the bible, when I testified in court it was a bible.

The Declaration of Independence wasn't written by the founding fathers? you know this part of it...
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Citizens keep refering to the US as a country founded on non-religious principles, it just isn't so.

Was a National Day of Prayer necessary, no it wasn't. Is the country in such good condition that those elected to run it should have to consider such a pressing issue?

 

[Darky]

In regards to removing a church's tax exempt status, I wonder how much of that is due to impartial thought, or how much is colored, even subconsciously by a distaste for religion...
If anything, I'd say have them meet non-profit regs. The vast majority of churches don't turn profit. I know at my church, we tend to have very little money in the bank at any point and our pastor and elders are unpaid volunteers. All of the church's money goes to bills and helping people in the community.

 

[XJEEPER]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Happy National Earth Worship Day. :confused1

 

[ZomBrady]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Happy National Earth Worship Day. :confused1

Seriously? You're going to compare "Earth Day" with worshiping god(s)?

So on Labor Day we're worshiping labor? Oh! What about Veterans Day? Is that worshiping veterans?

What about my marriage anniversary? Am I worshiping my marriage and wife? Actually, yeah I am but that's beside the point.

The point is that your comparison is one of the lamest I've ever read. Try again.

 

[ZomBrady]

So... When was the phrase "In God We Trust" added to the currency of the US? I don't know.

The paintings of George Washington's inaugaration where his hand is on a book, that's not the bible? Is it Shakespeare? I always thought it was the bible, when I testified in court it was a bible.

The Declaration of Independence wasn't written by the founding fathers? you know this part of it...
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Citizens keep refering to the US as a country founded on non-religious principles, it just isn't so.

Was a National Day of Prayer necessary, no it wasn't. Is the country in such good condition that those elected to run it should have to consider such a pressing issue?

The 1860's is the time period that "In God We Trust" was put on U.S. Currency.

As for saying that the U.S. wasn't founded on non-religious principles, well I will be the first atheist in line to say that there were influences of religion on our founders. Some more than others, but sure it's there. But I believe that our founders intent was to establish a form of government that didn't favor one religious sect over another, hence our government is meant to be a secular institution not a theocratic government. You can't have equal representation when your government appears to promote one set of ideas or beliefs over any other ideas or beliefs.

I for one don't particularly care if our schools acknowledge our religious history. I believe it is an important part of understanding why our nation is the way it is and how we can make it a better nation in the process. I also don't personally care if "In God We Trust" is on our currency, to me, they're just words. But I'm sure that many people in this nation would take exception to electing an atheist to government office. And that I think is rather sad.

 

[JNickel101]

I find it humorous that with all of the real problems we have going on in the country today, they took the time to focus on "National Day of Prayer" as an "issue" - really, what was the "issue" that it was causing? Is it going to create jobs now that it is gone? Will it spike the economy? Will it help find terrorists?

I am in no way a religious person, so I could care less about a day of prayer, but it disturbs me when our government starts meddling in WORTHLESS stuff - such as steroids investigations in baseball, the NCAA Football Bowl game vs playoffs debate, and now THIS. Really? This type of thing is what we're paying our elected officials to do? How about we tell them to get to work and do something REAL.

/rant

 

[kastein]

But this national day of prayer is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue!!!!!!! :smsoap:

Clearly as such it is more important then the fact that that huge disastrous healthcare bill which was just passed may also be blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[JNickel101]

You can go ahead and replace "may also be" with "is"

 

[Boatwrench]

The 1860's is the time period that "In God We Trust" was put on U.S. Currency.

As for saying that the U.S. wasn't founded on non-religious principles, well I will be the first atheist in line to say that there were influences of religion on our founders. Some more than others, but sure it's there. But I believe that our founders intent was to establish a form of government that didn't favor one religious sect over another, hence our government is meant to be a secular institution not a theocratic government. You can't have equal representation when your government appears to promote one set of ideas or beliefs over any other ideas or beliefs.

I for one don't particularly care if our schools acknowledge our religious history. I believe it is an important part of understanding why our nation is the way it is and how we can make it a better nation in the process. I also don't personally care if "In God We Trust" is on our currency, to me, they're just words. But I'm sure that many people in this nation would take exception to electing an atheist to government office. And that I think is rather sad.

and I agree. Running this country should have no bearing on which religion if any, one subscribes to.

 

[joe_peters]

and I agree. Running this country should have no bearing on which religion if any, one subscribes to.

I agree! It doesn't matter what Mullah Stinky (BO) :worship: and the rest of the Progressive Socialists do, just as long as it isn't done in the name of religion.

Unless, of course, you think the Progressive Socialists see government AS RELIGION?!? :confused1

 

[rweaver138]

this country could use a prayer

 

[Otter]

our currency first gained the "in god we trust" motto on coinage during the civil war. it appeared sporadically until 1954 when congress adopted "in god we trust" as the national motto and had it printed on all our currency. it was also in 1954 when the phase "under god" was added to our pledge of allegiance. this was in response to the wave of anti-communism that was present in the USA (see Joseph McCarthy) at the beginning of the cold war, as the USSR was actively supressing religion among its citizens. as far as religious foundings, i believe the Declaration of Independence was to put Britan on notice that we were not playing nice with them anymore, but it did not establish our government as the Constitution actually does. in the treaty with Tripoli in 1797, president Adams asserts that the USA "...is not in any way founded upon the Christian religion." however, i also agree with Brad, that religion had an influence over many of our founders. i don't want to interfere with anyone regarding their practice, i just want my gov't to remain impartial. i am non-religious and i believe religious freedom or lack thereof should always be protected.

 

[Darky]

our currency first gained the "in god we trust" motto on coinage during the civil war. it appeared sporadically until 1954 when congress adopted "in god we trust" as the national motto and had it printed on all our currency. it was also in 1954 when the phase "under god" was added to our pledge of allegiance. this was in response to the wave of anti-communism that was present in the USA (see Joseph McCarthy) at the beginning of the cold war, as the USSR was actively supressing religion among its citizens. as far as religious foundings, i believe the Declaration of Independence was to put Britan on notice that we were not playing nice with them anymore, but it did not establish our government as the Constitution actually does. in the treaty with Tripoli in 1797, president Adams asserts that the USA "...is not in any way founded upon the Christian religion." however, i also agree with Brad, that religion had an influence over many of our founders. i don't want to interfere with anyone regarding their practice, i just want my gov't to remain impartial. i am non-religious and i believe religious freedom or lack thereof should always be protected.

I'll have to look it up, but the last the Treaty of Tripoli was used to disprove religion in our founding, it was pointed out that it was rescinded shortly thereafter.

 

[joe_peters]

I'll have to look it up, but the last the Treaty of Tripoli was used to disprove religion in our founding, it was pointed out that it was rescinded shortly thereafter.

Yeah, Article 11 of that treaty simply states that the U.S. is a SECULAR nation--something that would have to have been pretty "foreign" to an 18th century world.