GOP Wins the Contest for Number of God References in their Platform

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

If you can't get God out of your convention, fat chance you'll get it removed from the pledge, or the currency, or the federal buildings.

As mentioned, "Under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance: 1954.

"In God We Trust" as the official motto of the US: 1956.

Of course, nobody's trying to get rid of these or other "God" references. That will come later, after we win the War on Christmas.

John

[piece-itpete]

A-HA!

We KNEW it!!



Pete

[ebacon]

Ah yes, the war on Christmas.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...rticle&id=5182

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Ah yes, the war on Christmas.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...rticle&id=5182

God, those people are so twisted.........(Pun intended.)

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

God, those people are so twisted.........(Pun intended.)

It seems that they have an article like that for every holiday, even Labor Day.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The language is clear, Whell. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" means just what it says, ergo: we are not a "Christian nation" as is so tiresomely bandied about by the Fundies.

The First Amendment is there to ensure that no religious orthodoxy would be imposed upon the citizenry. A "Christian nation" would by definition require just such an orthodoxy or, at the very least, an official State religion.

The Declaration of Independence is not, in the strictest sense, a "founding document" of this country. Rather, it is a declaration of our intent to sever relations with the nation of which we were then a part.

The Treaty with the Bey of Tunis was ancillary to the Treaty of Tripoli, as Tunis was one of the Barbary States with which we were at war. The reference to the President was just that, a reference to the President: a person, not the country. We now have an African American president. Are we then an African American nation? God help us if he really is a Muslim!

John

Your logic is a bit tortured here IMHO. To suggest that the Declaration is not a founding document when it is treated as such by both historians and our own government is curious on your part. In "the strictest sense", it is a product of the Continental Congress, a governmental body and forerunner of our current ferderal government. It's as much a part of the history of this country as the Magna Charta is to England.

The reference to the President was to the office, not the person, since the treaty did not reference the President by name.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Your logic is a bit tortured here IMHO.

You're entitled to your opinion, humble as it is.

To suggest that the Declaration is not a founding document when it is treated as such by both historians and our own government is curious on your part. In "the strictest sense", it is a product of the Continental Congress, a governmental body and forerunner of our current ferderal government. It's as much a part of the history of this country as the Magna Charta is to England.

I don't dispute that the Declaration of Independence is a seminal document in American history but, though I recognize my view is not the accepted one, I believe that the Declaration is a predecessor to our founding documents. The Continental Congress was a revolutionary council. It wasn't a national government. Our national government was established after the Revolution was over and won.

As for the Magna Carta, that differs significantly from the Declaration of Independence because it was a document executed by King John to stave off the dissolution of the Monarchy, not an act of rebellion against the Crown. One document preserved the integrity of a nation and the other rent it asunder.

The reference to the President was to the office, not the person, since the treaty did not reference the President by name.

That's pretty weak, Whell. Those words are a direct reference to the person, not the country. Period.

As I said before, Whell, The Treaty with Tunis was an ancillary document to the Treaty of Tripoli. The language was highly personalized. It was pretty much a treaty of personal friendship between the "magnificent Prince Hamuda Pasha, Bey of Tunis" and the President of the United States, personal but formal.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That's pretty weak, Whell.

it's really no more or less weak than trying to use the words of a Treaty - a document of political and diplomatic expediency crafted to placate and diffuse a dispute - to characterize one of the two nations who are a party to that treaty.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

it's really no more or less weak than trying to use the words of a Treaty - a document of political and diplomatic expediency crafted to placate and diffuse a dispute - to characterize one of the two nations who are a party to that treaty.

If it's a weakness, then it's one we share. I put forward the Treaty of Tripoli, containing clear and unambiguous language about the nature of our country. Then you responded with far less clear language from a different treaty, attempting to establish the opposite view.

So, where's the diff?

Except, of course, I'm right and you're wrong.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

If it's a weakness, then it's one we share. I put forward the Treaty of Tripoli, containing clear and unambiguous language about the nature of our country. Then you responded with far less clear language from a different treaty, attempting to establish the opposite view.

So, where's the diff?

Except, of course, I'm right and you're wrong.

John

Sure John. Whatever you say...