The first was in reference to my Holy Shit post that commented on Mike Huckabee's interest in amending the Constitution so that it reflected the Bible and God's word. The comment begged to differ with me on the basis that we were a country founded on religion, as evidenced by the phrase "one nation, under God."
Listen close people, you are going to have to do your homework a bit better than that to try and argue with me. First, the phrase "one nation, under God" is from the Pledge of Allegiance. Not the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, that part of the Pledge was added in 1954 by then-president Dwight Eisenhower in reaction to the increasing anti-Communist thinking that was sweeping the country at the time. So it was not a part of the original Pledge, which itself was not something our Founding Fathers created. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a staff member of The Youth's Companion, a Boston-based children's magazine. (Read more here.)
So far as the documents that our Founding Fathers did play a role in: the Declaration of Independence makes two references to God or our creator. The first references the "separate or equal stations" afforded to us by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the second deals with the rights our "Creator" has "endowed" us with. Read the whole she-bang for yourself here. (Some of us could use a bit of a refresher course I am gathering.)
Next, let's look at the U.S. Constitution. If you are interested, you can read the whole document here. God is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution. If you doubt me, read it, I dare you.
Hopefully that cleared that up. I don't doubt that many of the Founding Fathers had a strong faith and did in fact believe in God. But I also know that it was extremely important to them that our government be focused on governing in a democratic way and that religion not play a part in that.
Now, the second comment I wanted to address was in reference to the On Such a Winter's Day post. Yes, China and India are dramatically increasing their demand for energy, ergo oil. Those numbers are not going to decrease, only increase. I am realistic about that. What I refuse to be "realistic" about is that we have to kill off every living creature so those demands can be met. There are things we can do, in the United States, to not only reduce our energy/oil usage, but to create new forms of energy and in the meantime set an example for the rest of the world. If our government is so anxious to export our brand of governing to other countries, shouldn't they be just as anxious to insure that our country and the rest of the world is in existence to reap the benefits of democracy?
Back to what the anonymous commenter said about the Holy Shit post. Yes, what makes our country great is that we are able to disagree and freely voice our differences. And I support that, but I will NOT support the efforts of this administration or a subsequent one to take away my rights or to make my life worse than when that administration came into office. Dubya has made our lives worse: through the economy; through this senseless war; through his inattention to the environment; and his lack of interest in being a participant in the global stage that we now live on.
5 comments:
Give 'em hell, Ginny. Sorry I missed all the controversy--you know, work and all. Like you, I get so tired of people commenting on things like God in the Constitution and such when they don't know what they're talking about. They've made assumptions and listened to others who don't have their facts straight. Basically, they're trying to rewrite history as they wished it had happened. Oh well, reality sucks, don't it?
Jefferson, an author of the Declaration of Independence, slave owner, and deist would be outraged seeing his profile facing "IN GOD WE TRUST" on a US coin. The following is from the US Treasury Dept. web site.
HISTORY OF "IN GOD WE TRUST" ON CURRENCY
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War.
Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957.
sources here
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm#2
That so many Americans, proud of our history of individualism and freedom, tenaciously cling to their hypocritical interpretation of the First Amendment is an indictment of, well, Americans' intelligence. If you want to know about the U.S. read our history, not your Bible. --wk
Dear Broad,
I must compliment you and your second commenter on being well versed and knowledgeable on the facts of your comments. I must add however that before you try to take a conservative to school, you need to do a refresher in comprehension. If you re-read my comment, you will find that nowhere in it, did it say in god we trust was in the constitution, declaration of independence or any other document. I must further assume that the first commenter did exactly what he was spewing against as far as people listening to other people and then offering an opinion when they don't have their own facts straight. I agree with him. Maybe in the future he will research what he is speaking out against to make sure it is right. Kinda does suck to be wrong.
I assure you that conservatives are as well educated on history and current events as a liberal; they just interpret the facts differently. I also find that it is usually the liberal that is very self righteous and unwilling to tolerate or listen to others views unless they are in agreement with their own. America stands for ideas. It would be a boring place indeed if we all thought the same way. While you talk of facts, consider the following. As far as the environment, this administration has mandated that the sulfur amount in diesel be dropped from 500ppm to 15ppm (Good for the environment). Also, by mandate from this administration we are starting to use more renewable energy resources. Around the first of the year in Greensboro you will start using about 15% Ethanol every time you fill your gas tank. I assure you that this was not at the request of the oil companies. Yep, mandated by Bush. As far as the senseless war (which many Dems. supported when it started), I hate it. I guarantee you that anyone who is in or has been associated with the armed forces hates war as much as the public, but it is a necessary evil. Go to Israel and ask if turning the other cheek works. I am sure that they did not check before killing the innocent people in the twin towers, to find how many were liberals. They just killed. A liberal is no safer than a conservative we just do not wear rose colored glasses. And yes, the world can say what they will. As a parent, I want terrorism defeated before my children grow up so that they can live in a safer world than we do. As far as religion, the bible is the bible. If you agree, disagree whatever, that is between you and god, not you and me. The state has no right to influence or demand the church do something that is against the word of god. Having said that, the state is compelled to protect the rights of its citizens. Non-traditional relationships should have the same rights and benefits as a traditional one. I have several gay friends and I guarantee you that their commitment to each other is very real. This is where legislation comes in to protect the rights of its citizens. Do not try to change a person’s religious beliefs, change the laws. Having said all of this, you need to know that I respect you and your views. No, I do not agree with many of them, but I respect your right to have them. My attempt was for a spirited discussion and exchange of ideas, not personal attacks such as the first commenter levied. I would be more than glad to give you the other side of the coin as well as consider your ideas. I believe that is how people learn and grow. If this is not acceptable then I will be glad to keep my comments to myself. I await your response.
This is for "anonymous." Ok, I'll admit my mistake in that I didn't even read your original comment. I happened to miss that day's post. I only saw Broad's response. I would hardly characterize my subsequent comment as an "attack," however, we all have our perspectives. As far as I'm aware based on my own reading and such, Broad's response was spot on regarding instances of God mentioned in the Consitution and the like.
However, I have spent the majority of my life around well-meaning people who are of the opinion that the documents of our nationhood more or less give the Christian God all the credit, therefore requiring that "God" be plastered all over everything like some bumper sticker. But when you point out otherwise, they simply don't want to hear it because it doesn't match their long-held view of things. Rather than listen, they attack and make accusations. Rather than wanting to learn the facts, they prefer to live in fantasy because it feels better.
Apparently, you are the exception. Your views posted above are thoughtful and measured. Sadly, there are few like you out there, at least in my experience.
anon—
you are right, you didn't mention the constitution or declaration or any specific document, but you did through the under god phrase out right after mentioning the founding fathers, so I don't think it was necessarily that big of a leap for me to take to bring those documents in. i get passionate and riled up, sue me;)
plus, i think both sides are guilty of skewing things to suit their needs/ideals. well duh, we all want to be right and will do what it takes to back up our opinions. but in this case, i wanted to make certain that those readers who aren't as aware of the history of religion and our govt knew the facts. and the facts are that our founding fathers did not use that phrase. that is not something that is up for interpretation in my book. it just is.
moving on . . .
Post a Comment