In God We Trust

I know, I will be attacked by the irreligious left, those pesky atheists that are so sure that they are correct, bless their stony little hearts- these are people who have no higher purpose in life but to live it, and unfortunately, they are well on their way to teaching your kids that there is no God. No wonder there are kids acting out. They have been left twisting in the wind by morally ambiguous people who offer no alternatives.

Our country was founded on Christian principles, despite the false assertions of the Godless left. While the signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had many different sects of Catholicism, Protestantism, and there were Quakers, Deiists, and, I am sure, some agnostics among them, humanity beings are, while  if nothing else, diverse in opinion, the consensus would be that of an overwhelming Christian nature.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the Pennsylvania co- signers of the Declaration of Independence said, “I’ve lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I have lived, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We’ve been assured in the sacred writings that unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”

That is a powerful endorsement from one of the fathers of our country, and one whose advice we disregard at our peril. But there are still voices that say that this is a diverse nation, one in which not all people are Christian, but other faiths as well, indeed there are others who observe no faith at all, and to that I say great- the more opinions the better, and civil discourse is a great part of what has made this nation what it is today. 

But we cannot forget our roots religiously, no matter what sect, or branch, or distinctly different religion we come from. While the Ten Commandments came from the Bible, and this is the basis of our laws today, virtually every major religion has their variant of codes of honor and morality that they find to be comforting, a source of strength as well as guidance.

Thomas Jefferson, a signer of the Declaration, once said,”And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

It is sad that many on the left feel that religion has no place in our society today- they seek to have religious symbols stripped from buildings on the grounds that someone might find the very sight objectionable, conveniently forgetting that a human neck is capable of turning the head away from the “offending” symbol, thus alleviating the offended party from the very sight. We have come to this; that a small minority, pesky though they be, have begun to dictate to the majority of the people in this country just how we as a country must act; how we as a country must worship, or not; and how we as a country must  change to conform the tiny but extremely vocal minority. The situation has become ridiculous. 

While religion has been the source of wars in the past, and seems to ignite contentious feelings, this is not the fault of the religion, but of fallible and often power- hungry people who twist the writings to serve their venal needs. This is not the fault of the religion, but of the interpreters.

” To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoys… Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government- and all blessings which flow from them- must fall with them.”

The writer of that last quote was Jedidiah Morse, a patriot and Educator, who has been called “The Father of American Geography”.

And yet there are those who would strip God from all aspects of life in the United States of America- no Pledge of Allegiance, No “In God We Trust ” on our money, the list goes on- but religion is inextricably linked throughout our culture, and has been so for centuries.

Alexis De Tocqueville, a French Observer of America in 1831, and author of Democracy in America, had this to say;

“Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and they reigned in common over the same country.”

Long may they reign.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

50 Responses to “In God We Trust”

  1. Barbara says:

    The atheist may get their way now, but God isn’t afraid of them and He isn’t going away because of them. When they die, they will stand before Him and be judged. They will see their whole life go by them as they are sentenced to hell. This is not God’s will for them as He gives them a choice, but they choose not to believe. In a way, I feel sorry for them for the fate they will face for eternity.

  2. Bunny Colvin says:

    Oh yeah, no wonder there are kids acting out. The atheists are to blame! Good thinkin’, Flake.

    And Babs, I’m starting to think that you’re all talk. Warning after warning of impending doom. Yet the sun still rises every morning in my neighborhood. You ain’t much of a predictor, sister.

  3. ken hubert says:

    bunnie colvin is the flake.enjoy the sunrise while u can. the world doesnt have many left

  4. Bunny Colvin says:

    Oh good, another doomsayer. Thanks for the shout out, Kenny!

  5. […] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » In God We Trust […]

  6. Savonarola says:

    BLAKE
    I know, I will be attacked by the irreligious left

    SAV
    If by “attacked” you mean, “mocked for idiocy,” then you’re right (for a change). But I bet you didn’t mean that, so we’ll just count it wrong. Again.

    BLAKE
    these are people who have no higher purpose in life but to live it,

    SAV
    Just keep lying to yourself, Blake. Make it up as you go along. Poison the well. Misrepresent those who don’t share your robotic views. Par for the course.

    BLAKE
    they are well on their way to teaching your kids that there is no God.

    SAV
    As soon as this happens in state schools, alert the ACLU. They’ll fight it.

    BLAKE
    Benjamin Franklin, …

    SAV
    was a deist. When he referred to “God,” he meant nothing like what you think.

    BLAKE
    the Ten Commandments came from the Bible, and this is the basis of our laws today,

    SAV
    Pick any of the three different versions of the ten commandments from the Bible (couldn’t God make up his mind?), and you’ll find that very few of them are actually laws. In fact, the commandment that God put first (you know, because it’s the most important) was nullified by the First Amendment. You’re behind by over 200 years, Blake; do try to keep up.

    BLAKE
    Thomas Jefferson…

    SAV
    mocked the absurdity of many Christian beliefs. Many people who didn’t like him considered him an atheist, but he was really a deist. However, he and Madison were the main players of keeping religion out of the government, so for you to pretend that Jefferson thinks that religiosity should trump civil rights is just plain dishonest. That is, it’s exactly what we expect from you, Blake.

    BLAKE
    they seek to have religious symbols stripped from buildings on the grounds that someone might find the very sight objectionable,

    SAV
    More lies from the numbskull. Religious symbols are stripped from government buildings because they serve as an endorsement of religion.

    BLAKE
    a small minority, pesky though they be, have begun to dictate to the majority of the people in this country just how we as a country must act

    SAV
    Lie. Nobody is telling you how you can or cannot act. Do we prevent you from going to church? Do we stop you from praying over your dinner table? No. Get real.

    BLAKE
    This is not the fault of the religion, but of the interpreters.

    SAV
    This is a veiled version of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Only the logically illiterate buy such tripe.

    BLAKE
    And yet there are those who would strip God from all aspects of life in the United States of America- no Pledge of Allegiance, No “In God We Trust ” on our money,

    SAV
    All aspects? Your entire life consists of pledging allegiance and looking at money? And you think that atheists have no purpose? Once again, get real.

    • Blake says:

      Gee SAv, you really ARE a distasteful human being, no manners, uncouth to the extreme- do you use that mouth for eating? Just Nasty.

  7. Blake says:

    Sav- just give it up, your arguments lack merit. I think the more wordy they become, the less worthy they are to read- you twist everything to suit your agenda, and yes- you are a liberal- the Godless variety.

    • Savonarola says:

      BLAKE
      just give it up, your arguments lack merit.

      NEOCON TRANSLATOR
      “Damn, I can’t refute anything you said. Please go away.”

      BLAKE
      I think the more wordy they become, the less worthy they are to read

      NEOCON TRANSLATOR
      “I can’t read.”

      BLAKE
      and yes- you are a liberal- the Godless variety.

      NEOCON TRANSLATOR
      “Now for a parting childish potshot (based on my inability to read) that I stupidly think will make him feel bad.”

      SAV
      I’m trying out my new invention. How’d it do?

      • Blake says:

        Savvie- Give it up, you cannot shake my faith, and the simple fact is YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. You are laughable- not only do your arguments lack merit in the face of faith, but you insist on these childish potshots at my intelligence- that is alright, I am a grown man, and I am not insecure.
        You and Darrel continue to take your best atheistic ranting arguments and spew forth- I will continue to believe.
        You notice I am not trying to convert you- I think I will leave that to God.
        I am not ready yet to say that your messiah is the Anti Christ, but he is looking pretty Damien- ish.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “you cannot shake my faith,”>>

          DAR
          You misunderstand. We want you to believe to your hearts content. We want everyone to be able to freely practice their religion without government interference, involvement, or ENDORSEMENT. That’s what the founders wanted. That’s what they wrote in their constitution. Rule #1.
          If anyone interferes with your ability to freely practice your religion, let us know and we’ll sick the ACLU on them.

          BLK: “YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE IS NO GOD.”

          DAR
          And you can’t prove there are no Leprechauns. There’s a good reason to believe in them!

          D.
          —————-
          “An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.” [John McCarthy]

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          you cannot shake my faith

          SAV
          I’m not trying to shake your faith in religion. I suspect you’ve been indoctrinated too completely anyway. I’d like to shake up faith in the infallibility of the religious right. Your faith might not be shaken, but the faith of people with some remaining brain functionality might be tested.

          BLAKE
          YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE IS NO GOD.

          SAV
          Darrel beat me to this one, but: The burden of proof is not on me. More importantly, that was the point of neither your article nor my counterarguments. Your adherence to fairy tales does not translate to acceptable violations of the Constitution.
          It’s a lot like what Darrel was saying several days ago: You neocons love appealing to the Constitution, but when it doesn’t actually work in your favor, you want to pretend it doesn’t exist.

          BLAKE
          You notice I am not trying to convert you- I think I will leave that to God.

          SAV
          God is allegedly all-powerful and has had my entire life to convert me. Your God must be pretty damn feeble.
          I notice that you once again completely sidestepped my responses to your original article. Imagine my shock.

        • Blake says:

          My God is just fine Savvie- And He believes in you, but you are free to deny all you wish- that is what free will is about,after all. You are free to do as you wish, and in the end we will all see who is right and wrong. It doesn’t get much better than that, but I wonder at your venom regarding my beliefs- does my faith shake you so? I pose a threat to no one- so why the vitriol and name- calling?

        • Blake says:

          The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed. It is freedom of religion, not freedom from it- a distinction you all consistently miss because of your anti- Christian bias.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed.”>>

          DAR
          Notice you don’t give a single specific example.

          1) The SCOTUS decides who/what violates the Constitution. You should see the ACLU track record on winning. It’s quite extraordinary. They win, consistently, and they win because they have the better arguments.

          2) For some reason, some Christians, (usually the thick ones), are determined to try use the power of civil government to endorse and promote their particular religion. It has always been so. I suppose it gives them something to do. A feeling of righteousness. As if having government impose their religion on others is what JC would have wanted.

          The founders were against this and with good reason. We have strong precedent against them on almost all of their attempts and with the decline of Christianity and the political right they probably won’t get much done beyond making a lot of noise and wasting money.

          I occasionally listen to Jay Sekulow on the radio with the group Pat Robertson started: the “ACLJ.” His show is a farce filled with a parade of absurd, childish and plainly dishonest legal claims. He spends a great deal of time begging for money. It’s a good gig and I bet they rake it in from the gullible fools who listen.

          But that garbage doesn’t hold up in court.

          Send money!

          D.
          ————
          “Europe is considered a “post Christian” society. In Scotland, less than 10% of Christians regularly go to church.” –Newsweek, April 16, 2001

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          I pose a threat to no one–

          SAV
          Not true. You want to shoot me.
          You also want to use my tax dollars to produce religious symbols. You were livid when you (stupidly) thought the park service was going to spend money to produce a Muslim symbol; that is, only when it’s not your religion do you get all huffy. That makes you a hypocrite. But that’s not news to anybody.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel- you wanted an example of the ACLU prohibiting ymbols? Google William Mosher, the founder of the Star of Hope, a charitable institution based in Houston
          Texas- To honor Mr. Mosher, the city gave the Star of Hope one square yard of concrete on the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where the Star of Hope erected a stele with an insert at the top, wherein rested a Bible in a glass case. This Bible’s pages were turned every day by a volunteer.
          Well, the ACLU and one person did not like to see the monument to Mr. Mosher, so they sued to have it removed, instead of turning their head so they wouldn’t be offended- how arrogant of them. The city relented, so they wouldn’t get tangled in a lawsuit- how cowardly of them.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed.”>>

          DAR (said)
          Notice you don’t give a single specific example.>>

          BLK (new) “you wanted an example of the ACLU prohibiting [s]ymbols? Google William Mosher, the founder of the Star of Hope, a charitable institution based in Houston
          Texas- To honor Mr. Mosher, the city gave the Star of Hope one square yard of concrete on the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where the Star of Hope erected a stele with an insert at the top, wherein rested a Bible in a glass case.>>

          DAR
          Thanks for providing the example. Their action was clearly unconstitutional and a government endorsement of religion. Can’t do that.

          You said: “The ACLU violates the Constitution.” No, they work to have the constitution upheld. The city folded because they knew they would lose. The precedent is clear. The government mustn’t be favoring any religion. Putting a religious display on government grounds/property (or doing novel procedures to try and get around that) is not neutral, it’s endorsement. See the Lemon Test.

          If this were a display devoted to honoring one of the thousands of gods you don’t believe in, I think the scales may be lifted from your eyes and you might be able to see the problem. Best for government to stay out of the religion business. See world history.

          You’re a consistent atheist with regard to all of those other gods. I’m just wee bit more consistent than you. I don’t make an exception for that last one.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          The example was an attempt to honor a MAN who had done some good in this world- the fact that a Bible was a part of the monument should have been irrelevant, as it was on public right of way, and not on city property- the city gave up not because they knew they would lose, but just because of the expenses that would have incurred.
          This is an example of the ALU bullying when the offended party could have just turned her head and gone her way.
          As a side note, she received so much notoriety that she lost her business and had to move. At least there is some justice in this world.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          as it was on public right of way, and not on city property

          SAV
          This doesn’t pass the smell test. The city ridding itself of this square yard of land for the purpose of erecting a religious monument isn’t allowed, precisely because it’s a directed effort to support the religious monument. Case law has determined and supported this conclusion.
          And for you — Mr. “OMG It’s A Muslim Crescent!” — to not grasp this is… well, perfectly expected, actually.

        • Blake says:

          AS I said before, this was to honor a man who was a Christian, but the purpose was to honor him, and get so tired of this small, but irritating minority who feel that their poor, wounded feelings deserve ascendency over the majority of us who, frankly, do not give a damn about you and your perceived “feelings”, which you want to impose on others. How bogus can you be?

  8. Greg Robie says:

    Blake,

    At the founding of this nation, Quaker’s were Christian, (though now, at least the liberal stripe of them, probably warrants a separate listing). Anyway, you are right, they did have significant influence on the framing of our governance. As did the Baptist (who at the time were not really Protestants relative to the thinking of the majority of Protestants and therefore likely merit a separate listing. In addition, the Iroquois strongly shaped of government. At the time of the founding, but for Quakers, they were considered heathens. Should pantheists be afforded as separate listing?

    That nitpicking aside, I take offense to the title chosen for this post—but not its intent. The engraved “In God We Trust” on this nation’s unconstitutional fiat currency (a debt-based coinage that systemically dictates an enslavement to credit) makes a mockery of Christ’s teachings that you cannot serve both God and Money (Matthew 6:24). By Jesus’ own words, He came to set the captives free (Isaiah. 61:1; Luke 4:18). Our unconstitutional currency, and the economy of systemic enslavement it enables, is, thereby, unGodly.

    To the degree I am a Christian, the title—even argument— of this post approximates blasphemy. Together, the irreligious Left AND the religious Left, the irreligious right AND the religious Right, are one nation under an unconstitutional currency and an unGodly economy for which it (the currency) stands.

    Are there any without sin amongst us and thereby qualified to know, in God’s sense, what is righteous and what is ridiculous? It is my prayerful contemplation of this quandary, in conjunction with what science is learning about us through the study of motivated reasoning, that led to my conceiving the violation of the Separation Clause in the First Amendment. Global Capitalism now constitutes, systemically (thanks to the unconstitutional currency), a state sponsored religion. To the degree this insight has merit, I feel it relegates any ridiculing and demeaning of the secular humanist, as this post seems to be structured to do, into a category of behaviors Christ also taught about with His speck and plank metaphor.

    Anyway, the insight is why I list the violation of Article 1; Section 8 and the Separation Clause of the First Amendment among the four constitutional crises we must redress, Left and Right (and together), to reclaim the Republic from the corruption of governance (fascism) that the corruption of the 14 Amendment in favor of personhood for corporations “legally” set in motion; has resulted in the economic collapse; and that a, now, liberal exploitation of the neocon implementation of the unitary executive theory is enabling. When considering what we trust, it not more truthful to observe that we, together, demonstrate an abiding trust in our god, Money?

    • Blake says:

      Money is but a small part of the post here, but I understand your concerns. The intent of this post was to illustrate how some in and out of government are attempting to make this a secular world, with no place for religion at all. I have no trouble letting sleeping atheists lie, but I get a little peeved when the majority of this country, which is overwhelmingly Christian in basis, being told by a vocal and childish minority what we, the majority should and should not do.
      That is just wrong.

      • Greg Robie says:

        But for feeling money is a small part of this post (and to me this is an example of the speck/plank thing we need one another to avoid—but I understand who is always right here ;) —agreed.

        The current interpretation of the separation clause is outside the legislative intent of the framers. It is also inconsistent with the findings of Seeger VS The United States. The current well intended, if misguided stare decisis re: the Separation Clause has been extended far enough now that your intent, and as I said, I understood your intent, is true. The intent of the Separation Clause, in faith (in practice), has been stood on its head.

        Even so, isn’t this because of the concerns I raise here (and is very much about money as the god we trust): that what is professed as religious (or as some might corrupt the term, have faith in), is not what we practice and thereby an example of spiritual blindness—as well as being the opposite of what Paul defined faith to be in Hebrews 11, or what Jesus bemoaned when He voiced His complaint (and, presumably, God’s as well, as all that He said He was given by the Father to speak) that ours is a faithless generation (Matthew 17:17-20)?

        Anyway, I am reminded of the measurement Christ will use for separating the sheep and the goats written of in Matthew 24. If, economically, we were systemically effecting something other than goat-like behavior I could concur that our relationship to money and the economy isn’t an important part of what you have raised in this post. However, since I observe this is not the case, and the engraved profession as well as the insertion of “Under God” occurred at a time when some of the constitutional concerns I have listed were being effected, was such placation; obfuscation?

        If so, I find the efforts to have what has been engraved and inserted removed to, paradoxically, also be a helpful challenge to Christians. That challenge conforms to Jesus’ teachings about faith as practice: disciples of Christ are a city on a hill, a lamp on a lamp stand, salt of the earth. If Christians are not such, no amount of professing otherwise (including seeking to preserve a right to do so), will transform goat-like behavior in to that of sheep. If all Christian in this nation have become, in practice (and thanks to the systemic dynamics of four constitutional crises), goats, aren’t we fit to be trampled underfoot; cast in outer (or, thanks to the dynamics of motivated reasoning, is it inner that is passed off as light—Matthew 6:22-23) darkness?

        • Darrel says:

          GREG: “aren’t we fit to be trampled underfoot; cast in outer… darkness?>>

          DAR
          Yes. And by the goats.

          Freethinkers are goats btw way. We just help with presorting so when Jesus returns to separate the sheep from the goats we can say “Hey Jesus, we’re the goats and we’re over here!”

          It’s an excellent metaphor too. As any farmer knows, sheep are dumb, goats are smart. Goats don’t take any guff. Best to be a goat.

          Scroll to bottom to see pic of baby Belle.

      • Savonarola says:

        BLAKE
        I get a little peeved when the majority of this country, which is overwhelmingly Christian in basis, being told by a vocal and childish minority what we, the majority should and should not do.

        SAV
        But we aren’t telling you what to do. You’re lying, Mr. “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.” Can’t you ever make an argument that isn’t based on lies, Blake? Is your position so weak that you have to fabricate inciteful propaganda? Get real.

        • Blake says:

          My position is not based on lies, nor is my position weak, but you seem more intent on tearing me down- could the fact that I am right peeve you so?
          Are you truly that insecure, Sav?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          The quote attributed to Jefferson is correct- if you find it not to your liking, too bad.

          SAV
          Nobody said that it was a misquote. We said that his meaning of “God” is not your meaning of “God.” Please try to keep up.

          BLAKE
          My position is not based on lies,

          SAV
          Then you should stop lying and put forward a real argument. But you won’t.

          BLAKE
          could the fact that I am right peeve you so?

          SAV
          I hardly have to worry about when you are right, because that’s damn near never. Your article is full of lies. That’s why you can’t address my actual points.

        • Blake says:

          See, this is where I always had a problem with know- it- alls—You expect me to believe that you know exactly what Jefferson meant in that quote, and as I recall, Thomas Jefferson died before he could tell you.
          Also, there is the fact that a person’s position changes on many things over the span of a lifetime, and you were not there, so you must interpret any writings left behind-
          Kind of like interpreting the Bible, huh?
          Are you sure you are right? At least I can say that my interpretation may suit me, but soneone else may have a different take.
          You all are too sure to be right, I think.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Thomas Jefferson died before he could tell you.
          Also, there is the fact that a person’s position changes on many things over the span of a lifetime, and you were not there, so you must interpret any writings left behind-

          SAV
          Which is really easy to do, because he wrote so much about religious freedom and how government has no business with any form of association with religious beliefs. From Jefferson’s early writings in the 1770s to his later writings in the 1820s, his views were consistent, contrary to your completely unresearched, unsupported mere insinuation. Get real.
          In fact, you haven’t addressed any of the multiple, valid, substantive points that Darrel or I have presented. Your bluster is nothing but accusing us of having poor manners or being insecure or being unable to read Jefferson’s mind. How pathetic. Put up or shut up, Blake. Address the arguments.

  9. Darrel says:

    It’s too bad that Blake doesn’t seem to grasp the wisdom of the founders implementation of separation of church and state. It has allowed Christianity to thrive in the US while bringing it to it’s deathbed in Europe (please ask me to back that up). It’s because of this separation that Christianity will take longer to fade in the US than it would have otherwise. State run religion killed it in Europe. Here, natural selection weeds out the weaker superstitions and lets the ones best at extracting money from the gullible, survive.

    Blake mentions Franklin, who as SAV notes, was not a Christian but a deist.

    He wrote: “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”

    His deism is made clear in this:

    “I imagine it great vanity in me to suppose that the Supremely Perfect does in the least regard such an inconsiderable nothing as man. More especially, since it is impossible for me to have any positive, clear idea of that which is infinite and incomprehensible, I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
    —Ben Franklin “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion,” November 20, 1728.

    And:

    “Some books against Deism fell into my hands…it happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended…in short, I soon became a thorough deist.” [“Autobiography”]

    BLK: “we cannot forget our roots religiously”

    DAR
    Actually, we can, and we are. From the Barna Christian group:

    ***
    How Many have a ‘Biblical Worldview’?

    A new research study from the Barna Research Group indicates a lack of “biblical worldview” among Americans.

    For the study, a “biblical worldview” was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist and that such truth is defined by the Bible. This worldview also includes firm belief in six specific religious views: that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

    The research indicated that only 9% of all American adults have a biblical worldview as defined above.

    Take note that “less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation – i.e., those aged 18 to 23 – have a biblical worldview, compared to about one out of every nine older adults.”

    LINK

    BLK: While the Ten Commandments came from the Bible,>>

    DAR
    Actually, they are mostly pinched from competing superstitions in the neighborhood. And they are completely unamerican as I’ve shown before. (oh, and they were specifically addressed to the Hebrews)

    BLK: “and this is the basis of our laws today>>

    DAR
    Blake really ought to learn his “Ten Commandments.” Like 99% of Christians, he doesn’t even know them. My little tract could help him out in case he wishes to get informed: Do you know the Ten Commandments?.

    BLK: “human neck is capable of turning the head away from the “offending” symbol,”

    DAR
    Good. Then Blake won’t mind any of the other religions hanging offending symbols on our government buildings. He can just turn his head.

    I kind of wish the government would go Christian. Then we could stand back and watch all of the tens of thousands of sects go to war with each other as they try to use government to endorse their particular brand of superstition. Just like the old days eh?

    The founders were against that because they knew a little about history.

    Blake thinks Christianity so weak and pathetic that it needs the help, support and endorsement of the civil government. But I don’t think so. I actually agree with Ben Franklin’s opinion on this:

    “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
    –Ben Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

    D.
    —————–
    Blake quotes Jefferson? LOL. Here is the future Jefferson rightly predicted for Christianity:

    “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.” –Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787.

    Notice “freedom of thought.” This later become “freethinker.”

    Too bad the founders couldn’t be here today. They would kick your butt too.

    Further reading:

    The Founders Would Howl if Called Christian.

    Written by a minister.

    • Big Dog says:

      I just don’t recall the Constitution saying anything about separation of church and state. I do remember it saying that Congress may not make laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

      Hmmmm, freedom OF religion. Not freedom from it.

      And the ACLU will never fight a battle for me. They are too busy helping child molesters and Muslim terrorists.

      • Greg Robie says:

        Amen (except for the hyperbole about the ACLU).

        And, for a love of Money, Christians can be. and generally are, “freed” by the systemic dynamics of this economy to piously not practice their religion.

        Likewise for Congress relative to the powers and responsibilities given it by the Constitution. Congress can, and has made unconstitutional laws establishing a fiat currency that, in turn, has led to a functional establishment of global capitalism as a state religion, and that, as per the our corporate “citizen’s” perception of their life (profit by externalizing costs, exploiting workers and the environment, and extracting resources from the commons with the least responsibility possible), liberty (to not have to serve the public good, and, increasingly, not pay taxes), and happiness (greed and unjust profit) has led to fascism . . . and, in turn, the challenge Christians face to freely practice their religion.

        Darrel, please note this point. The Constitutional crises I’ve outline make your assertion about the separation clause strengthening Christianity a specious one. These failures to uphold the Constitution have, as you, ironically point out, allowed corruptions of Christianity, which best fleece its membership, to survive. With a state having established a religion (scientifically, that which generally triggers motivated reasoning in a person/social grouping), the rights the founders tried to protect society with in the First Amendment (not Article; not “rule”) have been abridged. Besides the establishment of a state religion under the guise of such being about the economy, we have become constitutionally stupid (did you get the pun/allusion to Carville’s winning strategy for Clinton?).

        Anyway, and while I am speaking of things specious and directing comments your way, the point about the three sets of 10 commandments is, as framed, entertaining. However, cherry picking, as the framing constitutes, it reminds me a lot of what AGW deniers do to science to make a point that conforms to their iteration of motivated reasoning, Would you agree?

        I feel a sense of humor and humility is needed all around, but I am not sure that is possible at this blog due to dynamics that include slapping without a plan, and having to be right without that being rationally reasoned. (I sure hope that doesn’t mean my plan is a put down and not reasoned, but if “the faults one sees in others…” it very well could be and to see if this is so is why I have shared it as I have.

      • Darrel says:

        BIGD: “don’t recall the Constitution saying anything about separation of church and state.”>>

        DAR
        The separation of church and state is a well established constitution principle. You should learn about it.
        “The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878.”

        You might also read about the Lemon Test.

        Jefferson mentioned it in his important letter to the Danbury Baptists, but note:

        “James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights,… often wrote of “total separation of the church from the state.”[16] “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States,” Madison wrote,[17] and he declared, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

        Link.

        BIGD: “I do remember it saying that Congress may not make laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

        DAR
        Ah, but what does that mean? How is it applied? We have a very elaborate process (detailed in the constitution) by which we pick people who who decide these things. Like it or not, they are the experts in constitutional law. They decide what it means and how it is interpreted. No exceptions. You can disagree with them, but no one cares. This is because you have no say.

        BIGD: “Hmmmm, freedom OF religion. Not freedom from it.>>

        DAR
        As it regards government involvement, you can’t have one with out the other. You want “one nation under god?” See Iran.

        BIGD: And the ACLU will never fight a battle for me.>>

        DAR
        They probably already have and you don’t know it.

        One particular religious group I have helped several leave is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That particular cult is a bit of a specialty of mine. But some religious meddlers, priests I think, tried to stop the JW’s from going door to door in their community. They passed a little law I think. The ACLU went to court to defend their right to proselytize, and they won. I entirely support this. This has happened over and over. They protect and defend civil rights. If there were a god I would ask him to bless the ACLU.

        Most of what you have in your head about the ACLU, is lies that you haven’t investigated. If you want them roasted, just ask.

        BIGD: They are too busy helping child molesters and Muslim terrorists.”>>

        DAR
        People accused of being child molesters (typically republican leaders ) and muslim terrorists should have equal protection under the law and be accorded the same civil rights everyone else has.

        D.

    • Blake says:

      The quote attributed to Jefferson is correct- if you find it not to your liking, too bad.
      And freedom of thought could never become free thunker, certainly not in the egoist sense you wish it to be.

  10. Savonarola says:

    BLAKE
    The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed.

    DOG
    And the ACLU will never fight a battle for me.

    SAV
    Here is an article from Christianity Today bemoaning the idiocy you guys are passing on.
    Here is a list of cases the ACLU has taken to support the rights of the religious. In other words, you guys are blinded by your own xenophobia.

    DOG
    Hmmmm, freedom OF religion. Not freedom from it.

    SAV
    Old, tired argument. It’s what we call a PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. Accomodationists want to take Jefferson’s idea of a “wall” and make it into a magical “one-way wall.” It’s incomprehensible. And reprehensible, considering the history of religion and nations. And hypocritical, because substituting any religion in place of their own causes the accomodationist to object passionately. And absurd, considering the intent of the authors as shown by their previous (and subsequent) works. And unintelligible, as the super-strict interpretation leads to absurdities such as a lack of actual freedom of religion so long as there’s no law prohibiting free exercise of a religion. (Dog, you must worship Zeus, but you can do it however you’d like; that’s “free exercise”!)
    Or, we could just take the standard righty approach: Where does the Constitution say that the federal government can post religious symbols and references? It doesn’t. But with this, we don’t see the same argument from the right, do we?

  11. Savonarola says:

    Check out this 1939 Porky Pig cartoon entitled “Old Glory.” Pay close attention to what is written in the book and to what words Porky says (and doesn’t say) when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

    • Darrel says:

      SAV: “Check out this 1939 Porky Pig cartoon entitled “Old Glory.”>>

      DAR
      Clearly you are a gifted teacher. You even know what level of teaching material to use based upon the capacity of your students!

      D.

      • Blake says:

        Its so amazing- you all are as funny as those people who say, ” I want to be unique-” and then they all go get the barbed wire tattoo around the arm. Yea, you all are “free thinkers” alright, even to the point where you all write the same style, use the same tired arguments- I truly cannot tell you apart.
        You are wedded to your own philosophies that conform to each other’s agreements- it must truly be boring agreeing with each other so much- perhaps that is why you seek us out?
        Yes, it’s true- we have so much to teach you, grasshopper.

        • Darrel says:

          BLk: “Yea, you all are “free thinkers” alright,…”>>

          DAR
          As I’ve told you before, it’s one word. Do you have a learning disorder?

          freethinker n.
          “A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.”
          — Webster’s New World Dictionary — Third College Edition

          BLK: “…perhaps that is why you seek us out?”>>

          DAR
          It is my dream someday to find a conservative that can keep up.

          BLK: we have so much to teach you, grasshopper.”>>

          DAR
          Hey! I was going to ask you to snatch the pebble from my hand but I was waiting until I thought you ready for that level of difficulty.

          See pic here.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          I have no learning disorder, but free thinker is, in your case, (and that of Savvie’s) an oxymoron, you have the ego, but not the chops.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “I have no learning disorder, but free thinker is…>>

          DAR
          If you don’t have a learning disorder, why can’t you learn that “freethinker” is one word, not two?

          D.

  12. […] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » In God We Trust […]

  13. Melinda says:

    Blake and Big Dog,

    I must say this sort of reminds me (in a loose way) of how the msm attacks Sarah Palin, these stooges (Bunny Colvin, Savonarola, Darrel) are so afraid of the message….truth is hard to face, so they keep naying and braying at you (like the wordier I can be the more important and right I am).

    Their sheer arrogance and snideness is unbelievable, we must pray for them.

    God Bless ya’ll and keep up the great work!
    Mel

    • Savonarola says:

      MEL
      truth is hard to face

      SAV
      Truth leaves evidence. The evidence points toward separation. Even the SCOTUS agrees.
      If the truth were on your side, you’d be able to address our points. Instead, you’ve just called us names.

      • Blake says:

        Who has called who names? You and D regularly call both Dog and me “idiots” and “morons” almost every time you comment here, something I wouldn’t put up with on a face to face basis, so it’s a good thing I hate to travel, or you might well be in trouble.
        Time was, I would be looking you up, and schooling you.

    • Darrel says:

      MEL: “sort of reminds me… how the msm attacks Sarah Palin,>>

      DAR
      Yes, remember how Saturday Night Live attacked her. They had a woman with a striking likeness, read her lines, verbatim, from an interview Palin did. People laughed with no mercy. How dare they be so mean as to actual repeat Sarah Palin’s actual comments, word for word? I mean really. Doing that only made Palin look like… an idiot! It’s so unfair.

      MEL: “these [insult] (Bunny Colvin, Savonarola, Darrel) are so afraid of the message…. truth is hard to face,…>>

      DAR
      There is no message, no truth I am afraid to face. I’ll believe anything, as long as it can be shown to be true. You just need good evidence, good arguments. And too often you guys don’t have those.

      MEL: we must pray for them.>>

      DAR
      And fervently.

      MEL: God Bless ya’ll and keep up the great work!>>

      DAR
      Thanks. It’s good to be appreciated!

      D.
      —————
      “There is not a truth existing which I fear… or would wish unknown to the whole world.” –Thomas Jefferson

      • Big Dog says:

        So when Tina Fey said that she could see Russia from her house (as Palin) that was verbatim? As I recall, and as the cideo will show, Palin said you could see Russia from Alaska. That is a true statement.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: So when Tina Fey said that she could see Russia from her house (as Palin) that was verbatim?>>

          DAR
          No, that was comic hyperbole. The Tina Fey skit was so successful they had several of them. One of them was a verbatim recital of some interview/speech she did. The “I can see Russia from my house” bit was not the verbatim one.

          BIGD: As I recall, and as the [v]ideo will show, Palin said you could see Russia from Alaska. That is a true statement.>>

          DAR
          Yes it is. People ridiculed it because it was in the context of her answering a question about her foreign policy experience. Hence the Tina Fey exaggeration/quip.

          See below.

          D.
          ————–
          “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” (Asked by ABC’s Charles Gibson “what insight into Russian actions” the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)

          “Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of… We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.” (Asked by CBS’ Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)

          http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/sarah-palins-greatest-hits