This is obviously the kind of person that fits the "Right Wing Extremist" definition generated by our government drones who have forgotten who they work for.
TEACHER SLAMS OBAMA
April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States .. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia . You don't show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia . How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey . You offended our dead and every vet eran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do.
We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.
I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely,
Every real American
Ms Kathleen Lyday
Fourth Grade Teacher
Grandview Elementary School
11470 Hwy. C
Hillsboro , MO 63050
(636) 944-3291 Phone
(636) 944-3870 Fax
That is one teacher that needs a pay raise. I would like to shake her hand.
I just glanced over this briefly because it's very late.
I support the teacher in some of her claims. Obama bowing to the Saudi king was kind of akward to watch, and it's a big no-no in Arab culture, so i bet it was akward for them too. I wonder if this teacher was upset over the whole Bush relationship with the Saudis? really, whats a bigger deal? Obama bowing or Bush sending them Billlions of dollars in tax money every year. Did you see 60 minutes a few weeks ago when they reported on the how the Saudis treated their returning Gauntanamo prisoners? Do you realize that republicans gave them money for that program?
Also this teacher mentioned that this country was founded on judeo-christian values and used the declaration of independence and the constitution as support. I think the teacher needs to go back and take a look because there isn't a work there about christianity or judaism. No wonder our kids are doing so poorly in school.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ihavehadit.asp
Good job Indy! ;D
This is the second time this evening I have read the sarcastic retort with a 'high five' that Snopes has discredited the writer of an article. (Some seem to think that that this 'website' and its writers have the the same validity as the bible has)
In my simple Norwegian opinion it actually doesn't matter if it is the teacher who did or didn't write it.
It is the TEXT...THE CONTENT.. that is important. A fact that many choose to not look at, but would rather switch the attention to something as petty as "who wrote it". . *Keeps the attention off of what a schmuck, their man, the President is, doesn't it..*
The fact that it literally shouts out the truth, now doesn't that alone account for something?
Does it make a difference on who wrote a poem that you read? Does it make a difference on who wrote a movie that you watched or a song that you heard as to whether you find it to be credible?
What makes the difference who wrote it? Why smugly stand up and proclaim that it supposedly isn't a true fact filled written piece of information just because snopes said it wasn't written by "the name that is on the article".?
Does this take away from what is written and what the article states?
I think not.
That is precisely why the U.S. is in the mess it is in right now. People blindly hide their eyes and cover their ears when anything at all is said against Obama. He and his people are daily creating more damage to this country than has ever been done in history and the only thing some of you can do is stand up and point out that snopes said............!
And,
Thinking for themselves? I think it is time that people started just thinking! Seems a good portion of the world is totally refusing to see or hear anything that isn't through rose colored glasses. So, just using their head and actually Thinking, would be a nice start in my opinion..
Instead of trying to sniff out and dig around and let snopes dictate what is real and what isn't, open your eyes and look at what is going on all around you! Use common sense. Doesn't your common sense scream to you that what is going on right now isn't right?
Unless you have lived in a socialist country, and I know that probably none of you have; you have not even a small breathing clue as to what this person you have elected is slowly but deliberately doing to your Constitution and to your way of life in America.
Kjell, very well said sir.
Anmar, Bush is not president, obama is. Why is it that every time some one says something negative about obama, the Left resorts to "well bush did this or that"? Also, as for this country being founded on christian beliefs...you might want to read what our Founders thought about that.
And why is Obama so vehemently blamed for carrying on what was started many, many years before his administration? If you want to blame someone, start with where it started. It has been said already that this has been happening for a long time. Probably before Obama was born, yet he is blamed for it.
Kjell, and I know that did not single out me, but I am not closing my ears to what Obama says or does, I am just saying that he is not the only one that is to blame, yet his name is the only one I hear.
I am intelligent enough to understand the news as it is given to us and even though I am not shouting to high heaven about the ills of it, I have faith that my legislators will try to do what is right. If they don't, there is an election coming up in less than two years and I am already watching one of them with the possibility of not voting for him for the office that he is going to run for. What else can we do?
Why do some people think that we have to continually be hammered with all the slanted and malicious opinions that are available? In this area, I would say that there is a pretty good idea of what is happening. This area did not vote for the present administration. Why not take the harangues to the people that did vote it in?
It may have started before his time but that is irrevelant, he is in a position to stop it and yet he doesn't. Not only that but he is making it worse. And I know that it is not just him, but he is the head of the snake.
If we don't get the message out there, folks won't hear it, won't wake up. And it is not just folks in Elk county that read this fourm.
So why don't you go join a forum where the people that need to be told can read what you have to say and let this one rest? Someone not so long ago said that they didn't think this forum was big enough to get much attention. Are you sure your message is getting to the people that need to hear it?
Geez Wilma, I disagree with him quite a bit but that's a bit harsh ain't it? I kinda enjoy tryin to change his mind a wee bit!
Maybe it is, Pam, but do you really think you can change his mind, even a little bit. And don't you get a little bit tired of being told what you should think?
Quote from: Wilma on May 27, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Maybe it is, Pam, but do you really think you can change his mind, even a little bit. And don't you get a little bit tired of being told what you should think?
I don't know if I can or not but it's a challenge lol. People been TRYIN to tell me what to think for years......doesn't really work all that well for em :P
Quote from: Wilma on May 27, 2009, 08:55:39 PM
So why don't you go join a forum where the people that need to be told can read what you have to say and let this one rest? Someone not so long ago said that they didn't think this forum was big enough to get much attention. Are you sure your message is getting to the people that need to hear it?
Well! >:( My pm box is almost full after that remark! 17 comments in fact
And most from people who don't even post on the forum! But who read the forum every day.(or night)
The few who do actively post and are active members had plenty to say.
And no one was very happy with that comment...! Nor am I.
I was actually in bed for a change, before the early morning hours and my computer alerts were going off so much that it woke me up and I had to get up and see what in the world was causing that many responses...it was continuing to clang until I opened them up to stop it. (Owning 3 websites the computers are never turned off and we have different sounds that alert us to different things so that we stay on top of everything that it takes to keep the sites working properly. . ) *So even if I needed the "break" from this place..I don't get it.........because if it is to remain a working website for the rest of you.. I still have to maintain it on a daily basis. Soooo, I am up and here! *
Thought it was my Facebook alerts...but nope.. it was Howard.......,. :(
Billy. I'm the only one that has the authority to "ask" or "tell" anyone to leave the forum.
I have never done it and I most likely never will. So......... You are going nowhere! Understand?
If you ever decide to take leave of this place.. it will be because YOU have decided on your own to do it.. No other reason..
You have people ... and I mean *Lots more than quite a few* who are applauding your posts in the background. Who don't need a rest from what you are saying and trying to get people to understand. Who don't think your posts and messages are hard to understand or decipher....And the truth they ring is undeniable to many.
And since it has been thrown on the table ..........I'll state in public that I have never had so many thumbs up responses (for the good) until you started posting in this section.. I get them every day asking me who you are.. and where you come from and how darn glad they are, that you are in here..
Now with that said.....................
I'm going to go back to bed and try to get some sleep.
Quote from: Wilma on May 27, 2009, 08:55:39 PM
So why don't you go join a forum where the people that need to be told can read what you have to say and let this one rest? Someone not so long ago said that they didn't think this forum was big enough to get much attention. Are you sure your message is getting to the people that need to hear it?
Wilma, there are people on here from Delaware, Missiouri, California, not just Elk County. So, Yeah, I think that my message is getting out there. By the way, no one is forcing you to read my posts.
Quote from: Wilma on May 27, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Maybe it is, Pam, but do you really think you can change his mind, even a little bit. And don't you get a little bit tired of being told what you should think?
That one made me chuckle. Everyone that posts in the politics section is just as "guilty" as I am of that one. By trying to change my mind aren't YOU telling ME what I should think???
QuoteDoes it make a difference on who wrote a poem that you read? Does it make a difference on who wrote a movie that you watched or a song that you heard as to whether you find it to be credible?
What makes the difference who wrote it? Why smugly stand up and proclaim that it supposedly isn't a true fact filled written piece of information just because snopes said it wasn't written by "the name that is on the article".?
Does this take away from what is written and what the article states?
I think not.
Kjell, I respectfully disagree with you on this. Attributing the authorship of written material to someone who didn't write it is called plagiarism (the theft of intellectual property), and yes, to me, it does matter who wrote something. I may be in the minority, but I do care about giving credit -- and credibility -- to the person who states something as fact. Which opinion holds more sway: that of an educator who speaks/writes several languages (as if this has any relevance to what was stated), or that of an auto mechanic? (Not to say mechanics aren't credible, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.)
Anyone with a keyboard and Internet connection can claim that an article was written by a prominent expert, and who is going to take the time to check it out? And how many will pass it along as the truth? Doesn't that fall under the category of "believing everything you read or hear and not thinking for yourself?" I'm more lilkely to trust Snopes than something that's been forwarded because it seems credible (especially if it supports a particular opinion). It's a matter of accountability, and that is something that matters to me.
Let me ask you this: if you received an email that says a prominent Mayo Clinic physician has discovered that eating earthworms will cure diabetes, would you take this to be true, or would you investigate a little more? Sadly, there are those who would be headed for the bait shop because a "doctor" said it was true. So yes, I do care whose name is at the top of an article. If someone is willing to lie about who wrote it, then I cannot trust that the entire piece isn't a lie as well.
Quote from: Anmar on May 27, 2009, 02:51:30 AM
Also this teacher mentioned that this country was founded on judeo-christian values and used the declaration of independence and the constitution as support. I think the teacher needs to go back and take a look because there isn't a work there about christianity or judaism. No wonder our kids are doing so poorly in school.
Obviously your teacher didn't teach you that the constitution was modeled after "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut
January 14, 1639" Link to this order is here...http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/orders.shtml
Secondly the framers were christian men, and they did follow a biblical path to forming the constitution. First of all it was model after a New testament church in its design. I can post that model later if you wish.
Third here are the reasons why most christians believe this country was founded on christian principles.
The U.S. Constitution is based on the earliest State Constitutions, which in turn, are based on documents in the early colonial era that are based on documents drawn up by the first settlers which are recognized as covenants.[12]
In the Bible all of God's dealings with man take place with covenants: solemn agreements between God and man.[12]
"Only two nations in history have been governed by constitution — the ancient Israel and the modern America. Those are the two nations that are based on this Biblical idea of covenant contract constitution." - Rabbi Daniel Laplin[12]
They Mayflower compact is one of 100 such documents that predated the constitution. One of the most significant forerunners was The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, written in 1639, based on a sermon by the great Puritan Minister Thomas Hooker. It was the first complete constitution written on American soil. It states, in part, ". . . We enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess . . ." In 1787, George Washington ordered that it be copied so every delegate at the Constiutional Convention could have a copy of Connecticut's state Constitution because it was so powerfully done, so effective a document, he wanted it to be a reference work for the Federal Constitution they were about to create.[12]
The Constitution is also predicated on the Declaration of Independence which states the why of our government and calls on God's witness as a covenant. Our Constitution is a nice tidy document with a preamble and a few articles. The framers signed the document, because according to Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston, their Biblical roots taught them that there should be a list of names at the end of the document, because there must be parties to a covenant.[12]
"The idea of Federal government is derived from the Christian tradition. The word Federal comes from the Latin word for covenant: 'foedus.'" - Donald S. Lutz[12]
The word "election" grew out of the Calvinist doctrine of election, designed for a virtuous people to help identify who among them was the most virtuous, those who were most likely to be among the elect, those who were most likely to be saved.[12]
Our unique checks-and-balances system of government would never have been conceived through secularism. For example, the 3 Branches of Government is based on Isaiah 33:22. The separation of powers is based on Jeremiah 17:9. Tax exemption of churches is based on Ezra 7:24.[33]
"Our Constitution was written by Christian men with a Biblical world view. It cannot be traced back to the secular European Enlightenment, but rather to the Christian covenants and compacts developed by the Pilgrims and the Puritans and their spiritual descents and they looked to the Bible for guidance." - Dr. D. James Kennedy[12]
"America is the longest ongoing constitutional republic in the history of the world." - David Barton[12]
QuoteBy trying to change my mind aren't YOU telling ME what I should think???
LOL! Hell no, I just throw stuff out to try to get people to think! Dude if you actually knew me you would find out that we are a LOT closer on a LOT of things than you would ever think. There are SOME things however that we are WORLDS apart on...I just don't happen to think that means we have to be enemies! If you say somethin that makes ME think about those things or I say somethin that makes YOU think about those things that is progress in my mind.
I don't say things to get people to agree with me, I say em cause it's actually what I THINK!
And so it should be, Pam. Say it because you believe it and once you have said it, does it help to keep hammering at it? When you start hammering at it, then is when you are trying to tell someone else what to think.
You make a lot of sense, Pam. Wish I had your vocabulary and ability to express an opinion.
Just a footnote ****
The letter has a signature AND an address plus telephone numbers. IF just in case anyone would REALLY like to know who the author of the letter is .. Why don't you take it upon yourself to write her or call her to ask and find out?? Why would you have to log onto Snoops to get your answer?
Good grief - do whatever it takes to satisfy your own self so you can feel you are not being "hog washed".
Jo
We see these letters from time to time, and we check to see if they are true or not (and rightly so). When one is found to not be what it is represented from the actual writer and we talk about how good it is and too bad it didn't really happen. But "someone" wrote it. Someone, somewhere wrote it, so when it is an expressed opinion, that is when we should look at the content.
Why don't we write letters like this? Just because a school teacher didn't do it does that mean that a retired cop and radio personality, a freight shipper, a rancher, a tv producer, a funeral director, a machinist, a shooting instructor, a contractor, etc. couldn't address the same issues publicly? All I am saying is, this letter had great and thought provoking content. Don't discount what is said, because the name is not right.
If someone wrote it, and they intentionally lie about who wrote it, issues should be raised about their intentions.
Whats wrong with putting there own name on it? Was it written just to stir people up and to be used as a rallying cry?
Why do people just follow others blindly?
Srkruzich.....very informative. I had not heard of some of that. Thanks for the post.
Can we please change the title then, since a teacher apparently didn't write it? She will not be getting a raise as someone stated. Perhaps "A Slam to Obama "or "Obama Slammed" since we don't know for sure who wrote it?
Quote from: srkruzich on May 28, 2009, 06:18:25 AM
Obviously your teacher didn't teach you that the constitution was modeled after "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut
January 14, 1639" Link to this order is here...http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/orders.shtml
Secondly the framers were christian men, and they did follow a biblical path to forming the constitution. First of all it was model after a New testament church in its design. I can post that model later if you wish.
Third here are the reasons why most christians believe this country was founded on christian principles.
The U.S. Constitution is based on the earliest State Constitutions, which in turn, are based on documents in the early colonial era that are based on documents drawn up by the first settlers which are recognized as covenants.[12]
In the Bible all of God's dealings with man take place with covenants: solemn agreements between God and man.[12]
"Only two nations in history have been governed by constitution — the ancient Israel and the modern America. Those are the two nations that are based on this Biblical idea of covenant contract constitution." - Rabbi Daniel Laplin[12]
They Mayflower compact is one of 100 such documents that predated the constitution. One of the most significant forerunners was The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, written in 1639, based on a sermon by the great Puritan Minister Thomas Hooker. It was the first complete constitution written on American soil. It states, in part, ". . . We enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess . . ." In 1787, George Washington ordered that it be copied so every delegate at the Constiutional Convention could have a copy of Connecticut's state Constitution because it was so powerfully done, so effective a document, he wanted it to be a reference work for the Federal Constitution they were about to create.[12]
The Constitution is also predicated on the Declaration of Independence which states the why of our government and calls on God's witness as a covenant. Our Constitution is a nice tidy document with a preamble and a few articles. The framers signed the document, because according to Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston, their Biblical roots taught them that there should be a list of names at the end of the document, because there must be parties to a covenant.[12]
"The idea of Federal government is derived from the Christian tradition. The word Federal comes from the Latin word for covenant: 'foedus.'" - Donald S. Lutz[12]
The word "election" grew out of the Calvinist doctrine of election, designed for a virtuous people to help identify who among them was the most virtuous, those who were most likely to be among the elect, those who were most likely to be saved.[12]
Our unique checks-and-balances system of government would never have been conceived through secularism. For example, the 3 Branches of Government is based on Isaiah 33:22. The separation of powers is based on Jeremiah 17:9. Tax exemption of churches is based on Ezra 7:24.[33]
"Our Constitution was written by Christian men with a Biblical world view. It cannot be traced back to the secular European Enlightenment, but rather to the Christian covenants and compacts developed by the Pilgrims and the Puritans and their spiritual descents and they looked to the Bible for guidance." - Dr. D. James Kennedy[12]
"America is the longest ongoing constitutional republic in the history of the world." - David Barton[12]
There's so much in here to respond to, i had to wait until i had a few hours to type this message. I'll go ahead and tackle them 1 at a time.
First, I agree that the constitution was based on various state constitutions that existed at the time. It should be noted the the primary auther of the constitution was James Madison. I'll touch on that later. The articles you listed were not the constitution of the state of Conn, instead they were mandates that were derived from the BRITISH system of laws, you know, those guys that we revolted from. If you actually read the text, you'll find that none of it even resembles anything thats in the constitution or the declaration of independance.
Second, about the framers being christian men. Yes I concede the point. But isn't it interesting that all these christian men got together to form a government and implicitly wrote that the USA is NOT a christian nation. It's been written countless times in numerous documents. I posted one a few months ago, and i can post it again. If the founders, being christian themselves, wanted the US to be a christian nation, they would have written it into the constitution.
Now about that guy who actually wrote the thing, Madison. Madison was a pretty religous guy, his law specialty was defending preachers who were arrested for preaching without a license from the Anglican church. When he wrote the Virginia constitution and the US constitution in such a way to ensure that people had the freedom of religion. He was the one responsible for dissasociating Virginia from the Anglican church. Furthermore, one of the founders, Patrick Henry, wanted to require all citizens to belong to a church congregation. His ideas were squashed, with Madison at the front of those efforts. Obviously, it was the majority opinion of the founders that religion has no place in the government. That is one of the things they were trying to get away from when they declared independance from England.
Next you start talking about Covenants, and how this was based on that, yadda yadda. A covenant is just another word for agreement, sorry to burst your bubble. Second, the logic that the constitution was based on the writings of the first colonists is laughable. The first colonists were English subjects, under the rule of the crown. They were also religous zealots. The founding fathers didn't really share their beliefs and hated that idea of being being like those early colonists. They did everything they could to shake the English, and their governance, off.
Then you quote some Rabbi, saying that the US and Isreal are the only nations government by a constitution? there must be some mistake in your quote because that is definatly not true. I'm gonna hold off judgement on this one because there must be some mistake, you can't really be saying that, can you?
Then you talk about Hooker, a guy who was thrown out of England for his preachings. It's arguable whether the document he wrote was in fact a complete constituion, but for the sake of argument, i'll agree with you. Now, Washington had copies made and distributed it to everyone, great. Guess what, even after recieving the document and reading it, the founding Fathers DID NOT INCLUDE RELIGOUS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION. In other words, they ignored it.
You follow that with more language play, see above for what covenant means, you also mistranslated the latin word, "foedus" it means treaty or league. I guess it could also mean covenant, but you keep insisting that the word covenant implies christianity, it doesn't.
Then you claim that Election was started by the Calvanists, Sorry, it's a greek tradition that was started many centuries before the birth of Christ. Have you ever been to Washington DC? do you notice that the architecture on most of the buildings is greek?
Ok whats next, bible quotes, my favorite. Isiah 33:22 is a good one, but it says King. Americans hate kings. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the heart is decietful, not sure where that one came from. Ezra 7:24 says that you can't tax the church. Now the founders never said anything about not taxing churches, but we don't tax non-profit organizations. Hey look, they were sure to not specify the christian religion. Once again an entire group of christian men who ignored christianity when writing some laws.
Your Kennedy quote is just a combination of different things listed above, but then you throw in the real kicker.
"America is the longest ongoing constitutional republic in the history of the world." - David Barton[12]
First of all, Barton is famous for putting his foot in his mouth. Most of his books misquote the foudning fathers and he's had to issue several retractions over the years. Second, He's obviously not really into history, because American is an Infant when it comes to republics. Venice holds the current title with 1100 years. The greeks had some for of rupublic or other for nearly that long. The Roman Republic lasted nearly 600 years.
Let me end by saying that i know you didn't come up with any of these statements yourself. It's pretty easy to just open a website, copy some things out of it and paste it on these forums. It takes a lot of work for me to come out and prove everything you posted to be incorrect. I even had to go across the street and talk to my neighbor about the constitution. (she's a professor at the university here and i think she was there when they wrote it)
Do us all a favor and don't just post stuff that you see on the internet. More than half the stuff flying out there isn't true and most people don't have the time to run around checking things out. So think for yourself and investigate for yourself.
How can I know that all things mentioned on your above posting are true too?
Red, please refer to the last line in the previous post!
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
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.
Specifically they referenced God in the declaration, and God is the name of the judaeo/christian God. :)
God is not the name of the Judeo Christian God, that would be Jehovah. God means God, and just about every religion believes in some form of God.
Quote from: Anmar on May 29, 2009, 09:59:54 PM
God is not the name of the Judeo Christian God, that would be Jehovah. God means God, and just about every religion believes in some form of God.
Jehovah is but one name. El, God, Redeemer, I am, and any number of over 650 names that he posseses. :) He has many unique names of which all are listed only in scripture.
Bar 'elah is one of my favorite names :) Elah is one of his names too :)
Quote from: srkruzich on May 30, 2009, 04:33:26 AM
Jehovah is but one name. El, God, Redeemer, I am, and any number of over 650 names that he posseses. :) He has many unique names of which all are listed only in scripture.
Bar 'elah is one of my favorite names :) Elah is one of his names too :)
yes yes all true. Sorry for not taking the time to list all the names. Many of the different names come from the translation of the original hebrew bible. I should have said the most commonly used named for God was Jehovah. But as you notice, as time changes, the way people speak change. If you look back at the documents that were posted, even the Conneticut document, god is constantly referred to as "Our Lord." They don't call the it God, as the declaration of independance does.
Finally, let me reiterate. Religion, God, Christianity, Our Lord, Redeemer, Judiasm, El, Elah, Bar 'Elah does not appear in any place during the constitution with 1 exception, which can be found in article 6, which states;
"no religous Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
The Jewish God has no name. There are "substitute" names so that conversation can occur. But God has no written or spoken name. I know that is weird and hard to understand. All the names we know would be called substitutes.
Quote from: Anmar on May 30, 2009, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on May 30, 2009, 04:33:26 AM
yes yes all true. Sorry for not taking the time to list all the names. Many of the different names come from the translation of the original hebrew bible. I should have said the most commonly used named for God was Jehovah. But as you notice, as time changes, the way people speak change. If you look back at the documents that were posted, even the Conneticut document, god is constantly referred to as "Our Lord." They don't call the it God, as the declaration of independance does.
der the United States"
Sorry anmar but your wrong. It does.
I am quoting the preamble is part of the constitution. You cannot separate the documents. Notice in the section i copied over, God is capitalized. The only time God is capitalized is when it is in reference to the jehovah.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
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.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 30, 2009, 05:09:15 PM
The Jewish God has no name. There are "substitute" names so that conversation can occur. But God has no written or spoken name. I know that is weird and hard to understand. All the names we know would be called substitutes.
Sure he does. :) He has names all kinds, but the one name in which you refer to doesn't mean he doesn't have a name, it means that the pronouciation of it has been lost.
Remember too that when moses talked to him in the burning bush, God identified himself as I Am!
I expect the Rabbis would disagree, but its not important. Now about not separating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What did you mean? They were written some 11 years apart.
the articles of confederation the declaration and the bill of rights all make up the whole of the document.you can't have one without the other.
Quote from: srkruzich on May 30, 2009, 05:24:01 PM
Sorry anmar but your wrong. It does.
I am quoting the preamble is part of the constitution. You cannot separate the documents. Notice in the section i copied over, God is capitalized. The only time God is capitalized is when it is in reference to the jehovah.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
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.
This is the declaration of Independance, not the constitution. I'm actually right. But again, the mention of the word God doesn't imply christianity. Notice how they didn't say christianity, they say Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Once again, a group of christian men intentionally using general terms in order to avoid specifying a religion.
Anmar, to a degree you are right. Because the Founders were christian men, they specificaly left out any mention of a specific religion.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry
Steve and Billy both, I know this will be a hot button and I may be flayed because of it, but to me there is some right and some wrong with what you both have been saying. Steve, the Declaration and Constitution most certainly can be separated. The Declaration is just that, an announcement. It doesn't tell us how to be governed or how our government should be. It just tells Great Britain to "butt out, we are going to govern ourselves. "The Constitution tells us how. The Christian God is not mentioned, and the use of the capital G meant as in a force,natures God. They avoided the use of the Christian God, because not all the founders were Christian men. They weren't atheists either. They believed in a beginning force of some kind, but felt that from that point on self determination ruled. Some of Jefferson's original words in the "All men are created equal" statement were changed because the word "independent" was there and some people didn't want it. I'd have to look up the exact wording change. Jefferson, in particular, with his bent on science was a religious skeptic. It was quite common then and as long as they all agreed on a separation of church and state, which they did, it didn't matter. Some were very Christian in their thinking, but not all as is sometimes portrayed. Patrick Henry was allowed to say what he wanted, but it wasn't quite accurate. Some did not even believe the Bible was anything more than an interesting book and because of religious freedom, it didn't matter. They might have been called "Deists," but I'd have to look it up when I have more time.
It does not make any sense that Christian men would promote a
"universal" god, which is a false god.
Christian men meant the God of the Bible and Christian folk
should understand it.
Didn't Diane just explain that not all were Christians, or did I misread something? Wasn't freedom of religion the reason that many people faced the perils of the seas to come to the new world? If the Christian religion was dictated by the Constitution, wasn't that defeating the purpose of freedom of religion?
Quote from: redcliffsw on May 31, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
It does not make any sense that Christian men would promote a
"universal" god, which is a false god.
Christian men meant the God of the Bible and Christian folk
should understand it.
The founders had different ideas on who exactly god was. As was mentioned earlier, many of the foudners were Deists, meaning they followed christianity, went to church etc, but they did not believe in the trinity, or the miracles, of even portions of the bible. Refer to http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm for more info
Wilma, I don't know about you, but I'm Christian. I don't believe that I misread it.
The Constitution does not dictate the Christian religion, nor does it limit or restrict
the Christian religion.
So then you are saying that what the fathers put in the Constitution is not what they meant? I see, you meant that the fathers who were Christians meant the Christian God even though they did not say Christian and freedom of religion is fine as long as you are a Christian. Sorry, the Christian religion is not the only religion in the world and freedom of religion means just that, whatever religion you prefer or believe. If this isn't what you are saying, please explain it. By the way, I am a Christian, I belong to a church based on Christianity, I have studied the Bible and I have taught Bible School and Sunday School. I know my way around the Bible and can find almost any reference, although I don't have many memorized. My reference Bible is beside me now.
This is what Diane said.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 31, 2009, 10:07:00 AM
The Christian God is not mentioned, and the use of the capital G meant as in a force,natures God. They avoided the use of the Christian God, because not all the founders were Christian men. They weren't atheists either. They believed in a beginning force of some kind, but felt that from that point on self determination ruled. Some of Jefferson's original words in the "All men are created equal" statement were changed because the word "independent" was there and some people didn't want it. I'd have to look up the exact wording change. Jefferson, in particular, with his bent on science was a religious skeptic. It was quite common then and as long as they all agreed on a separation of church and state, which they did, it didn't matter. Some were very Christian in their thinking, but not all as is sometimes portrayed. Patrick Henry was allowed to say what he wanted, but it wasn't quite accurate. Some did not even believe the Bible was anything more than an interesting book and because of religious freedom, it didn't matter. They might have been called "Deists," but I'd have to look it up when I have more time.
Quote from: redcliffsw on May 31, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
It does not make any sense that Christian men would promote a
"universal" god, which is a false god.
Christian men meant the God of the Bible and Christian folk
should understand it.
Red, the Christian God is universal, in that, He is God of everything.
I think that the Founders didn't mention any specific religion or god because they believed that all men should be free to choose who and what to worship. That in itself is a Christian way of thinking. I mean what good is faith and belief in God if it is forced upon some one? The basis behind Christian salvation is the choice to follow Christ and to accept Him as savior.
Red, the founder fathers did not "promote" any God. That was the whole point. The Constitution was meant to be as all inclusive as it could get. It certainly didn't intend to limit any of the religions of the day either. Washington and Jefferson were not Christian in the sense it is often used today. It didn't matter.They were a group of very wise men who represented a young, rising country of a surprising number of backgrounds. They wanted to be clear on the separation of church and state. Remember, they still had the bad taste of Great Britain's King in their mouth, who supposedly got his power directly from God. They wanted something totally different. Billy, I think we agree on this one. It's history, no more no less.
Remember the original statement that this country was founded on christian principles. Not constitutional principles. the constitution was a part of that founding as well as the declaration and other documents. The principles that they used to found the country were secured in the constitution and worded such as that religion could never usurp and become a theocracy as england had become, nor could government do the same. The foundations of this country were built long before 1776 and carry on to this day. The country in essence was designed after a new testament church.
They used the doctrines of a new testament church to pattern a lot of our government and all.
1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
we see this in our laws. Our laws are based on biblical laws.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
our officials are our servants not the other way around.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
Self explanatory but our Democracy that our government is based on is a republic and it also represents the individuality of each of us just as christianity does yet the immersion of all individuals as they come together for a common cause stands out and sets us apart from any other nation. Same thing with christianity.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
laws are based on biblical laws. and all laws stem from those basic laws.
6. Its members. Believers only, that are saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament Laws.
Being a citizen requires that we swear a oath of loyalty and fealty to this nation if were not born into this country, and that we obey its laws.
8. The various churches-separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God-but cooperative in work.
Our states were set up just like this. states are independent and separate but cooperate with each other through federal levels.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
self explanatory
10. Absolute Religious Liberty for all.
self explanatory.
The Constitution was modeled after the Iriquois Articles of Confederacy. Pretty sure they weren't Christian.