Friday, November 7, 2008

America and the Bible

This should spark some debate. How many myths can you find?



Here are a few that I found:

1.) The host states, "nowhere does the Constitution mention a separation of church and state." Well, nowhere in the Constitution is GOD mentioned...not even once. Also, there is no mention of the Marines and Air Force. Should we then conclude that these groups are unconstitutional?

2.) The four references to God in the Declaration of Independence ARE NOT references to a Christian God.

3.) Being sworn in with the oath, "So Help Me God." I'll defer to Ray Soller, who I am sure will be happy to rebuke this myth.

4.) The national motto is NOT "In God We Trust." The founders never established this motto. Instead they chose "e pluribus unum," which means "From Many One."

Your thoughts...

9 comments:

Brian Tubbs said...

The video is a little 'hokey' (one might say) and over the top. But most of its facts and claims are correct. As to Lindsey's points...

1. The video's point isn't that the concept of church-state separation isn't in the First Amendment, but rather that the words aren't in there. And therefore the courts shouldn't apply the language of a phrase not in the Constitution, but rather use the words of the Constitution itself - and should do so according to its ORIGINAL INTENT. It's an original understanding argument. And I agree 100%. We should interpret ALL laws and ALL parts of the Constitution according to 1) language, and 2) the original understanding of said language. The personal opinions of judges should have NOTHING to do with it!

2. So what, Lindsey? The context of the point you're talking about is that the Founders didn't want God driven out of the public square. Besides, as a Christian and Baptist, I have no problem respecting and appreciating the DoI's references to God as being Christian or at least Christian-friendly. Regardless, the FACT is that the DoI mentions God four times.

3. I've debated the oath part much in other threads. I'm too tired to repeat all that here. Even if I grant your point and Ray's point, you've gained nothing, though. All the Presidents - in their inaugural addresses (starting with GW) appealed to God, prayer, or Providence in some fashion. GW's First Inaugural is particularly emphatic. So WHAT if he didn't say "so help me God" out loud as part of his official oath. His religious sentiments were far more overt in his speech. You've gained NOTHING by casting doubt on that one phrase.

4. "In God We Trust" indeed came later. I missed the video's reference to this. Must have zoned out on that part.

Anyway, bottom line...I wouldn't have produced this video the way it was done. But most of its content is true.

Tom Van Dyke said...

3) "So help me God" does appear in the Supreme Court oath since the Founding, Lindsey. Dunno how you missed that, since you put tags on it.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/one-nation-under-god.html

4) "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States of America. 1956. You could look it up. We laugh at and discredit David Barton or Sarah Palin for similar minor inaccuracies. Word.

Pinky said...

.
Taking into consideration the role that James Madison carried out in the creation of the Constitution, it's hard to believe that there is not a wall of separation between the church and state.
.
The fact of the matter about religion is that there is no such thing as religion without denomination. And, Madison was dead set against the state and ANY denomination having a connection. He worked hard toward disestablishment in Virginia before the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were even written. He fought with Patrick Henry over the matter of church establishment when Henry wanted to extend tax support to ALL religions and not just the Episcopalians. I think that sez what we need to hear about the wall of separation against ALL religions.
.
.

Brian Tubbs said...

Pinky, who today is advocating taxpayer support of churches? You're throwing up a red herring.

However, I can't help but note your choice of words..."wall of separation against ALL religions." See the word "against." That pretty much describes the attitude most secular leftists have toward churches and religions.

Brad Hart said...

I think we've beaten this issue into submission. It is my hope that we will simply move on to other (more interesting) topics.

Is there a separation of church and state? yes, in the sense that no religion should be given preferential treatment from the government. Did the founders want a secular nation? No...at least this is my understanding of original intent.

Pinky said...

Brian, "Pinky, who today is advocating taxpayer support of churches? You're throwing up a red herring."
.
I think you read something into my post that I had no intention of saying. My comment was all about how Madison was a dis-establishmentarian and that I thought that showed that there was always a wall of separation between church and state. Madison would have been against state supported church charities.

Brian Tubbs said...

I think a reasonable line that can and should be drawn with public funds is this....

The government can help finance costs related to a church or religious organization feeding the homeless, but should not pay for Gospel tracts to be handed out with the food. If the religious org wants to distribute those, it needs to do so on its own dime.

Pinky said...

.
G.W.Bush did a stretch on the law when he authorized subsidies for FAITH BASED charities.
.
Once that gets into the courts, I believe that it will be shown to be an unlawful act of the Executive Branch of our U.S. government.
.

Pinky said...

.
Brian writes, "That pretty much describes the attitude most secular leftists have toward churches and religions."
.
I don't know, Brian. I was brought up a deep water Baptist and I know ALL of those people would believe there is a high wall of separation between church and state. Very high.
.
But, most of 'em are dead now and, so, I guess the new Baptist doctrines are in favor of taking that wall down.
.
I think those old Baptists that thought Fundamentalist seminaries and Bible Schools were proselytising for a new protestant denomination would be pretty upset with this new generation for having given up the "Old Time Religion" and the "Faith of Their Fathers".
..