Rewriting History of the US

[Kathianne]

Sounds like history, could be. Then again, could be current events. I figured with the topic, this forum made sense.

When the Washington Post religion writer starts wondering what is going on, it is becoming obvious that something like a war on religion is happening:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/12/godbless_america.html


God Bless America
Normally, I'm for keeping church and state out of each other's business as much as humanly possible, mostly to protect religion from government intrusion and idolatry, but also to protect us from zealots who think Jesus wears an American flag lapel pin.

Inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance and adding "In God We Trust" to our money diminishes religious faith, which recognizes no national borders or economic systems. And it disrespects America's pluralistic promise.

But lately, I'm beginning to think that evangelical Christians who are complaining about the "War on God in America" have a point.
"There's a terrible movement to rewrite our history and obscure our faith," J. Randy Forbes, a Republican congressman from Virginia, told the National Review this week.

I don't know about a movement, but things are getting a bit suspicious.

Take the new $621 million capitol Visitor Center, which opened this week to mixed reviews. Among the critics were Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who several weeks ago noticed that something was missing from a center's replica of the House Speaker's rostrum. The words "In God We Trust" -- engraved over the actual rostrum in 1962 -- were not included in the replica.... There's actually a list of all the 'erasing' that's been going on.

[Abbey Marie]

And another set of eyes are opened. :clap:

[Des]

I like this article, it's very objective. And it makes sense. There are extremists on both sides of everything, including the "religious" issues facing our country. Fortunately, most people fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, it seems like the extremists are louder.

[Classact]

I like this article, it's very objective. And it makes sense. There are extremists on both sides of everything, including the "religious" issues facing our country. Fortunately, most people fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, it seems like the extremists are louder.Guess who started this food fight? Before JFK there was no mention of separation of Church and State. Check out this article http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/campbell.htm

[Missileman]

Sounds like history, could be. Then again, could be current events. I figured with the topic, this forum made sense.

When the Washington Post religion writer starts wondering what is going on, it is becoming obvious that something like a war on religion is happening:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/12/godbless_america.html

There's actually a list of all the 'erasing' that's been going on.

Some of the complaints are valid...removing "In God We Trust" from a replica for instance.

The complaints about memorials built in 97 and 04 containing no reference to God are BS, and point to the other half of the "problem".

[Des]

Some of the complaints are valid...removing "In God We Trust" from a replica for instance.

The complaints about memorials built in 97 and 04 containing no reference to God are BS, and point to the other half of the "problem".

Agreed. A replica is a replica, erasing a word from it doesn't really mean anything except censorship...history shouldn't be censored. That doesn't mean we need to put "in god we trust" on current monuments, unless they are religious or it's...a replica.

[Des]

Guess who started this food fight? Before JFK there was no mention of separation of Church and State. Check out this article http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/campbell.htm

An article about how to reverse being an objective religious politician? Sorry, I don't think abortion belongs in politics, I think it should be an issue discussed with a woman and a doctor, and on personal levels, in a church. Do I think it's okay for the church to have a hand in lawmaking by stating public figures need to uphold their laws to receive communion? No. Do I think the word "pro-abortion" is the stupidest phrase to have been thought of? Possibly. Do I think any Christian in this country has a leg to stand on when insisting they are somehow being discriminated against? Absolutely not.

The article points out that Kennedy was probably Deist and not very religious. Why wouldn't he be objective about religious and political ideas? I don't see anything wrong with compromise, especially in a country where being a Christian or even believing in God isn't the only option. Why shouldn't everyone have the chance to identify and be proud of some public display or whatever without it having to ONLY project the traditional religious beliefs of this country? What's so bad about moving forward, while realizing that extremists from both sides aren't the real representation of what most Americans think, anyway?

[bullypulpit]

As rooted in biblical visions of floods that inundate the world, fires that wipe clean the face of the earth, as the religious right in this country is indicative of their desire for a clean slate upon which to build their doctrinally idealized world. The real problem is that this logic leads to violence, and any ideology which is rooted in this desire for a new world which can only be achieved through cataclysm is dangerous.

[Classact]

An article about how to reverse being an objective religious politician? Sorry, I don't think abortion belongs in politics, I think it should be an issue discussed with a woman and a doctor, and on personal levels, in a church. Do I think it's okay for the church to have a hand in lawmaking by stating public figures need to uphold their laws to receive communion? No. Do I think the word "pro-abortion" is the stupidest phrase to have been thought of? Possibly. Do I think any Christian in this country has a leg to stand on when insisting they are somehow being discriminated against? Absolutely not.

The article points out that Kennedy was probably Deist and not very religious. Why wouldn't he be objective about religious and political ideas? I don't see anything wrong with compromise, especially in a country where being a Christian or even believing in God isn't the only option. Why shouldn't everyone have the chance to identify and be proud of some public display or whatever without it having to ONLY project the traditional religious beliefs of this country? What's so bad about moving forward, while realizing that extremists from both sides aren't the real representation of what most Americans think, anyway?The point of the article was that America was dead to the subject of separation of church and state until Kennedy ran for presidency. In the case of Jefferson assuring the Baptist minister there is a wall of separation of church and state was made because the Baptist minister feared a dominate religion might gain dominance inside the government. There was no fear of religion being involved within the government but rather a fear that one denomination would have power over the other denominations. At the founding of the nation 99.99999999999999% were Christians so it wasn't to remove religion from the government but fear of a dominate religion... this same fear arose when JFK ran for office, there was a fear from the baptist that Catholics might install themselves within the government. Throughout America's history our nation has been dominately Christian as it is now, only since the Democrats removed the immigration rules that limited immigration to white, western Europe Christians in the 1960's has the deversity of religion changed to any degree.

If you aren't Christian in America suck it up and get over it, America is a Christian nation, want something else move to a nation that has that record.

[Psychoblues]

I think the current emphasis is in keeping with the America dogma of a clear separation of church and state. I find no fault with the decision.

Psychoblues