Does Anybody Support Trump?

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes, but the point is if following today's secular progressive dictums of the so called "Separation of Church and State" No religious symbols, books etc., could be allowed at such an event right?
It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that leftists out there are agitated when seeing the Holy Bible being used in the swearing in ceremony of the President.

Correct. Also, I prefer/demand a government that acknowledges a power greater than itself. If government fails to acknowledge the existene of God (in whatever form or version that may manifest itself as) then all rights have to come from somewhere -- without God, those rights are entirely determined by man; therefore, those rights are subject to change by man. It undermines the inalienable nature of our most cherished rights.

Having said that, do I want Judeo-Christian statutes and symbols adorning court house and capitol grounds? No. It comes too close to violating the establishment clause, and it opens the jurisidiction up to the possibility of having fringe religions demanding their own little plot of ground. It's better to avoid that entirely.

[champions77]

Correct. Also, I prefer/demand a government that acknowledges a power greater than itself. If government fails to acknowledge the existene of God (in whatever form or version that may manifest itself as) then all rights have to come from somewhere -- without God, those rights are entirely determined by man; therefore, those rights are subject to change by man. It undermines the inalienable nature of our most cherished rights.

Having said that, do I want Judeo-Christian statutes and symbols adorning court house and capitol grounds? No. It comes too close to violating the establishment clause, and it opens the jurisidiction up to the possibility of having fringe religions demanding their own little plot of ground. It's better to avoid that entirely.

I think it a huge stretch for some to associate a religious symbol with the actual establishment of a religion. That's the excuse to diminish religious expression the left uses all the time.

[Serenity Now]

I think it a huge stretch for some to associate a religious symbol with the actual establishment of a religion. That's the excuse to diminish religious expression the left uses all the time.

Then you'll have no problem with the proposed satanic statue? I find that statue so out there that it's laughable.

[dwarthog]

Then you'll have no problem with the proposed satanic statue? I find that statue so out there that it's laughable.

Satanism is not a religion, it's a cult. Huge difference.

[TAFBSooner]

Constitutionally, the President can swear his oath on whatever he damned well pleases whether it be the Bible, Constitution, a Playboy magazine, or nothing. Most choose the Bible for political reasons.

FIFY

He can also affirm instead of swearing. Right there in Art. II Sect. 2., last paragraph. To affirm was a pretty big deal in the time of the Founders - you were committing your own sense of self and humanity, which during the Enlightenment meant a lot.

There's nothing about So Help Me God in there either. We have George Washington to thank for that tradition (not legal requirement). Now it would take big hueveos to leave it out.

US House members don't put their hand on any holy book for their official swearing-in, which is a mass ceremony. Many later have a recreation of the oath (actually a photo op) with the Speaker of the House. We once had a Muslim Representative take his "souvenir" oath on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.

[TAFBSooner]

And why, as a Christian, would you mind hearing a prayer at a school event? Is it because you self-identify yourself as a liberal, and liberals are not supposed to be for prayer in school?

I'm a liberal, and I am against school-organized prayer. (As long as there are tests, there WILL be prayer in school.) However, I believe in gun rights (for example), and in general do not feel constrained to accept any particular position just because it's considered to be part of the liberal platform, for lack of a better term.

The wall between Church and state is there for the benefit of the churches as well as the state.

[Serenity Now]

Satanism is not a religion, it's a cult. Huge difference.

A religion is what the worshiper claims within reason. And, the fact that the Christian faith has utilized fear and the satanic boogie monster in efforts to convert people over the last centuries, the "religion" is, ironically, validated to the reasonable man level by the Christian doctrine. Aggressive atheists actually use satanic stances to prove points, I believe.

This one: http://www.venganza.org/

Not so much.

[TAFBSooner]

Gosh makes you wonder how it came to be that the President is sworn in with his left hand on the Bible.

Because and only because George Washington did it that way.

[champions77]

Because and only because George Washington did it that way.

The Senate has had a Protestant Chaplin since I believe the 1780's.

I could go on.

You lefties try ad naseaum to diminish the influence of God on the Founders in the creation of this Nation.
An exercise in futility based on what our history is.

[Serenity Now]

The Senate has had a Protestant Chaplin since I believe the 1780's.

I could go on.

You lefties try ad naseaum to diminish the influence of God on the Founders in the creation of this Nation.
An exercise in futility based on what our history is.

Just because God was a beacon to our founding fathers doesn't mean we should ignore the constitution that the established. The living, breathing document has evolved and been interpreted to fit more modern situations.

[olevetonahill]

Satanism is not a religion, it's a cult. Huge difference.

Unfortunately It really is Bro!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Interesting, perplexing, but interesting. I would say that Jesus, upon hearing a prayer based on Biblical principles, would not think of it as a "Baptist" prayer. And why, as a Christian, would you mind hearing a prayer at a school event? Is it because you self-identify yourself as a liberal, and liberals are not supposed to be for prayer in school? And if so, then that can only mean that that makes your Christianity subservient to you being a liberal? I would say if so, that is probably not a good thing.
I don't know that Jesus would support Trump, or wouldn't support him. That would be between Trump and God.

Liberalism IS a religion, although intentionally not recognized as such.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Quote Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
Correct. Also, I prefer/demand a government that acknowledges a power greater than itself. If government fails to acknowledge the existene of God (in whatever form or version that may manifest itself as) then all rights have to come from somewhere -- without God, those rights are entirely determined by man; therefore, those rights are subject to change by man. It undermines the inalienable nature of our most cherished rights.

Having said that, do I want Judeo-Christian statutes and symbols adorning court house and capitol grounds? No. It comes too close to violating the establishment clause, and it opens the jurisidiction up to the possibility of having fringe religions demanding their own little plot of ground. It's better to avoid that entirely.

I think it a huge stretch for some to associate a religious symbol with the actual establishment of a religion. That's the excuse to diminish religious expression the left uses all the time.

EXACTAMUNDO! and your point is the most poignant one I can think of regarding the establishment of a religion by our government. Acknowledging the possibility/likelihood of some sort of higher power(God) by government is in no way establishing an official government religion.

[SicEmBaylor]

Quote Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
Correct. Also, I prefer/demand a government that acknowledges a power greater than itself. If government fails to acknowledge the existene of God (in whatever form or version that may manifest itself as) then all rights have to come from somewhere -- without God, those rights are entirely determined by man; therefore, those rights are subject to change by man. It undermines the inalienable nature of our most cherished rights.

Having said that, do I want Judeo-Christian statutes and symbols adorning court house and capitol grounds? No. It comes too close to violating the establishment clause, and it opens the jurisidiction up to the possibility of having fringe religions demanding their own little plot of ground. It's better to avoid that entirely.EXACTAMUNDO! and your point is the most poignant one I can think of regarding the establishment of a religion by our government. Acknowledging the possibility/likelihood of some sort of higher power(God) by government is in no way establishing an official government religion.

The problem is that it actually does come close to violating the establishment clause. There's a difference between government acknowledging a higher power/God in an abstract generalized form and what we're talking about here. The problem is that the 10 Commandants, for example, are specific to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). That rules out a lot of non-Abrahamic religions. In effect, it validates those religions over competing religions.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

one nation under God

In God we trust

BFD. These just shouldn't be allowed, in our PC horsesh*t new America

[SicEmBaylor]

one nation under God

In God we trust

BFD. These just shouldn't be allowed, in our PC horsesh*t new America

Exactly. And 'God' in that context is very generalized and open to interpretation. In a sense, even Buddha could be interpreted as 'God' in that particular context (although he isn't considered a God per se).

There's a distinct difference between referring to God in the abstract and erecting monuments specific to certain religions.

[dwarthog]

Unfortunately It really is Bro!!

Hmmm. I'm skeptical Bro.

For what it's worth I did some poking around and found some interesting stuff.

There are two main branches of Satanism.

Theistic Satanists who view Satan not a omnipotent but more of a patriarch. This doesn't seem to fit the mold of a religion very well.

The other main branch is atheistic Satanists. So they are Atheists. A quick look at the American Atheist web page and they clearly state they are not a religion.

IMHO, I think they fall into the cult, snake oil category.

[BoulderSooner79]

Many religions view other religions as cults, including different factions of Christians. Go ask a group of southern Baptist about Mormons. Some Sunnis and Shiites are willing to kill each other as infidels even though they worship the same god. Keeping religion out of government except at a general level is just common sense in a diverse country like the US. We are *not* a Christian nation - we are a majority Christian nation with no small number of non-Christians.

[Serenity Now]

one nation under God

In God we trust

BFD. These just shouldn't be allowed, in our PC horsesh*t new America

Great job McCarthy! I'm sure Jesus is happy with your strong utilization of the "F".

[Serenity Now]

Many religions view other religions as cults, including different factions of Christians. Go ask a group of southern Baptist about Mormons. Some Sunnis and Shiites are willing to kill each other as infidels even though they worship the same god. Keeping religion out of government except at a general level is just common sense in a diverse country like the US. We are *not* a Christian nation - we are a majority Christian nation with no small number of non-Christians.

My mother in law considers Catholicism a cult. She doesn't acknowledge that her "hard shell" Baptist doctrine originally came from that branch. [note: My mother insists that the church that they go to in the bojacks is a hard shell Baptist church. I still haven't been able to get her to explain it to me properly, I just find the description entertaining. I know that we got a really good hellfire/damnation sermon on Christmas Day.]