# E Pluribus Unum?



## Rich Parsons (Nov 10, 2004)

Here is my point. 

The First Amendment from the Bill of Rights states:


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Congress is the law making body or portion of the government.

And this from the Ninth Amendment:


> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



And this from the Tenth Amendment:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



By the us of God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, our government is in violation of the Bill of Rights, as they have no right to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The word "god" is a generic term, yet when one uses the word "God" it is assumed to be Christian, maybe Jewish, or Islamic, if you are translating to English in a simple format.  This is in violation of the First Amendment.

By teaching religion at our schools, which is funded by Taxation, which is done by the laws of the state, which are approved either through referendum ( The People ) or passed by Congress. The People have a say in how that money is used. If that money is being used to violate the First Amendment, then the act is unconstitutional. 

The reference of the Ninth Amendment is very nice, and actually covers, many things. For example, many of The People" came to the colonies for religious freedom. i.e. the Puritans, the Quakers, the Shakers, and others.  Even the creation of a religion was formed here with Mormons, and they are allowed to practice their beliefs, in private, including bigamy. As the laws require, someone involved to file the charges with the State. It is allowed in their religion, and the laws and the system do not prosecute them for this. They have Freedom as does everyone else to practice their religion.  By allowing Religious practices to be taught in public schools, the government is in violation of not only the first Amendment they are also in violation of the Ninth Amendment, as the Ninth Amendment cannot take away rights responsibilities or restrictions of the First Amendment, unless explicitly stating such. 

The Tenth Amendment is also very nice. Stating that all powers not delegated or prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, are reserved for the States and also for the People.

This allows the States and other local governments to make laws to address local concerns, yet they are not allowed to usurp the powers of the Federal or that of the U.S. Constitution, which are the People as well.  There is no evidence in that I can find that would allow such an act to stand, if challenged. 

Some one asked why Fight, because if you do not, your complacency is approval.

Sorry to cut this short, I got to run and get ready to teach.
:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 10, 2004)

Well said, Rich. Just one thing I wanted to address...



> By the us of God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, our government is in violation of the Bill of Rights, as they have no right to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The word "god" is a generic term, yet when one uses the word "God" it is assumed to be Christian, maybe Jewish, or Islamic, if you are translating to English in a simple format. This is in violation of the First Amendment.



To be fair, Rich, the meaning of "God" mentioned on the Great Seal is extremely dubious. In the background, we see the All-Seeing Eye of Osiris --- an Egyptian symbol. Over to the left, we see an eagle holding some laurel leaves and arrows --- both a Greek and Hindu symbol (depending on which part you are emphasizing). Above the eagle, we see a 6-pointed star (a Pythagorean symbol) made up of several 5-pointed pentagrams (another Pythagorean symbol).

All of that, taken with the phrase "E Pluribus Unum", gives the "In God We Trust" part something of a different context.

If you are reall so dead-set against religious references, are you therefore suggesting the Pythagorean pentagrams on our flag be removed?? The eagle be removed (the eagle is an avatar of Zeus)?? The Eye of Osiris?? Do you think the Declaration of Independence should be revised??


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well said, Rich. Just one thing I wanted to address...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To be fair Heretic, every tree is a symbol to a Druid. Every river, every bird, every thing is a symbol and you cannot get rid of the symbology of it. You can get rid of the written word, which helps to define for those who wish to take actions or hang their hats on.  And, no I will not go down that path, or all must be destroyed to obtain a completely absense of religous symbols.


As to the Declaration of Indepenance, this document was used to declare the separation fo the colonies from the British Empire.  Not to define current laws, rights, priviledges, and responsibilities. The U.S. Constitution does that, which replaced the working documents of the "Confederacy" the Colonies were run under during the war from 1776 to 1787. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Preamble to the U.S. Constituion is not a valid piece of paper for rights et al. Now specifically to the term "God" - from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:


> 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.



I would say that this is just another piece or proof that the designers of these documents were looking to set themselves equal to that of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Meaning that they are spearating themselves from the British Empire, and nothing can stop, be it Nature or God, they have the right to do so. ** Just as the British Church separated from the Church of Rome **

As to E Pluribus Unum - "Out of Many - One", this could be out of many gods we have chosen one. And therefore should also be removed, in its' religous sense then. Yet, you could also argue that Out of many Colonies / States / People we have formed one Country. In this case is should stay. As it will be hard to prove the religous intent of thsoe who coined the phrase ** pun intended **, I could not see argueing for its' removal. Yet, I stand by the early statement that the word "God" should be removed from out coinage and money. The Declaration of Independence, is history, and as I stated above, I do not seeing it as saying this country should be ruled by religons, or given them any powers, even if it was a binding document.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 10, 2004)

> To be fair Heretic, every tree is a symbol to a Druid. Every river, every bird, every thing is a symbol and you cannot get rid of the symbology of it. You can get rid of the written word, which helps to define for those who wish to take actions or hang their hats on. And, no I will not go down that path, or all must be destroyed to obtain a completely absense of religous symbols.



To be fair, Rich, words are symbols, too. 

Besides, many of the symbols I named off are specifically religious in origin --- such as the pentagrams, 'Star of David' (originally an Egyptian symbol), and the Eye of Osiris. Just because they don't seem that way to many of us --- owing to our general ignorance of ancient Western religion --- doesn't mean they are any less religiously 'loaded' than a cross or a yin-yang circle.

Actually, since Pythagoras got his mathematical symbology from the religious mysteries of Egypt --- pretty much all the symbology on the Great Seal is Egyptian. Interesting, neh?

Besides, I think they have historical significance, if nothing else.



> I would say that this is just another piece or proof that the designers of these documents were looking to set themselves equal to that of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Meaning that they are spearating themselves from the British Empire, and nothing can stop, be it Nature or God, they have the right to do so. ** Just as the British Church separated from the Church of Rome **



That wasn't the impression I got out of the Preamble. 

"The separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" sounds to me like an evocation of Unitarian-Deist ideology (not surprising, since Franklin and Jefferson wrote the damn thing), in which the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" are specifically stated as bestowing these political powers upon human beings. 

It is interesting to note their reference to "Nature's God", however, which may indicate a differentiation between a specific cult-based deity. Again, very Deist --- along the same lines of the erstwhile "God of Reason".



> As to E Pluribus Unum - "Out of Many - One", this could be out of many gods we have chosen one. And therefore should also be removed, in its' religous sense then. Yet, you could also argue that Out of many Colonies / States / People we have formed one Country. In this case is should stay. As it will be hard to prove the religous intent of thsoe who coined the phrase ** pun intended **, I could not see argueing for its' removal.



"E Pluribus Unum", like the other symbology, is a very, very old phrase --- also originating among Greco-Egyptian mystery formulations. It means a lot of different things, some religious and some political. 

And, as a side note, it advocates less of an exclusive monotheistic deity and more of a universal 'pantheus' (all-god). This, again, was very common among the Mystery Schools of the ancient Mediterranean, who in many ways saw all of their godmen (Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Bacchus, Adonis, Jesus, etc.) as being representations of a universal principle.

So, again, what this still all boils down to is completely removing the Great Seal --- since its loaded with religious symbols to the fore.



> Yet, I stand by the early statement that the word "God" should be removed from out coinage and money. The Declaration of Independence, is history, and as I stated above, I do not seeing it as saying this country should be ruled by religons, or given them any powers, even if it was a binding document.



The Great Seal is history, too, and only a few decades younger than the Declaration of Independence. Nor does it advocate being ruled by "religion", since the "god" in question was "Nature's God", "God of Reason", or "pantheus". Depending on your particular interpretation.

You just have to see the Seal in context. All of the symbols go together (even the number of stars used and the number of levels to the pyramid indicate a deep understanding of numerology).


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To be fair, Rich, the meaning of "God" mentioned on the Great Seal is extremely dubious. In the background, we see the All-Seeing Eye of Osiris --- an Egyptian symbol. Over to the left, we see an eagle holding some laurel leaves and arrows --- both a Greek and Hindu symbol (depending on which part you are emphasizing). Above the eagle, we see a 6-pointed star (a Pythagorean symbol) made up of several 5-pointed pentagrams (another Pythagorean symbol).
> 
> All of that, taken with the phrase "E Pluribus Unum", gives the "In God We Trust" part something of a different context.
> 
> If you are reall so dead-set against religious references, are you therefore suggesting the Pythagorean pentagrams on our flag be removed?? The eagle be removed (the eagle is an avatar of Zeus)?? The Eye of Osiris?? Do you think the Declaration of Independence should be revised??



Hey, I'm all for demolishing the Pentagon and dashing these symbols from our lives!  Ah well, gotta love the fnords...

Perhaps the eagle is a phoenix...

In which god do we trust...Eris?

Isn't Osiris a black god????

Pardon me, I digress...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 10, 2004)

> In which god do we trust...Eris?



"Nature's God", as Jefferson and Franklin put it. Also known as "Pantheus" (All-God) and the "God of Reason". Presumably, anyway.

Also, I believe you are referring to Iris. Who, technically, is a goddess. 



> Isn't Osiris a black god????



*shrugs* Egyptian, not that it matters.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To be fair, Rich, words are symbols, too.
> 
> Besides, many of the symbols I named off are specifically religious in origin --- such as the pentagrams, 'Star of David' (originally an Egyptian symbol), and the Eye of Osiris. Just because they don't seem that way to many of us --- owing to our general ignorance of ancient Western religion --- doesn't mean they are any less religiously 'loaded' than a cross or a yin-yang circle.
> 
> ...




You Heretic you!  

Of course it is a symbol. Like I Said if you go down that road you must destroy everything. Yet, you can try to limit the issues and damage.

Only Historians and Mathematicians will know anything about Pythagoras or Al'Ge-bra, or the number of steps or levels in the pyramid, or that an Eye, is for ... , . 

Yet, all the uneducated, and the Fundamentalists will grasp a hold of the symbol or word "God" and insist that the creators of those documents and seals were Christians just like them. And thereby have the seem meaning that their local perish is teaching to them, or what the Evangelist on TV is telling them.  They will deny that any of the those founding fathers et al were Deists, even when presented with supporting statements.  As you see it was not in the message they received. I have no problems with them getting messages or those that differ from mine. Only that I should not be forced to listen to their same message, if I am on a different path. 

So, I am willing to leave the deep level symbols there, as they will not be used against the general public as the general public will not know anything about them at all. The obvious symbol "God" does cause issues. For the argument of well if it is on the money it must be ok for the pledge. Well if it is ok for the pledge and our money then it should be ok for our schools.

How about this for the same argument. Algebra was from an Islamic Culture. Should we also teach Islam to our students to better understand our Mathematics. Maybe we should bring back the Greek and Egyptian pantheons to better under stand our culture of democracy and mathematics and philosophy, and ... , . 


Now here is an example of over lap.

In the ten Commandments it says Thou shall not Kill (* or Murder *) as some have translated it.

So the religions say it is bad to kill. A religious Moral.

We do not want out family to be killed by others. We value them. So their life and continued existence is a Value to us. 

Society realizes that killing people randomly is a problem. Good people we need to perform certain functions are no longer with us. So society determines it is unethical to kill someone. An issue of Ethics.

Now, once it has been determine to be unethical, society through laws creates a punishment for killing others as a deterrent for such an act.

Now I have just used logic and reason to show how a matter from religion is also a matter of ethics and laws should be made.  Yet, our highest document authorizing our Rights and responsibilities states the government shall not make laws about religions.  This could be a contradiction such as your symbology. Yet, it is not. as you have other explanations for this action just like you do for the symbology (* excluding the symbol "God" *).  Now as "God" is a direct symbology of a religion then it shall not be allowed. 

So those with strong religious beliefs are capable of arguing their points of view, and trying to see if a society is ready to detriment if something is a matter of ethics. If it is a matter of ethics then a law can be created accordingly. If it is only a matter of religion then no law shall be create.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 10, 2004)

> Of course it is a symbol. Like I Said if you go down that road you must destroy everything. Yet, you can try to limit the issues and damage.



The problem, Rich, is that the "limit" you are trying to establish is completely arbitrary. Pentagrams and Stars of David are no less religious in origin than the word "God". Some will find all of the above religiously invasive, and some will find none of the above religiously invasive.



> Only Historians and Mathematicians will know anything about Pythagoras or Al'Ge-bra, or the number of steps or levels in the pyramid, or that an Eye, is for ... , .



I am neither a historian nor a mathematician, and I know all that stuff. So did Joseph Campbell. So does Dennis Kucinich. Neither of them are/were historians or mathematicians, either. 



> Yet, all the uneducated, and the Fundamentalists will grasp a hold of the symbol or word "God" and insist that the creators of those documents and seals were Christians just like them. And thereby have the seem meaning that their local perish is teaching to them, or what the Evangelist on TV is telling them. They will deny that any of the those founding fathers et al were Deists, even when presented with supporting statements. As you see it was not in the message they received. I have no problems with them getting messages or those that differ from mine. Only that I should not be forced to listen to their same message, if I am on a different path.



The problem here is that the "limit" you are proposing is based on what the uneducated will do to abuse these things. Going by that reasoning, I could say we should completely overturn freedom of speech, right to bear arms, non-abolition, and so on. Because, namely, the uneducated and the fanatical could do much worse with those than they ever could with the Great Seal.

I don't think we should legislate matters on the basis of whether they are helpful to our particular political agendas. I think we should legislate matters on the basis of whether they harm or hurt society as a whole. I don't see how the Great Seal is causing harm to anyone.

I personally don't think a significant part of our country's historical tradition should be lopped off because of the political ammunition it provides for a few crazies. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that, at even its most basic translation, the Great Seal symbolizes religious tolerance and diversity and not favoritism. That, I believe, is a message worth embracing.



> So, I am willing to leave the deep level symbols there, as they will not be used against the general public as the general public will not know anything about them at all. The obvious symbol "God" does cause issues. For the argument of well if it is on the money it must be ok for the pledge. Well if it is ok for the pledge and our money then it should be ok for our schools.



Apples, oranges, and pears, I'm afraid.

First off, a pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional and should be removed anyway --- regardless of whether it mentions the G-word or not. Secondly, the interjection of "one nation under God" was specifically placed in for propaganda purposes to differentiate our nation from those "heathen" commies. Thirdly, the pledge line is not a rich and ingrained part of our nation's history. The Seal is.

In regards to "God in school", I have no problem with this --- provided it is instructed in the appropriate setting. Comparative religion, philosophy, theory of knowledge, cultural anthropology, and so on. Creationism in a biology classroom, or "required" public prayer (a "moment for quiet reflection" would be acceptable, though), I'm against.

Like I said, apples, oranges, and pears. Or, lions, tigers, and bears. If you prefer.  



> How about this for the same argument. Algebra was from an Islamic Culture. Should we also teach Islam to our students to better understand our Mathematics. Maybe we should bring back the Greek and Egyptian pantheons to better under stand our culture of democracy and mathematics and philosophy, and ... , .



Sounds like a good idea to me. Nothing wrong with a well-rounded education.



> Now here is an example of over lap.
> 
> In the ten Commandments it says Thou shall not Kill (* or Murder *) as some have translated it.
> 
> ...



I'm afraid your analogy is quite artificial, Rich. The Ten Commandments placed within a courthouse assumes loyalty to a specific religious tradition. The mentioning of "God" on the Great Seal does not --- in fact, it actually _adds to_ the overall message by pointing out the "god" being espoused is one that embraces religious tolerance and diversity. It has no favored tradition or church. That is something worth keeping, methinks.

And, to note, Pentagrams, Eyes of Osiris, Stars of David, and the laurel-and-arrow carrying Eagle are all direct symbologies of religion, too.  



> So those with strong religious beliefs are capable of arguing their points of view, and trying to see if a society is ready to detriment if something is a matter of ethics. If it is a matter of ethics then a law can be created accordingly. If it is only a matter of religion then no law shall be create.



That's groovy and all, but it has nothing to do with the Great Seal. As before, the Great Seal does not advocate any particular religious belief or system. In fact, it does just the opposite.

Laterz.


----------



## MGM (Nov 11, 2004)

heretic888,

The flaw in your argument about "In God We Trust" on US money is that the country was founded on the principle that the Church and State shall be kept separate.

Money = State
God = Church

God on the money = interference of religion/Church with the government

It doesn't matter how you try to justify the kind of god that is referenced it is still offensive.I as an American Citizen should be able to live my life with the religion of my choice(or none at all) and should not fear the interference of the the state in that regard.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 11, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> heretic888,
> 
> The flaw in your argument about "In God We Trust" on US money is that the country was founded on the principle that the Church and State shall be kept separate.
> 
> ...



By that reasoning, we should henceforth remove all five-pointed stars from our flags because they too are religious symbols (and are actually far more specific and exact in their meaning than the G-word). One could argue that they aren't as well-known as the word "god", but I don't consider widespread ignorance to be a justification for determining such matters.

While we're at it, we should just remove the six-pointed star on the Great Seal, remove all arrow-and-laurel eagles, and revise all subsequent copies of the Declaration of Independence.  

The further problem with your critique, I'm afraid, is that the entire _point_ of the symbology on the Great Seal is religious tolerance and diversity (although those unfamiliar with the symbols may not understand this). No religous tradition or church is favored. E pluribus unum. From many, one.

Also, last time I checked, a single word on dollar bills in no way has ever encroached on my personal life or my religious beliefs. But, your experiences might be different than mine.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, who cares if there's a jumble of "pagan," and "Christian," symbols on our money? Atheists--who some folks quite correctly believe have made their own leap of faith in declaring that there ain't no God--fussing over Masonic imagery would do better to sweat over, say, the un-Constitutional recitation of forced prayer at public meetings. Money's just representative of our history...why go back and scrub off all the bits ya don't like? You'll be left with precious little history.



Nicely said, Robert.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The preamble to the Constitution cites Nature's God simply in order to postulate an origin for subsequently-discussed Rights. Why?



My guess is that the authors of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were deists that believed in that sort of thing.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why? One explanation: essentialist theories explain why there are, "certain inalienable rights;" constructivist theories explain, and allow people intellectual grounds for building as just a society as possible.
> 
> Is there a tension between them? Sure. Perfectly healthy for the Republic. Built in, in fact. Good.
> 
> The problem with religious nutcakes (including the Madalyn Murray O'hares of the world) is that they want the tension to go away. This a bad thing. See Iran. See Lysenko.



Hrmph. Once again, nicely said. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> However, science also has an Authority that's outside human intervention: Nature, to which we pray (just kidding) by observation and/or experiment. By definition, science tables and/or brackets the whole question of is there a God, placing that outside the order of science.



That depends entirely on what one means by "science" and what one means by "God". Also, how one acquires knowledge of both.

Laterz all.


----------



## MGM (Nov 12, 2004)

> By that reasoning, we should henceforth remove all five-pointed stars from our flags because they too are religious symbols (and are actually far more specific and exact in their meaning than the G-word). One could argue that they aren't as well-known as the word "god", but I don't consider widespread ignorance to be a justification for determining such matters.
> 
> While we're at it, we should just remove the six-pointed star on the Great Seal, remove all arrow-and-laurel eagles, and revise all subsequent copies of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> ...


I find your reasoning concerning the founding fathers and the symbolism on US money very intriguing.

Symbols and words are very different monsters. I did not suggest removing the seal only the word God or changing it. Words can be defined to be absolute very few symbols are absolute in there meaning or singular origin. A cross to most people today would be a Christian symbol but its roots are older than that and multi cultural the Egyptians, Celts, Greeks and Native Americans have crosses and different meanings and uses. You can find that for most symbolism, god is undeniable. None of the other symbolism on US currency has been used to exclude people, to inject hatred and intolerance into society the word God has. Most of the other symbols can have multiple meanings, god only has one some kind of supreme being that Americans must trust in. Because they can't rely on themselves? I am curious to what you think is the only meaning for the 5 pointed star?


If the point is religious tolerance than that in itself is the problem, the government should be free from religion. All religions or none should be accepted but the reality is they are not. My husband is a atheist my cousins are Mi'kmag both find the the word god on US money highly offensive. It is a daily reminder that they are not respected and do not belong. Of course no one that worships one god can really grasp exactly how offensive others may find it. That has been Americas problem with religious diversity the reality is most are Christian so those of us who are not and have very different spiritual views are cast aside.

I don't think the phrase E Pluribus Unum needs to be addressed it in no way has a exclusive religious connotation, out of many nations one, out of many ideas one nation and so on.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> By that reasoning, we should henceforth remove all five-pointed stars from our flags because they too are religious symbols (and are actually far more specific and exact in their meaning than the G-word).
> 
> Also, last time I checked, a single word on dollar bills in no way has ever encroached on my personal life or my religious beliefs. But, your experiences might be different than mine.


I have yet to see someone so offended that they refused to accept or apply money because they felt that the religious connotations infringed on their civil liberties and were indicators of a 'state church.'

The history/tradition motif that McR and Herrie mentioned make sense (and they beat me to commenting on it ).

There are far bigger issues to focus on than those.

I remember when the Susan B. Silver was instituted in recognition of women's rights and it was a flop.  There is the Sakojawia (sp?) coin as well, I don't feel that these are 'objectifications of women' or that the gov. is forcing a 'pagan value structure' down my throat.  I do notice that for all the complaining about 'Christian' stuff in American institutional tradition any attempt to inject other historically inspired 'non-Christian' stuff doesn't even get out the gate very often, we have Black History month and Martin Luther King Jr. Day - does anyone see any commemoration for Mr. Douglas?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem, Rich, is that the "limit" you are trying to establish is completely arbitrary. Pentagrams and Stars of David are no less religious in origin than the word "God". Some will find all of the above religiously invasive, and some will find none of the above religiously invasive.



Arbitrary. Name one thing, in law, or in life that is not Arbitrary? You draw a line in the sand, and go from there. Even though that line is Arbitrary.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I am neither a historian nor a mathematician, and I know all that stuff. So did Joseph Campbell. So does Dennis Kucinich. Neither of them are/were historians or mathematicians, either.



You are both. I you have studied History, and you quote history from your readings. You are also a mathematician, for you use logic form time to time.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem here is that the "limit" you are proposing is based on what the uneducated will do to abuse these things. Going by that reasoning, I could say we should completely overturn freedom of speech, right to bear arms, non-abolition, and so on. Because, namely, the uneducated and the fanatical could do much worse with those than they ever could with the Great Seal.



We have limits on the amount of Alcohol people can have in theri system. We have an age limit, because when it was 18, the 18 year olds bought for the 14 to 17 year olds as well. Many of thsoe young people were uneducated in the fact of alcohol poisoning or the effects of their actions.

The Freedom of speach and the right to bear arms are protected by the Bill of Rights or the Second Admendment, where is that Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion is the first.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I don't think we should legislate matters on the basis of whether they are helpful to our particular political agendas. I think we should legislate matters on the basis of whether they harm or hurt society as a whole. I don't see how the Great Seal is causing harm to anyone.



Hmmm Harm our society as a whole. The use of what society deems to be ethical, not moral. Very good. Well I deem that religions are harmful to our society. I deem that teaching them in public schools is harmful. As you stated before look at our history.

I also stated, and the E pluribus unum, can and has been argued not to be religous. Why are you hung up on that point. I have already conceeded that point in a previous post.  I have also stated previously, that inclusion of toher societies and cultures would then be required, and I have no problem with that either. I am confused, by this arguement.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I personally don't think a significant part of our country's historical tradition should be lopped off because of the political ammunition it provides for a few crazies. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that, at even its most basic translation, the Great Seal symbolizes religious tolerance and diversity and not favoritism. That, I believe, is a message worth embracing.



I never said get rid of history. For if you did that, then there will be people who say slavery never existed in the U.S.A.  Just like some in Germany believe that they did right by not teaching about the political movements of the 30's that launched Hitler, and then the attacks on the Jews and others. 

Like I already said, in previous posts, I agree that multi-cultural is fine, if it is done well. The word In God We Trust are not part of the Great Seal. I still think they should be removed.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Apples, oranges, and pears, I'm afraid.
> 
> First off, a pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional and should be removed anyway --- regardless of whether it mentions the G-word or not. Secondly, the interjection of "one nation under God" was specifically placed in for propaganda purposes to differentiate our nation from those "heathen" commies. Thirdly, the pledge line is not a rich and ingrained part of our nation's history. The Seal is.



Why are you afraid? I have not threatened you 

As to apples, oranges, and pears, they are all fruit. Are you implying someting 

Seriously, though, you can draw that line with anything. Pick something, and I will draw the same conclusion that you are comparing apples to oranges. If you break somethign down far enough, you can always find differences. Even identical twins. For their expereinces are never the same. One was on the right while the other was on the left. Apples to oranges. Always a difference. You cannot get the black and white you are trying to imply is poosible. 

As to the pledge, I agree it is illegal. Yet, it is a part of our history, so I could see keeping it, being argued. Hence my arguement to remove the words "Under God", which was nto part of the original in the first place.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In regards to "God in school", I have no problem with this --- provided it is instructed in the appropriate setting. Comparative religion, philosophy, theory of knowledge, cultural anthropology, and so on. Creationism in a biology classroom, or "required" public prayer (a "moment for quiet reflection" would be acceptable, though), I'm against.



God or creator in school. I have no problem either if  they also cover the major cultures for religions as well. In biology, I do not see it, unless you argue my point, which is that maybe jsut maybe the creator, was smart enough to start with a work in progress and modify things as opposed to starting all over again. Maybe that is why life is Carbon based upon this planet??? So, it is possible only I do not see it being probably, in our culture to have everyone or a over whelming majority agree.

As to a moment of reflaction this is fine by me. Yet, the Catholics do not like and would prefer to have no one reflect upon God with out official guidance. Or at least that is the experience I have had with the local regional Catholics.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Like I said, apples, oranges, and pears. Or, lions, tigers, and bears. If you prefer.



Now why did you have to bring in our sports teams of Detroit?

Seriously, like I Said, I can argue this with anything. I do not consider it a valid arguement of dismissal. Yet, if you are truly arguing Hand to Hand Tactics and then discuss Nuclear War tactics, there will be differences. Yet, there will be similarities as well. 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good idea to me. Nothing wrong with a well-rounded education.



Hmm, multicultural and understanding of others without the closed mindedness and single opinion of religion. Hmmm Possible in a republic, where freedoms and choice are supposed to be the way of operations? I would hope, so, yet, I see that my opinion does not matter, and that the fundalmentalists, and the afraid public, just like those who were afraid of the Communists, will make their voices heard louder than mine. Mass Hysteria, Raining Cats and Dogs, and oh be afraid of the Lions and Tigers and Bears oh MY! for they are behind every bush ** Pun not intended **



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm afraid your analogy is quite artificial, Rich. The Ten Commandments placed within a courthouse assumes loyalty to a specific religious tradition. The mentioning of "God" on the Great Seal does not --- in fact, it actually _adds to_ the overall message by pointing out the "god" being espoused is one that embraces religious tolerance and diversity. It has no favored tradition or church. That is something worth keeping, methinks.



Heretic, you missed the point. I was arguing that you could use the Ten Commandments to start out as something Moral, deem it a personal Value, and then argue the ethics of the issue or questions at hand, and then determine if a law is requried.

Now, I disagree with the the Ten Commandments being an absolute loyalty to a specific religious tradition, as first multiple religous traditions use it. Oh wait I already said the aples to oranges is not a good dismissal. Ok how about, if I use your historical arguement, of when it is place as a historical document, with the Magna Charter, and the U.S. Constitution and other codes of ethics form different cultures. Then this shows a direct lineage of where our laws were derviced from over time or from history.

Now, I am begining to see where this Great Seal Argument is going. Do you know more Latin than I? I think you do. Maybe my translations are poor.

I have taken these from this Website:
** E Pluribus Unum - Out of many - One
I see no mention of the word "God"

** Annuit Coeptis - Providence has Favored Our Undertakings
I see no mention of the word "God" (* I also thought is meant "Luck favors our endeavors or actions" Yet it has been 16 years since my Latin Class, adn I agree that I am a poor student of Latin.

** Novus Ordo Seclorum - A New Order of the Ages
I see no mention of the word "God"  (* I also thought this was "Our New order of the time period / Age"

I see no mention of the word "God" in any of these translations. And also if you follow the links from the site I quoted, you will that most of these "quotes" are from the First Century B.C. and from Rome one of the greatest Republics of history. So, I can easily see why the quotes where chosen, and the symbols, as they were also used by another republic.

Once again, I state it is the Phrase "In God We Trust" that I think should be removed. Not the great seal, as it does have historical purposes way beyond those minor religous references you brought up. Yet, I see nothing but religion in the phrase I am addressing.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> And, to note, Pentagrams, Eyes of Osiris, Stars of David, and the laurel-and-arrow carrying Eagle are all direct symbologies of religion, too.



Yes, Pentagrams. Also the symbols for Devil worship. Also the symbols for lts of things, in history, such as something that is multipointed yet, can be drawn in a continuous fashion to show there is no end and no beginning. The Star of David shows symmetry and balance. The Eye, has been used by so many cultures to represent seeing the future and or seeing the past or seeing into a person to judge them.  As to showing it on a pyramid, it show that it is elevated, and thereby of a higher power or standing.  As to the Eagle and the Laurel and Arrow, they were also used to show Peace and Weapons in the breath. We search for Peace and are capable of defending our selves. 

Yet, as I have not attacked the Great Seal, I see no reason to remove, as I do not think it is a religious context. Yes they are symbols that other republics and cultures of history used to represent an idea, not just a faith system, that the creators of the seal used to form. 

Yet, I still do not find a reason to have the words "In God We Trust" on our money.  Can you give me a godo arguement other than it is already there?




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> That's groovy and all, but it has nothing to do with the Great Seal. As before, the Great Seal does not advocate any particular religious belief or system. In fact, it does just the opposite.
> 
> Laterz.



And I would still like for you to point out where I have personally attacked the Great Seal. I said one could argue that our of many one is a religous stament, yet the next sentence was an arguement for it not to be. 

:asian:

PS: Are you calling me a half brain celled person? I will have you know I have three, One says Breath to the lungs, the other says Pump to the heart, and the other one does everything else. Hence I am really glad that you and Paul and Robert all type real slow for me.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> I find your reasoning concerning the founding fathers and the symbolism on US money very intriguing.



It probably helps that I know what those symbols actually mean. 



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> Symbols and words are very different monsters.



Last time I checked, words _were_ symbols.



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> I did not suggest removing the seal only the word God or changing it.



I know you didn't. I was merely pointing out the logical hypocrisy of your position. A five-pointed star is as much a religious symbol as the word "God".



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> Words can be defined to be absolute very few symbols are absolute in there meaning or singular origin.



Once again, words _are_ symbols.

Secondly, your logic as applied to the word "God" is horridly flawed. Do you actually think "God" has an exact and specific meaning?? Perhaps you should spend more time speaking to people of the theistic leanings.

And, yes, the five-pointed star comes from a particular place in the world (Egypt) and has a very specific meaning. Much more specific than "God".



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> You can find that for most symbolism, god is undeniable. None of the other symbolism on US currency has been used to exclude people, to inject hatred and intolerance into society the word God has. Most of the other symbols can have multiple meanings, god only has one some kind of supreme being that Americans must trust in.



And the sneaky, sneaky agenda finally shows its ugly face.   

First off, your interpretation of "God" as having one-and-only interpretation for all time is rather silly. Anyone with even a cursory study of comparative religion could tell you that.

Secondly, your qualifiers as the word "God" being synonymous with "hatred", "intolerance", and "exclusion" denotes personal ideology at stake here. Not calm reasoning and inclusivity.

Thirdly, there is much bigger fish to fry if your so upset about the state and religion issue. 



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> I am curious to what you think is the only meaning for the 5 pointed star?



Read something Pythagorean.



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> If the point is religious tolerance than that in itself is the problem, the government should be free from religion.



Ummm....a message of religious tolerance and diversity is a problem??



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> My husband is a atheist my cousins are Mi'kmag both find the the word god on US money highly offensive. It is a daily reminder that they are not respected and do not belong. Of course no one that worships one god can really grasp exactly how offensive others may find it. That has been Americas problem with religious diversity the reality is most are Christian so those of us who are not and have very different spiritual views are cast aside.



I do _so_ love the implication that those that disagree with you apparently "worship one god" and "can't understand our pain".   

Seriously, is a single word printed on slips of paper you use to buy skim milk and Twix bars really that offensive?? Does it really violate your ability to worship how you choose??

Kinda odd, yah ask me. I'm something of a Zen Buddhist (more or less), and I in no way feel offended anytime I buy something at the 7-11. But, again, maybe I'm just not "sensitive" enough. Guess I'm just ignorant of the fact that I'm being unconsciously excluded by all them biggoted Christians whenever I stockpile my Mountain Dew Code Reds.



			
				MGM said:
			
		

> I don't think the phrase E Pluribus Unum needs to be addressed it in no way has a exclusive religious connotation, out of many nations one, out of many ideas one nation and so on.



If you will note, my dear Watson, I never made the claim it only had _one_ meaning. In fact, I said just the opposite. Remember, it is a very, very, very old term and a very, very, very old concept.

And one of those meanings, by the way, are religious in connotation.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have yet to see someone so offended that they refused to accept or apply money because they felt that the religious connotations infringed on their civil liberties and were indicators of a 'state church.'
> 
> The history/tradition motif that McR and Herrie mentioned make sense (and they beat me to commenting on it ).
> 
> ...



Nicely put, loki.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Arbitrary. Name one thing, in law, or in life that is not Arbitrary? You draw a line in the sand, and go from there. Even though that line is Arbitrary.



Some lines are formulated by reason. Some are not.

There is no actual reason to draw the line at "God" when the Eye of Osiris is winking at you.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> You are both. I you have studied History, and you quote history from your readings. You are also a mathematician, for you use logic form time to time.



If you're going by that criteria, then everyone I know is a "historian" and "mathematician".



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> We have limits on the amount of Alcohol people can have in theri system. We have an age limit, because when it was 18, the 18 year olds bought for the 14 to 17 year olds as well. Many of thsoe young people were uneducated in the fact of alcohol poisoning or the effects of their actions.
> 
> The Freedom of speach and the right to bear arms are protected by the Bill of Rights or the Second Admendment, where is that Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion is the first.



Doesn't change the fact that crazies and fanatics could do some really nasty things with all of those. Again, that's not a sound reason to ban or deny something.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hmmm Harm our society as a whole. The use of what society deems to be ethical, not moral. Very good. Well I deem that religions are harmful to our society. I deem that teaching them in public schools is harmful. As you stated before look at our history.



I deem ignorance is more harmful.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I also stated, and the E pluribus unum, can and has been argued not to be religous. Why are you hung up on that point.



The people that are arguing its "not religious" (although it has many meanings) clealry don't know where the term comes from. The same with the five-pointed stars.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to the pledge, I agree it is illegal. Yet, it is a part of our history, so I could see keeping it, being argued. Hence my arguement to remove the words "Under God", which was nto part of the original in the first place.



A false analogy. A word on slips of papers used to buy screwdrivers and donuts does not impede people's rights. A forced pledge of allegiance does.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> God or creator in school. I have no problem either if  they also cover the major cultures for religions as well. In biology, I do not see it, unless you argue my point, which is that maybe jsut maybe the creator, was smart enough to start with a work in progress and modify things as opposed to starting all over again. Maybe that is why life is Carbon based upon this planet??? So, it is possible only I do not see it being probably, in our culture to have everyone or a over whelming majority agree.



I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Seriously, like I Said, I can argue this with anything. I do not consider it a valid arguement of dismissal. Yet, if you are truly arguing Hand to Hand Tactics and then discuss Nuclear War tactics, there will be differences. Yet, there will be similarities as well.



The difference is there is gradation in lethality between hand-to-hand and nukes. There is no such difference with the word "God" and the Eye.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Now, I am begining to see where this Great Seal Argument is going. Do you know more Latin than I? I think you do. Maybe my translations are poor.



No, I just know where are these symbols and terms come from.



> ** E Pluribus Unum - Out of many - One



Old mystery school term.



> ** Annuit Coeptis - Providence has Favored Our Undertakings



You apparently don't know this, Rich, but "providence" means "heaven".



> ** Novus Ordo Seclorum - A New Order of the Ages



The New Age, huh?? Nope, not religious at all. 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I see no mention of the word "God" in any of these translations. And also if you follow the links from the site I quoted, you will that most of these "quotes" are from the First Century B.C. and from Rome one of the greatest Republics of history. So, I can easily see why the quotes where chosen, and the symbols, as they were also used by another republic.



They're much older than that.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Once again, I state it is the Phrase "In God We Trust" that I think should be removed. Not the great seal, as it does have historical purposes way beyond those minor religous references you brought up. Yet, I see nothing but religion in the phrase I am addressing.



Explain to me how "In God We Trust" has any _less_ historical significance than the Great Seal. Also explain to me how the Eye and the Pentagram and the two-faced Eagle are any less religious than "God".



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Yes, Pentagrams. Also the symbols for Devil worship. Also the symbols for lts of things, in history, such as something that is multipointed yet, can be drawn in a continuous fashion to show there is no end and no beginning. The Star of David shows symmetry and balance. The Eye, has been used by so many cultures to represent seeing the future and or seeing the past or seeing into a person to judge them.  As to showing it on a pyramid, it show that it is elevated, and thereby of a higher power or standing.  As to the Eagle and the Laurel and Arrow, they were also used to show Peace and Weapons in the breath. We search for Peace and are capable of defending our selves.



Actually, those are all Egyptian and Pythagorean symbols. The association with "devil worship" owes to populist ignorance. I have yet to see the Eye of Osiris portrayed in any other culture but Egypt. The Star of David was adopted by the Hebrews from the Egyptians (along with the notion of monotheism). The Two-Faced Eagle is a combination of Greek, Egyptian, and Hindu symbols.

Most of these symbols are explained by Pythagoras' "sacred geometry". Nothing symmetrical about it. 

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

The first third party in the United States was an anti-freemasonic party.  I believe this party was started by the second president of the US.  Why did it start?  If you look at the dollar bill, it is replete with occult symbolry.  

Occult does not mean _devil worship_, it means _hidden_.  Some confuse this.  Yet, the hidden meaning of these symbols exists like a set of russian dolls.  The deeper one goes, the more faces one uncovers.  

The one thing that can be said for sure is that most Americans know very little about the meaning of those symbols...

upnorthkyosa

PS - This is now starting to become part of popular culture.  See the movie "National Treasure" with Nicolas Cage.

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/nationaltreasure/


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The first third party in the United States was an anti-freemasonic party.  I believe this party was started by the second president of the US.  Why did it start?  If you look at the dollar bill, it is replete with occult symbolry.
> 
> Occult does not mean _devil worship_, it means _hidden_.  Some confuse this.  Yet, the hidden meaning of these symbols exists like a set of russian dolls.  The deeper one goes, the more faces one uncovers.
> 
> ...



Nicely put, upnorthkyosa.

It is true that the Masonic connection is where the Founding Fathers got most of this symbolism from. It should also be remembered that being a Mason then meant something wholly different than it does now.

Also, in case anyone is interested both the "cross of light" and the "Jesus fish" are originally Egypto-Pythagorean symbols, too.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It is true that the Masonic connection is where the Founding Fathers got most of this symbolism from. It should also be remembered that being a Mason then meant something wholly different than it does now.



I find this really interesting considering all of the talk about this being a "christian" nation.   

Also, don't you think that there could be factions withing masonry that still hold the old attitudes?  There is a lot of disinformation out there regarding the occult roots of this country.  It would an interesting discussion to _illuminate _ this topic.

In the current historical rewrite, check the link above, the Knights Templar are said to be the masons and that this sect in particular is the one that moved to the Americas.

Does anyone have anything to add or subtract?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Some lines are formulated by reason. Some are not.



I  agree as I do not see the reason of all of your lines.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> There is no actual reason to draw the line at "God" when the Eye of Osiris is winking at you.



I see a pyramid. I sign of civilization and also a sign of architecture. I also see an eye, which means lots of things.  So, every pyramid and every eye I see is a religious symbol? Now I have to go and blind everyone now, and break all the mirrors. Seriously I do not see your point. As you say your self, symbols are everywhere. 

As to reason, the reason is this. The Egyptian culture, does not threaten my rights, as there are no screaming fundamentalist of that religion demanding I fall down on the appropriate knee and pay homage. There are those who do so, who proclaim to have the only and truthful meaning and understand of the word of "God".  There is no threat to our society as you pointed out previously, from the Egyptian symbol. There is a threat, with the symbol "God". By your own logic we should legislate the usage of such a symbol.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you're going by that criteria, then everyone I know is a "historian" and "mathematician".



Not everyone, you know, has your reading, or your knowledge, unless you keep to yourself and only associate with people online. I know many people, who do not know, the beginnings of what either one of us is talking about. A mistake that many of the educated and self educated, is that they assume everyone is coming from the same background as them, and have the same knowledge. This is not true. You are a historian, because you can quote your facts and do the research form history, and you know where to begin. Many do not even know it is there, let alone where to begin. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Doesn't change the fact that crazies and fanatics could do some really nasty things with all of those. Again, that's not a sound reason to ban or deny something.



So, drinking should be allowed at any age, as well as drugs, heck you know why legislate that since only crazies as you put it would do something like that. Heck, only a crazy person would kill another, so why legislate that as well.  Heck only a crazy person would give money to the government to spend on SS when non crazies would have planned ahead, or to spend money on military and military research, because only a true crazy would attack the USA since we have nukes. No reason to legislate what you can carry on a plane as because on a crazy would take down the plane with them on it.  Or you could substitute Fundamentalist, or extremist in any of those places I have put crazy. I do not follow your logic. All laws are invalid then. You end up with the total destruction of everything again. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I deem ignorance is more harmful.



I also deem ignorace to be harmful, and believe that education is the way to go. In this society, Sex is a taboo, and we have very little percentage of people who reach 16 let alone 18 who are virgins. Yet, in cultures where it is talked about and information is more wide spread, they actually have more young adults choosing abstinence, based upon the information at hand.

Yes, ignorance is harmful. So let us legislate that, as you put it earlier. So now it is the parents fault if something happens or the schools fault, if something happens, with a child, for the child did not know better? Your own logic is not continuous in all of your statements.  And I see that you can be just as arbitrary as myself or anyone else. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The people that are arguing its "not religious" (although it has many meanings) clearly don't know where the term comes from. The same with the five-pointed stars.



So stars, are all religious. There was never a person who drew a star in the ground without having a religious intent, they were guided by the "Heavens" I think not. Geometry is Geometry. You might "See" religious intent in everything there is. And I can understand why. Your studies have shown you that through history religion has been a major part of societies and cultures. Many times it was the religious orders that educated and or preserved education or knowledge, just as there were equally involved with the avoidance of growth of new knowledge, that might threaten their power and or authority. 

Out of many  - One

Out of many states, one country has been formed. Prove to me that was not the intent, of this statement.  For you see in this, I see doubt for what it actually could mean. As to "God" I see only one, religious.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> A false analogy. A word on slips of papers used to buy screwdrivers and donuts does not impede people's rights. A forced pledge of allegiance does.



It does impede my rights, by your argument that the Declaration of Independence should be a valid document for our rights. The right of happiness. Every time I see it, I am no longer happy. There goes my pursuit. It is also unconstitutional, as "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, ..., . "




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.



The point that education is good and ignorance is bad. Yet, I also wanted to make the point that just teaching one creationist method is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. Hence, I agree fine for understanding cultures class, or Anthropology, or comparative religions, where multiple religions are discussed. This is fine. In a biology class, I still do not see the point. I just do not follow that issue.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The difference is there is gradation in lethality between hand-to-hand and nukes. There is no such difference with the word "God" and the Eye.



How many must die before it is too many? The answer is one.

If I kill someone with my hands or with a nuke they are still dead. And the similarities as that you will position yourself to survive the attack.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> No, I just know where are these symbols and terms come from.



Ok so when I see and Eagle flying in the air, it is Egyptian, and there is nothing I can do about it? This symbol of the eagle, is Native American, and difference between cultures and when the eagle crossed their path in a certain direction it was a sign of providence form their ancestors. Even though they knew nothing about "God". So, I guess these heathens, were guided by the other cultures and not their own. I just do not follow your reasoning or logic on these symbols. The Egyptians used bricks, made by slaves. So all bricks are symbols of slavery? In the making of bricks they used straw and mud, so all fields of grass et al cut to make straw are symbols of slavery as well? Like I said the only way to avoid your argument is to destroy everything, including all knowledge and start over. Not a sound argument from my perspective.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Old mystery school term.



Hmmm must be very old school. Which school and which Mystery?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> You apparently don't know this, Rich, but "providence" means "heaven".



Websters new universal unabridged dictionary - 1996 
pg. 1556

providence 1. (often CAP)  The fore-seeing care and guidance of God or Nature over the creatures of earth. 2 (CAP) God, esp. when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence. 3. a manifestation of divine care or direction. 4. provident or prudent management of resources; prudence. 5. foresight; provident care. [1300-1350; ME < L providentia foresight, forethought. See provident, -ence] 

provident 1. having or showing foresight; providing carefully for the future. 2. characterized by or proceeding from foresight: provident care. 3. mindful in making provision ( usually fol. by of). 4. economical; frugal; thrifty. [1400-1450; ME , L provident- (s. of providens) prp of providere to look out for, PROVIDE] - syn. 1 cautious, prudent. - Ant. 1. careless.

I can see where you would see that it is "God" only. Yet, I seem to see it as Nature, and not required to be of "God". Yet, you are reading it from your experiences. 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The New Age, huh?? Nope, not religious at all.



So when, we came into the information age it was all about religion?
When the industrial age, it was all about religion? New Age and its; reference to religion can be traced recently, yes, only I do not see it as an absolute form all history. 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> They're much older than that.



I agree that they most likely are. Yet the references given, were quoting authors of the first century B.C. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Explain to me how "In God We Trust" has any _less_ historical significance than the Great Seal. Also explain to me how the Eye and the Pentagram and the two-faced Eagle are any less religious than "God".



"In God We Trust" may have a historical place. And all the existing coins can remain in circulation, and even kept for historical point of view and reference. Yet they are still unconstitutional. As to the Eye, I can reference your Eye as it is near the apex of your body it is a religious symbol, so I should poke it out? No I do not think so.  The pentagram is a star. It is a symbol. As I have stated using your argument that this religious sect does not threaten our culture or society as the current Christian Fundamentalists are.  Two faced eagles have appeared on totems in the pacific northwest. So, I can see naturalistic points, where these symbols are not 100% religious.  I never said there were not religious at one time or in this culture. Only that today in this society, they do not threaten and thereby do not need legislation.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, those are all Egyptian and Pythagorean symbols. The association with "devil worship" owes to populist ignorance. I have yet to see the Eye of Osiris portrayed in any other culture but Egypt. The Star of David was adopted by the Hebrews from the Egyptians (along with the notion of monotheism). The Two-Faced Eagle is a combination of Greek, Egyptian, and Hindu symbols.



Yet, the pentagram has other historical references. And you state you are not a historian.   And I will repeat that none of these cultures affect this one today, as the religious culture and the Christian Fundamentalists that insist upon teaching our kids their religion in our schools. As to the symbols, I see them as symbols, that could mean multiple things, As I think was the intent. Yet, in the symbol "God" I find only one meaning. And that meaning is unconstitutional.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Most of these symbols are explained by Pythagoras' "sacred geometry". Nothing symmetrical about it.
> 
> Laterz.



I disagree. The pentagram is symmetrical. Draw a line down the center starting from a point. You will see that both sides are the same. One can draw a pentagram with 5 equal lines. The star of David is also symmetrical, in its' division, and also in its drawing. 

Now to the man himself and his followers, well, that I cannot speak to as well as many a person who has moved science or math forward has also been religious, as I pointed out that those organized entities many times controller or had power and authority. 


You may wish to be sly and infer, and try to win. That is fine. You may wish to try to educate and argue the points, and so much the better. Yet, please do not make everything into the historical study of the people, and what religion, order or cult they believed in, followed or lead.  Which is why you wish not to be referenced to as a mathematician


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I find this really interesting considering all of the talk about this being a "christian" nation.
> 
> Also, don't you think that there could be factions withing masonry that still hold the old attitudes?  There is a lot of disinformation out there regarding the occult roots of this country.  It would an interesting discussion to _illuminate _ this topic.
> 
> ...



Hrmmm.... well, the Masons _are_ Christians. No doubt about that.

Freemasonry represented something of the esoteric or occult tradition within Christianity. It was one of the few surviving mystery schools in the Christian West. There were others, of course, but they were typically either non-Christian (Hermeticism and Neo-Platonism are good examples) or restricted to monastic settings (most of the individuals that spoke plainly about this symbolism and its meaning were monks or former monks). 

The Eastern Orthodox Church, by contrast, had traditions such as Hesychasm. As a martial arts side note, the hesychast monks were instrumental in the survival of Systema in atheist Russia.

And, to note, it was my understanding that the Knights Templar were historically connected to the ancient Masons --- but the Templars themselves were wiped out by the Church centuries ago. The Church apparently has similar attitudes about Masonism, as they have tried to wipe them out, too.

I'm sure some Masons still keep the old traditions. But, by and far they are a silent minority. Nowadays, the Masons seem more like a giant men's club than anything else.

I did like the veiled reference to the Illuminatae, by the way.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

Oye, Rich, that's too much for me to deal with in one day.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmm.... well, the Masons _are_ Christians. No doubt about that.
> 
> Freemasonry represented something of the esoteric or occult tradition within Christianity. It was one of the few surviving mystery schools in the Christian West. There were others, of course, but they were typically either non-Christian (Hermeticism and Neo-Platonism are good examples) or restricted to monastic settings (most of the individuals that spoke plainly about this symbolism and its meaning were monks or former monks).



I've always thought of this as a chicken and the egg situation.  There is so much interchange of symbolry between freemasonry and christianity and it has been so fluid, its hard to say which was first.  

I feel that freemansonry preserved something wholley different from Christianity.  Particularly, the numerology and geometric spirituality.  I am not so well read on this subject to know all of the details, but I do find the use of Set's serpents in Christianity and the Eye of Osirus interesting...

Amen-Ra



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Eastern Orthodox Church, by contrast, had traditions such as Hesychasm. As a martial arts side note, the hesychast monks were instrumental in the survival of Systema in atheist Russia.



Is Systema a system developed by these same monks?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> And, to note, it was my understanding that the Knights Templar were historically connected to the ancient Masons --- but the Templars themselves were wiped out by the Church centuries ago. The Church apparently has similar attitudes about Masonism, as they have tried to wipe them out, too.



Well, some lodges were wiped out.  Others stood strong.  It's interesting to note that most of the Templar wealth disappeared without a trace, along with many of its members.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm sure some Masons still keep the old traditions. But, by and far they are a silent minority. Nowadays, the Masons seem more like a giant men's club than anything else.



I have a friend who is a mason and he says its very much like what you say.  Yet, the higher levels of freemasonry fall back to the old occult traditions and the secrecy of their oaths is legendary.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I did like the veiled reference to the Illuminatae, by the way.



  I thought I'd lob that in there.  I happen to be re-reading the "Illuminatus! Trilogy" right now for a little entertainment.  

All hail discordia!!!


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm sure some Masons still keep the old traditions. But, by and far they are a silent minority. Nowadays, the Masons seem more like a giant men's club than anything else.


Hmm.

My whole family are Masons. 

Ive been, basically, the exception, although, after the Masonic Ceremony at my father's funeral ive reconsidered...

From what I have seen and heard, "Giant Mens Club" is really inaccurate... but then again, my perspective has been, by and large, as a listener when my father and uncles talked...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> My whole family are Masons.
> 
> ...



Could you elaborate, please?  What is your perspective?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well said, Rich. Just one thing I wanted to address...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Rich,  :2xBird2:  :uhyeah: 

This may seem strange, but I think I agree with Heretic on this issue. :wink2:  Not so strange, I agree with mcrobertson as well.

One has to be careful with words such as "God" and "Founded" with these debates, as I have painted myself in corners with these words before. This country may have been "founded" on Christian beliefs in that the colonists (pre-constitution) were all basically from some sect of christianity. But if we are talking about the "founding fathers," meaning the dudes responsable for the constitution, they were considered "freethinkers;" a mix of dieists, masons, and some outright christians. They may have had christian elements in their belief system, but it was not Christian in the fundamentalist or even classical sense. 

Knowing this and knowing how the founding father felt about the seperation of church and state, it is logical to figure that the symbols that we use on our money, our flags, etc., including the word "God" are symbolic rather then an establishment of any one religion (or any religion) for that matter, and therefore is not a violation of the bill of rights. This is despite the fact that many fundamentalist conservatives may interpret "In God we trust" and other sayings like it as " 'merica bein' Jesus' country cus it say's so, so if you ain't fer jesus den get off our land" type of thing.   

Now, considering that if one were to put a gun to my head and make me pick which religion the symbolism on our money refers to, then I would have to pick the masonic interpretation of religion. Now, considering that I am a earthbased-progressive-Catholic (I really am not Catholic enough now a days for Catholics to like me, nor am I non-Christian enough for Pagans to like me, so I am not sure what to call myself anymore), I should probably be offended by this because I disagree with the elitism of the Masonic order, despite the many good people out there who are masons. Now, I know that some smart alek will probably say that Catholicism is elitist too, bla bla and so on, but not my version...see me for details on a different topic. Anyways, I should be offended, but I am not. The reason is because I believe that the intent of the word "God" was for symbolism (like the eagle, or the deer in Michigan, or the stars and stripes), not to legislate or force religious beliefs.

*If you get nothing else in my post, get this main point(s)...* 

Along the lines of the symbolism arguement, I don't believe that the word "God" appearing on our money is a violation of our Bill of Rights.

I believe that we can't, nor should we try, to remove parts of our american heritage and history. There are many bad things in our history that we should never forget, lest we repeat. But, there are very good things as well that that we as americans should be proud of. I think the word "God" has been both of these things, and like it or not or believe in a "God" or not, it is a part of our history that I don't feel should be ignored or removed from every aspect of our culture and heritage except within our own homes and churches. That being said, recognizing our heritage by symbolism on our money is one thing; mandating prayer in schools, making things legal or illegal based on religious beliefs, believing we have a mandate to piss all over other countries because "we" believe in "God," and so on are entirely different. One, our heritage, is something we should recognize. The other, enforcing religion based policy, is something we should fight against. The fact that it says "God" in some places on Government property, and some people interpret this to behave as if everyone should be forced to be christian is only a symptom of a real problem. Addressing the real problem would be getting conservative-Christian voters to see that making "value" based decisions in Government is not where we want to be, because it goes against the idea of giving people the freedom to choose their values, which is, in itself, both very unamerican and unchristian.

fwhew. I'll shut up now.

Paul 
 :ultracool


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

Anybody who wishes to be rid of their "rights infringing" greenbacks may send them to me. e-mail me for the address.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 12, 2004)

Paul, Paul, Paul, 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Sorry Rich,  :2xBird2:  :uhyeah:
> 
> This may seem strange, but I think I agree with Heretic on this issue. :wink2:  Not so strange, I agree with mcrobertson as well.



You can agree with whom ever you wish. This is your right and privilege as a citizen of the U.S.A.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> One has to be careful with words such as "God" and "Founded" with these debates, as I have painted myself in corners with these words before. This country may have been "founded" on Christian beliefs in that the colonists (pre-constitution) were all basically from some sect of Christianity. But if we are talking about the "founding fathers," meaning the dudes responsible for the constitution, they were considered "freethinkers;" a mix of deists, masons, and some outright Christians. They may have had Christian elements in their belief system, but it was not Christian in the fundamentalist or even classical sense.



Paul, I never said the founding fathers meant to use the word "God". I know they were Deists and Masons and some Christians, and not the Crazies as Robert points out that came across on the MayFlower. Go back and read the details, not just the high lights 

The Great Seal, which Heretic brought into this discussing and remember this all started about a school in Wisconsin approving teaching Creationism as a science, was finalized in 1782. And as I have said, no where in there can I find an absolute about the symbol "God". The closest word is Providence, which is either "God" or "Nature" - see definition above. So, once again I cannot prove in a court of law that the Great Seal has anything to do with Religion.  I can prove the "In God We Trust" is a violation or the First Amendment. 

God - 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principal. 6. an image of a deity; an idol. 7. any deified person or object. ..., . 

religion - 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ...., .

You cannot have a religion with out a God. You cannot have a God without a religion. Now the religion may not have active members, and may be a dead religion, yet it still is a religion.


Now Paul to address what I think really happened here. I said it was bad to have God in our schools. Then it was mentioned what about our Money. Distraction and red herring tactics. I addressed that as well which caused the split of the thread. Now Heretic, gives is remarks yet, always leaving you wanting more, just not coming out and saying "Masons". You see this might put him into the position of  looking like a conspiracy type person. So, he waits for others to do it. Only I will not do it, for it was not a part of the discussion at hand. I have used Heretics own statements against him to prove either we have to destroy existence or, to prove that the Great Seal, which I never attacked only was accused of Attacking, as saying you cannot prove the Intent of those words as there is enough Nature references. There is not without a doubt. Yet, I bet you cannot find 12 professors of comparative theology or any other topic for that matter who would all say that with out a doubt the Symbol "God" does not mean a religion in any sense of form. 

So, instead he claims it is too much to deal with in one day. And, I actually have to agree, it is a lot to deal with. There have been days, when he and others have gone on and on and I have not been able to keep up or respond due to work or life. Yet, heretic only states such after others bring up Masons. this make me wonder that this was his agenda the whole time. BTW heretic states the masons are Christian a organization. This has nothing to do with the original topic of Creationism in our schools, other than that "God" in its' use in an official capacity by our government or any of its authorizing agencies cannot use it either, as it is explicitly stated in the First Amendment that  "no law respecting an establishment of religion". The ninth and tenth amendments do not give the states or local governments to over ride this. 

Please also note "In God We Trust" was not added to any money until 1861.

The Pledge of Allegiance first created in 1892, and was modified in 1923, and 1924 and once again in 1954 where "Under God" was added. 

In both cases the God Reference was added due to more conservative religious movement in the country. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Knowing this and knowing how the founding father felt about the separation of church and state, it is logical to figure that the symbols that we use on our money, our flags, etc., including the word "God" are symbolic rather then an establishment of any one religion (or any religion) for that matter, and therefore is not a violation of the bill of rights. This is despite the fact that many fundamentalist conservatives may interpret "In God we trust" and other sayings like it as " 'merica bein' Jesus' country cus it say's so, so if you ain't fer jesus den get off our land" type of thing.



As to the Founding Fathers and The Great Seal and the Declaration of Independence (* Both covered numerous times already :rollseyes: *), the reference to Natures God or Providence does not imply a direct relationship to a religion in the term of Providence, and in the case of the Declaration, it is not a working document, and there were the Articles of Confederacy, after this, and then the U.S. Constitution and our form of government as we have it today. As the Declaration is a great piece of history it should stand the way it  is, as I have already stated.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Now, considering that if one were to put a gun to my head and make me pick which religion the symbolism on our money refers to, then I would have to pick the masonic interpretation of religion. Now, considering that I am a earthbased-progressive-Catholic (I really am not Catholic enough now a days for Catholics to like me, nor am I non-Christian enough for Pagans to like me, so I am not sure what to call myself anymore), I should probably be offended by this because I disagree with the elitism of the Masonic order, despite the many good people out there who are masons. Now, I know that some smart alek will probably say that Catholicism is elitist too, bla bla and so on, but not my version...see me for details on a different topic. Anyways, I should be offended, but I am not. The reason is because I believe that the intent of the word "God" was for symbolism (like the eagle, or the deer in Michigan, or the stars and stripes), not to legislate or force religious beliefs.



Hmmm you said Religion above, and yet, we are not allowed to establish, your own arguments are seeming for the removal of the symbols. Yet, as I have stated numerous times also, those symbols are found lots of places in pieces or in whole. I will grant "the Eye " and the Pyramid, yet, read what I have already written. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> *If you get nothing else in my post, get this main point(s)...*
> 
> Along the lines of the symbolism argument, I don't believe that the word "God" appearing on our money is a violation of our Bill of Rights.



*I disagree and get one point from me, the word or symbol "God" is a violation of our rights as citizens of this country.*



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> I believe that we can't, nor should we try, to remove parts of our American heritage and history. There are many bad things in our history that we should never forget, lest we repeat. But, there are very good things as well that that we as Americans should be proud of. I think the word "God" has been both of these things, and like it or not or believe in a "God" or not, it is a part of our history that I don't feel should be ignored or removed from every aspect of our culture and heritage except within our own homes and churches. That being said, recognizing our heritage by symbolism on our money is one thing; mandating prayer in schools, making things legal or illegal based on religious beliefs, believing we have a mandate to piss all over other countries because "we" believe in "God," and so on are entirely different. One, our heritage, is something we should recognize. The other, enforcing religion based policy, is something we should fight against. The fact that it says "God" in some places on Government property, and some people interpret this to behave as if everyone should be forced to be christian is only a symptom of a real problem. Addressing the real problem would be getting conservative-Christian voters to see that making "value" based decisions in Government is not where we want to be, because it goes against the idea of giving people the freedom to choose their values, which is, in itself, both very unamerican and unchristian.
> 
> fwhew. I'll shut up now.
> 
> ...



Paul, I said the same thing for you will get people who then deny that slavery did not exist.  Read all of my posts, all the lines. I have addressed these same issues already. Like, I said from a historical point of view no problem.  Yet, when the Pledge and the money we use are used as examples of why it is ok to teach creationism in our schools then I say they must go.  If the religion is handled like Heretic said and I agreed, in a philosophy class or history class, then this is good. It opens up lots good cultural points of views. I had a 'world history' class that spent time and understanding of Islam and civilizations and cultures there of. This is fine. It is not fine to be taught as fact or law or truth in a science class.

Read my posts, not just what Heretic implies about what I am saying. 




PS: Paul, I will be down to hit you with sticks and to drink beer afterwards


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

Rich,

 I have read enough of what you have said to understand your arguement, and I am sorry to say that I don't agree on a number of things.

 #1. For starters, you can have religion without God, and God without religion. The two are often confused, usually by those who have an aversion to religious institutions. Not extremely pertinent to the arguement, but important non-the-less.

 #2. I agree that the whole God thing was added late, during what I believe is called the second reformation, if I am not mistaken. So yes, it is a christian thing that drove the word God to be in places like the pledge (added in the 1950's) and on our currency. However, there are plenty of Masonic things on the dollar which I disagree with, so if "God" gets to come off, then so does the Masonic symbols that I could argue that I find "offensive" and a "violation" of the bill of rights (I won't argue that because I don't care that Masonic symbols are there, but I could all the same). Now, your counter arguement to this is that "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian God, where as the masonic symbolism could be interpreted in other ways. Well, I am saying that the word "God" also could be interpreted in other ways. It could apply to any religion, or even no religion at all if you are an athiest. It could be Christian symbolism only, or simply symbolism on american or human history. Yet, you argue that it is a violation because the word "God" was put in by Christians who interpret the word only one way. Well, similarly, I could argue that masonic symbolism doesn't belong because masons refered to it through their interpretation and they are the ones who put it there. By the time we are done with the arguement, if we had it our way, our currency would be reduced to only numbers with no symbols at all, or perhaps we'll have to go back to the barter system.

 Yet, we can go back and forth, but the thing is I see your point and understand why you don't like the word on government property. However, I gaurantee that this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the semi-hostile takeover of this country by the religious right (or rather the continued rule over the majority by the wealthy minority who have recently been using religion and the religious right as their weapon of choice). 

 Either way, even though I understand your arguement, I don't think that removing or keeping the word "God," or removing or keeping masonic symbols for that matter, is the answer or the root of the problem. Nor, would I lose sleep if the word God or the masonic symbols were removed from our currency (although I might lose sleep over the simple fact that people are making a stink over things like words or symbols on our currency with all the other _*messed *_up _*stuff *_in the world that they SHOULD be stinking about, but thats another conversation).

 #3. related to #2, but I think that by attacking the use of the word on currency, we are only attacking a symptom, not the real problem. THe real problem is how some choose to interpret the word, and how some use it to justify unconstitutional behavior. The real problem is how the wealthy minority fear mongers through ideas that values are being taken away by "liberals," lives are going to be lost by "terrorists," jobs are going to be lost by mexicans, blacks, arabs, or (insert favorite ethnic minority here), and so on and so on. The real problem is that we spend time focusing on things like whether or not "under god" should be in the pledge, meanwhile the environment goes th _*south*_, the living wage goes down, ect. I think we need to address the real problems, not the symptoms.

 #4. I have not followed the thread progression that got us here. All I know is that I will become physically/mentally more retarded if I get into a conversation on a thread with a title that implies a discussion about whether a religious belief (creationism) should be tought as a hard science. Of course it shouldn't...I mean...what the hell?  

 #5. In your defense (and sorry to point it out, heretic) but I at times dislike the way heretic argue's as well, so your preaching to the choir on that one. I feel that instead of debating and trying to find a common ground, he argue's as if he is trying to make himself look smarter by making the other guy look dumb. Or at the very least, he seems to try to "win" the arguement by making others look dumb. Sorry heretic, because you often have good things to say, however, sometimes I dislike your methods (mainly because if I am not careful, I'll use the "try to make the other guy look dumb" tactic  ). Yet, these tactics are unfair, and not condusive of a good debate. 

 #6.Rich, you are a giant poopy head. (lol)

 #7 In the bible it says that all poopy heads are condemned to hell.
 

 Anyways, see you soon...
 Armed with beer and ready! :whip:  :cheers:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 12, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Rich,
> 
> I have read enough of what you have said to understand your arguement, and I am sorry to say that I don't agree on a number of things.
> 
> #1. For starters, you can have religion without God, and God without religion. The two are often confused, usually by those who have an aversion to religious institutions. Not extremely pertinent to the arguement, but important non-the-less.



You can have religion without a God, i.e. Buddism. Yet, you cannot have a God with out a religion. There might be people who do not believe in said god, yet, if there was a god there was a beleif system, hence a religion.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #2. I agree that the whole God thing was added late, during what I believe is called the second reformation, if I am not mistaken. So yes, it is a christian thing that drove the word God to be in places like the pledge (added in the 1950's) and on our currency. However, there are plenty of Masonic things on the dollar which I disagree with, so if "God" gets to come off, then so does the Masonic symbols that I could argue that I find "offensive" and a "violation" of the bill of rights (I won't argue that because I don't care that Masonic symbols are there, but I could all the same). Now, your counter arguement to this is that "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian God, where as the masonic symbolism could be interpreted in other ways. Well, I am saying that the word "God" also could be interpreted in other ways. It could apply to any religion, or even no religion at all if you are an athiest. It could be Christian symbolism only, or simply symbolism on american or human history. Yet, you argue that it is a violation because the word "God" was put in by Christians who interpret the word only one way. Well, similarly, I could argue that masonic symbolism doesn't belong because masons refered to it through their interpretation and they are the ones who put it there. By the time we are done with the arguement, if we had it our way, our currency would be reduced to only numbers with no symbols at all, or perhaps we'll have to go back to the barter system.



Remove the Masonic stuff, go ahead. Only problem is I can argue with good definitions that God is Religion and therefore unconstitutional. I cannot argue that I think the founding fathers were Masonic and therfore put Masonic symbols into the great Seal. In particular when one can argue nature, and non masonic influence. I am arguing what I can prove in a court to be constitutional or not.

Yet it is history it should be prserved is what some argue. Should we preserve Slavery? OR remove sufferage from African Americans or from women? It was part of our history. We should preserve it all all costs. Yes that is what needs to be done. Looking at the definition of a word and what is written and making a decision on said words. No let is instead throw emotion into it. ** In case you cannot tell the sarcasm about the slavery and sufferage comments. **



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Yet, we can go back and forth, but the thing is I see your point and understand why you don't like the word on government property. However, I gaurantee that this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the semi-hostile takeover of this country by the religious right (or rather the continued rule over the majority by the wealthy minority who have recently been using religion and the religious right as their weapon of choice).



It can be on government property with no prooblem, like I said previously, God and the Ten Commandments and the Magna Charter and the other documents that were historical for setting down a series of laws for a culture, could all be displayed behind a Judge or in an office for all I care. In this place it is historical in reference by its' context. "In God We Trust" has not context, on then a reference point or as coins in collections.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Either way, even though I understand your arguement, I don't think that removing or keeping the word "God," or removing or keeping masonic symbols for that matter, is the answer or the root of the problem. Nor, would I lose sleep if the word God or the masonic symbols were removed from our currency (although I might lose sleep over the simple fact that people are making a stink over things like words or symbols on our currency with all the other _*messed *_up _*stuff *_in the world that they SHOULD be stinking about, but thats another conversation).



Hmmm, you mean the Fundalmentalist I have been talking about that insist I learn what they want me to learn. And there is no opinion but theirs that matters? Yes that is another discussion, and requires much more alcohol then I normal imbibe.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #3. related to #2, but I think that by attacking the use of the word on currency, we are only attacking a symptom, not the real problem. THe real problem is how some choose to interpret the word, and how some use it to justify unconstitutional behavior. The real problem is how the wealthy minority fear mongers through ideas that values are being taken away by "liberals," lives are going to be lost by "terrorists," jobs are going to be lost by mexicans, blacks, arabs, or (insert favorite ethnic minority here), and so on and so on. The real problem is that we spend time focusing on things like whether or not "under god" should be in the pledge, meanwhile the environment goes th _*south*_, the living wage goes down, ect. I think we need to address the real problems, not the symptoms.



Symptom of a much larger issue, I agree, only I refer to the Dictionary for the definitions. which is what I would like to argue, in court to tell people the violation of the First Amendment.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #4. I have not followed the thread progression that got us here. All I know is that I will become physically/mentally more retarded if I get into a conversation on a thread with a title that implies a discussion about whether a religious belief (creationism) should be tought as a hard science. Of course it shouldn't...I mean...what the hell?



Gee, you mean the use of "God" on the Currency and in the Pledge does not only allow by gives divine Providence (* This time Godliness implied *) that you should teach Creationism in a science class. Wow, and from A Catholic as well. You must be on bad terms with you fellow members of your local congregation.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #5. In your defense (and sorry to point it out, heretic) but I at times dislike the way heretic argue's as well, so your preaching to the choir on that one. I feel that instead of debating and trying to find a common ground, he argue's as if he is trying to make himself look smarter by making the other guy look dumb. Or at the very least, he seems to try to "win" the arguement by making others look dumb. Sorry heretic, because you often have good things to say, however, sometimes I dislike your methods (mainly because if I am not careful, I'll use the "try to make the other guy look dumb" tactic  ). Yet, these tactics are unfair, and not condusive of a good debate.


  I agree.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #6.Rich, you are a giant poopy head. (lol)



That is "Giant" to you sir 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #7 In the bible it says that all poopy heads are condemned to hell.
> 
> 
> Anyways, see you soon...
> Armed with beer and ready! :whip:  :cheers:



Nothing my own family has not told me. :rollseyes:

I need that beer now!


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2004)

O.K.

Rich and I talked this one over beers, sticks, and a comedy special on TV with my brother after the bar.

We have come to the conclusion that I am right and he is wrong. We also had the opportunity to measure each others appendages. And yes, the legend is true...Rich's thingy-thing is like a foot longer then my arm, and has the same coordination and strength of an elephants trunk, which gave him a totally unfair advantage during the arm wrestling match. However, despite that fact, his head is still filled with poop, which therefore makes me without reasonable doubt completely correct here.

I then showed him a dollar bill for good measure to let him know that real americans believe in God. He agreed. We then beat up a few gays while chanting "death to the terrorists, Hail George Walker Bush!" to end a typical, yet wonderful Friday evening.

Good...glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2004)

O.K....again....

Seriously, we did talk it over. My opinion still stands, and so does his. I understand why he is up in arms over the issue, yet I still think that there are more pertinent issue's out there and focusing on this issue is only looking to deal with a symptom rather then the real problems. Rich argue's that you have to deal with the symptoms sometimes to get to the real problems. Fair enough.

Now, the fact is that it really doesn't matter what we argue about here, because we have a definition problem. There are many definitions of "God" leading to many different interpretations of the word God on currency. Rich has used dictionary definitions of his choosing to link the words "religion" and "God" to attempt to prove it unconstitutional to have the word on currency. However, using definitions of yours or my choosing doesn't cut it in the courtroom. If your talking about something being "unconstitutional" you have to use LEGAL definitions, not the definitions that you like in a dictionary somewhere. The supreme court has not, to my knowledge, legally defined what is ment by the word "God" on currency. Until they do, we don't know if the word is a violation of our Bill of rights, therefore we can't "prove" or declare it unconstitional. Sorry to break it to some of you. 

So, really, until the Supreme Court slaps a definition on the word "God" as it applies here, there is no real conclusion to the arguement. I can say "God" and "religion" do not have to be linked based on how I choose to define it, and Rich can disagree based on how he chooses to define the words. I can say that "God" on currency doesn't have to mean the Christian God, and could be on there for heritage and cultural purposes rather then a religious mandate, and could be applied to anyone's personal interpretation of God (including not believing one exists). Then Rich can argue that no, not with how he interprets the word "God" on currency, and that since "God" usually means "Christian God," then it is offensive to non-christians. We would both have very good points, yet none of these points matter until the Supreme Court decides how to legally define the word.

So until then, this arguement is over, as far as I can see it.

One thing I will say that we do agree on is this: using the arguement that because it says "God" on our money, then that must mean that for some hair-brained reason we need to teach creationism in schools as a valid science is complete lunacy. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is really important... :uhyeah: 

Paul

P.S. For the record, Catholics in general have no problem with the theory of evolution, and generally aren't pushing to have creationism taught in schools. We do other, more logical things through groups like "Catholic Answers", like preaching that all democrates like to watch boys kiss on Television while feasting on broiled aborted babies and the souls of the elderly...but that's another topic for another day.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2004)

One more thing...then I am going to bed at the early time of 5:30am...

For those innocent bistanders, if you haven't guessed, Rich and I are friends who hang out on a regular basis. So, we kid each other, and possibly slam each other, and so forth, with no bad blood between us. So please understand that my middle finger guy or our sarcastic tone between us isn't something we'd do if we didn't know each other, I don't think. 

So make no mistake, I don't think we're violating rules because we ARE being friendly even if it seems otherwise.

Just thought I'd clarify for those who might be wondering what the deal is.

Thanks...and good night (or morning).  :supcool:


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

As quoting-and-responding all that would take _way_ too much time to bother with, methinks I'll just dish out another user-friendly numerical list.  :wink:

1) Pyramids, eyes, eagles, and stars are not in and of themselves religious symbols. But the All-Seeing Eye of Osiris/Horus, the Five-Pointed Pentagram of Pythagoras, the Six-Pointed Star of David, and the Two-Faced Eagle of Peace and War are most definately religious symbols. You will note that I was referring to these _specific_ symbols, and not their empirical referents that we see in everyday life.

2) Once again, most of the arguments being used here are not that Church and State shouldn't be mixed --- but that Church The Populace Might Be Familiar With shouldn't be mixed with State. In other words, symbols from the Mysteries of Osiris/Horus in ancient Egypt are hunkee-doree but any symbols those accursed Bible-Thumpers could use are off-limits (even though the two overlap considerably).

3) Yup, most people don't understand the significance of the Masonic symbols. But, again, I don't think widespread ignorance of a particular subject is a sound basis for legislation.

4) I don't recall advocating the "total destruction of everything". Merely that, just because something can be misused by a minority of the populace, does not necessarily mean it should be banned or denied.

5) _E Pluribus Unum_ has many meanings, some of which are political and some of which are religious. You will note that I never advocated One-And-Only Interpretation For All Time, unlike some others on this thread.

6) If everything that makes one "unhappy" is in fact "impeding rights", then that leaves us will very little to work with as a society.

7) At no point did I ever advocate that "creationism" should be taught in a biology classroom. I don't understand the reasoning behind this implication.

8) The World Book Enyclopedia translates _Annuit Coeptis_ as "He (God) has favored our undertakings". Even if we translate this "He" as "Providence", it seems rather odd that we could describe "nature" or "reason" as having favoritisms.

9) When the "New Order of the Ages" referred to in the Great Seal was written down, we did not as of yet have access to industrial technology. Thus, references to the industrial revolution make little sense here.

10) When I said the Pythagorean symbols were not "symmetrical", I was making a little joking hint. 

11) Pythagoras, mostly known for furthering science and mathematics, was the founder of the first monasteries in the West (all later Christian monasteries were modeled after his), founded his own philosophical system (Pythagoreanism, which was very influential on Plato), was responsible for the establishment of the Mysteries of Dionysus in Greece (which were themselves adaptations of the Msyteris of Osiris/Horus from Egypt), and is believed to have authored many of the works attributed to the mythical Orpheus (thus making him an important figure in Orphism, as well).


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

'Lil bit more.

1) I've researched a bit more into Freemasonry, and I must now concede that it predates Christianity considerably. At least, that's what Thomas Paine thought.

2) The delineation between "Masonism" and "Christianity" still remains quite fluid, especially if we consider the Gnostic sects active prior to 1000 CE.

3) To my knowledge, Systema was developed by the Soviet Secret Police but after their persecution at the hands of Stalin and subsequent abolishment with the fall of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Orthodox monastic traditions (including Hesychasm) were indispensable in the art's survival.

4) Among the little bit of research I did on Masonism, the implication seemed to be that at the higher ranks in the order that the old traditions are still preserved. Of course, considering this is a secret society we are talking about, this is all little more than speculation. But, even so, if this is all true it is an intriguing case of the survival of one of the only remaining Mystery Schools in the West (even preserving the delineation between Outer Mysteries and Inner Mysteries).


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

Okay, last one.

1) The notion that whenever one mentions "God", they are necessarily equating a particular religious organization or tradition is just kinda silly. "God" was referred to by the Deists all the time. I would be interested in which organization and/or church they owe allegiance to. Philosophers and freethinkers have used the term "God" throughout history, often in many different ways, and it does not always necessarily tie to any particular religion (Transcendentalism could be mentioned here, too). Hell, I even use God or Spirit or the Divine every now and then --- mind telling me which religion I'm adhering to??

2) The notion that Buddhism doesn't have a "god" is kinda silly, too, when you consider the descriptions of the Buddha Mind in Mahayan traditions, as well as the speculations about the _devas_. The "atheistic" Buddhists are more or less a convenience of Western philosophers.

3) I will admit that knowledge of the "In God We Trust" term originating in the 1860's does make me slightly less supportive of its existence. But, even then, I fail to see how it is violating anyone's rights. Its just a word on slips of paper.

4) Any religious tradition worth its salt is "elitist", or else there would be no compunction to evoke change and maturation in its followers. This is as true to Buddhism as it is to Masonism as it is to Catholicism. But, don't confuse elitism for exclusivism. Them's be two different manimals.

5) As much as I enjoy the veiled sniping being directed at me, I would be interested in knowing where exactly I used personal attacks on anyone (except possibly in the case of MGM, whose arguments-based-on-agenda were plainly obvious).

Laterz all.  :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 13, 2004)

As everyone thinks I am Silly and stupid and ignorant and a Poopy-head, I have the following to say:

I have to communicate with you and others. I use the dictionary. Oh I am sorry, I tired to use a common denominator, and not some special super secret back door understanding that you only get with the secret hand shake.

I have been accussed of attackign things, and when I reply I am called names. I ahve been accused of not getting the point and yet people change the point with more obfuscation.

So, because the Supreme court has not done  a definition yet, it does not matter. Hmmmm, has the Supreme court defined every word  used in legal documents? Nope. I guess I can never make another arguemnet ever again. Shut the Study down now.

How does it violate my rights. It is the first amendment. I guess you do not have the right to have freedom of speech.  It is only spoken words, it has less meaning than that of the written word, it does not last as long. How about if I take that away. It is the prinicpal of what is written, and if you do not get it, then you are more ignorant then you let on.

As to the me being wrong since I disagree with you, I have never said you were, wrong only that I disagreed. I never called you names, except to reply in kind with the same words. And, I am the one who has no ground to stand on.

History and historical value is mentioned, I mention more history that should be brought back and preserved. It is ignored. Why because those simplie liberties would be ludicrous to do so. In fifty or a hundred years will it be the same?

I did not bring up the Money. I was told I was attacking the Great Seal. I replied. Fine if everyone says it was a non-issue, and that I am just screwed in the head for trying to preserve some of my rights.  I will just go away, and let this country fall down deeper into the world of fundalmentalism.

I apologize for obviously being wrong, and wronging Heretic, for he does not understand why I have replied as such. As to Paul, I'll just hit him with a stick and all will be fine .

The way I call it, 

Heretic (* Masonic *) 1 - 0 - 0 
Tulisin (* Catholic *) 1 - 0 - 0
Rich (* Zen Christian - Excommunicated and all *) 0 - 1 - 0

Peace guys, for I see that I have upset you guys and you have fallen into the stance of argueing he can say this, and I will say that, and nothing will happen, and or to the I did not say that and I do not understand why this came up.

:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

Oye.   

I'm.... Masonic?? The hell??

And, I still think you're taking things outta context, dude, but whatever. Not like it matters much. 

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 13, 2004)

_*================================*_
_Mod. Note._ 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Dan Bowman_
-MT Moderator-
*================================*


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2004)

Just a few things here...



> As everyone thinks I am Silly and stupid and ignorant and a Poopy-head, I have the following to say:



Oh relax, Rich, I don't think your a poopy head for real... you know I was joking. You have some good points and I acknowledged those.

I plead the fifth on the elephant trunk though...



> So, because the Supreme court has not done a definition yet, it does not matter. Hmmmm, has the Supreme court defined every word used in legal documents? Nope. I guess I can never make another arguemnet ever again. Shut the Study down now.



Now, now. I didn't say that the issue doesn't matter. It obviously matters to you, and I respect that. I am saying that legal definitions are what makes or breaks something being constitutional or not, not our chosen dictionary definitions. And no, not all words have to be defined by the supreme court, but words in question or words that are pertinent to the law do need to be defined. A good example would be the "gay marriage ban" where the legal definition of the word "marriage" was on the table. And technically with the lawsuits over the amendment, it still is.

Now, you said that you could PROVE that having the word "God" on our currency is a violation of the Bill of rights, but the reality is you can't prove anything until the supreme court decides to define the word as it pertains to the context of being on currency.

That being said, you can still make the arguement that you don't think it should be on there, that is fine. But proving something unconstitutional is another story.

So, I guess we don't have to shut donw the study after all.. :ultracool 



> The notion that Buddhism doesn't have a "god" is kinda silly, too


 Well, not really when you consider Zen Buddhism. They don't confirm or deny "God." But thats another conversation.



> 1) I've researched a bit more into Freemasonry, and I must now concede that it predates Christianity considerably. At least, that's what Thomas Paine thought.



The Masonic belief is that basically all religions are a spin-off somehow on from their belief system. They take credit for people like Euclid, Plato, and Pythagerous. They believe that Masonic order predates christianity all the way to King Solomon.

However, just because one believes something, that doesn't make it true. There is little evidence to support this belief, especially considering that the records of the first Masons post date christianity by hundreds of years.

Your right about Thomas Paine, and a lot of Masons today follow this belief. That's probably another discussion as well, though.



> ) As much as I enjoy the veiled sniping being directed at me, I would be interested in knowing where exactly I used personal attacks on anyone (except possibly in the case of MGM, whose arguments-based-on-agenda were plainly obvious).



I know that this probably wasn't directed towards me, but regardless I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing veiled from me here. I was pretty clear, and I wasn't trying to attack you personally, call you names, or anything. All I had said negative was that although I often like what you have to say, I sometimes dislike your method of argueing. Not really an insult, just an opinion. Hey, sometimes I dislike the way I argue too. So I hope there is no ill feelings there.

***
Anyways, I have made my arguements. I think that any more discussion from me would be beating a dead horse at this point, so I'm outta here.

Thanks for the discussion...

Paul


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

No, no ill feelings. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The Masonic belief is that basically all religions are a spin-off somehow on from their belief system. They take credit for people like Euclid, Plato, and Pythagerous. They believe that Masonic order predates christianity all the way to King Solomon.
> 
> However, just because one believes something, that doesn't make it true. There is little evidence to support this belief, especially considering that the records of the first Masons post date christianity by hundreds of years.
> 
> Your right about Thomas Paine, and a lot of Masons today follow this belief. That's probably another discussion as well, though.



Kinda like there is little evidence to support the belief there was a Jesus of Nazareth??  :boing2: 

Seriously though, there may be some truth to their claims --- but perhaps not the in the form they would like to believe.

If you look back, there is clearly an ongoing "tradition" or "system of thought" of sorts in the ancient world. It predates Christianity, can be seen in the Mystery Schools, the Hermetic tradition, and most definately Pythagoras. However, these traditions themselves trace back to Egypt, which is most likely their beginning origin. I wouldn't put any weight in the King Solomon tales.

Now, it would be uncritical to say that this was some kind of formalized or institutionalized religion or organization, as the Masons seem to believe. Rather, a sort of ongoing line of philosophy that traces through many different currents through the millenia. Masonism as it is today probably developed sometime in the Middle Ages, borrowing heavily from pre-existing Hermetic, Christian, and Gnostic influences.

That's my take, anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2004)

I look at the occult symbolry on our money and I often wonder why American's know so little about it.  I also wonder why it was put there in the first place.  I also wonder what would happen if people began to really understand some of the symbolry.

I can tell you one thing for sure, these fundamentalist christians who voted for GWB would absolutely have an apoplexy.  I would laugh my *** off as they tried to rationalize it.

There are a lot of lofty ideas expressed on the dollar bill and learning about a few of them can take A LOT of time.  For instance meaning of a five pointed star is this...

Imagine a line with three points.  A, C, and B.  Line AB is certainly longer then the segment AC.  At the same time, the segment AC is longer then CB.  If the ratio of the length of AC to that of CB is the same as the ratio of AB to AC, then the line has been cut in extreme and mean ratio or in a golden ratio.  

Thus any jumbling of numbers will yeild a number close to 1.680339887...

When you draw a pentagram, you are drawing lines with the above ratio.  Give it a try...

This number is everywhere on the dollar bill.  Count the bricks in the pyramid.  Draw a line and compare.  Why is this so prevelant?  What does it mean for our country?

_Novus Ordo Seclorum_?  _E Plurbus Unum_?

Are these referring back to this relationship?

upnorthkyosa

ps - Crap, this post is going to have everyone drawing pentagrams.  I am definitely going to hell now... :jedi1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are a lot of lofty ideas expressed on the dollar bill and learning about a few of them can take A LOT of time.  For instance meaning of a five pointed star is this...
> 
> Imagine a line with three points.  A, C, and B.  Line AB is certainly longer then the segment AC.  At the same time, the segment AC is longer then CB.  If the ratio of the length of AC to that of CB is the same as the ratio of AB to AC, then the line has been cut in extreme and mean ratio or in a golden ratio.
> 
> ...



I want to note that pentagrams have lots of other meanings other then the one expressed above.  I think it is more correct to say that this probably was the _original _ meaning...


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 15, 2004)

My guess is that the symbolism was chosen because many of the Founding Fathers --- George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine at the very least --- were either familiar with Masonism or were Masons themselves. Thomas Jefferson is a very likely candidate, as well.

When I looked up the Great Seal in the World Book Encyclopedia, it also said that the reverse side was designed by an expert in "heraldry".

As for the pentagram itself, it has a lot of meanings --- some of which are political, some of which are spiritual, and some of which overlap. It all traces back the sacred geometry elucidated by Pythagoras, who himself acquired the knowledge from his studies in Egypt.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## MGM (Nov 15, 2004)

Just one correction, I thought we were all on the same page but it appears not.

A US two cent coin had "in god we trust" minted in the 1860's. In the early 1900's that coin was re-minted omitting the slogan, a year or so later congress passed legislation that required th slogan be put back on any money that previously had it. All US money did not start carrying "in god we trust" until after 1957. That was as a result of 1955 legislation. Can any one say fear of the "Commies"?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 15, 2004)

Very interesting, MGM. 

Not that I don't believe you, but could provide sources for corroboration??


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 15, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> Just one correction, I thought we were all on the same page but it appears not.
> 
> A US two cent coin had "in god we trust" minted in the 1860's. In the early 1900's that coin was re-minted omitting the slogan, a year or so later congress passed legislation that required th slogan be put back on any money that previously had it. All US money did not start carrying "in god we trust" until after 1957. That was as a result of 1955 legislation. Can any one say fear of the "Commies"?


In fact, I am looking at a 1941 US 50 cent piece from my collection which does have "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it.


----------

