E Pluribus Unum?

[Makalakumu]

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]

Some lines are formulated by reason. Some are not.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ..., . "

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.

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.

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.

Old mystery school term.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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...

Could you elaborate, please? What is your perspective?

 

[Cruentus]

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



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??

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]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

Paul, Paul, Paul,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

#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. **

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.

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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

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

That is "Giant" to you sir

#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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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.