Found this very interesting.

[chickened]

This was at a time when states had authority apart from the feds to do as they please. I see it as unity.

Whoever wrote that must not have completely understood the difference between state-level and federal-level. Given this, I will assume a lack of familiarity with the religious-based violence in European history that our Founders were certainly aware of when they designed the federal-level constitution.

 

[chickened]

I am not convinced that "WE" really choose. Study "predestination" some time. I have no problem with others repecting thier own god... but I am not the one claiming there is only one, I only adhere(to give support or maintain loyalty) to that claim. You and everyone that disagrees with that claim need to take it up with the one who claims it. This is how wars start by certain folks upholding and taking the fight for those that cannot let it be.

Ed, whose God do we choose? Or do we allow others to respect THEIR God?

 

[AquaEyes]

I take this as a snapshot in time of an era that held to the idea that our rights, ability and pretty much all that was good in the country at the time was not of man's doing but of God. They had a little more sense than the "enlightened ones" in as much as they recognized they were not thier own god at the least.

As for why I mentioned this let me ask why do you ask? If this is not your bag move on and let those that like this enjoy it.

OK, so what discussion can this promote? I'm thinking that your last line is in reference to my thread below, when I used a similar line to circumvent "creationism" debate in a topic about sequencing the gorilla genome. I posted a topic about science, and tried to cut short any inappropriate and "strongly discouraged" (per BYC rules) religious interjection into the discussion. This thread, however, is doing the opposite -- you are starting a topic about religion, and discouraging any rational debate by using the "if this is not your bag move on" defense.

I also don't see how you get that this was "an era that held to the idea that our rights, ability, and pretty much all that was good in the country at the time was not of man's doing but of God." If, as you say, these lines were a simple celebration of thanks for things being as they were with no "doing" by man being responsible, then why was there so much effort involved in establishing this country, drawing up its code of government, etc?

Honestly, your posts seem to derive no purpose other than to be divisive, as you hide behind your "right to believe as you wish." If these are things you believe, that's fine. But you seem to seek conflict from throwing polarizing topics and opinions up on the wall and reveling in the drama that ensues.

 

[Capvin]

They were referring to Darth Vader.

Imp

I much prefer your explanation to any of the others proposed by Chickened. I also say that it is more susinctly stated and makes more sense. Rememeber, that nothing good that has been acomplished can be attributed to man...all credit goes to Darth Vader. I am hoping that you will continually interpose this sort of wisdom at the appropriate and various times during this thread. Someone named you correctly!!

 

[sourland]

Ed, and exactly why do you choose to infer that I disagree with anything? You are seriously confusing me - once again.

I am not convinced that "WE" really choose. Study "predestination" some time. I have no problem with others repecting thier own god... but I am not the one claiming there is only one, I only adhere(to give support or maintain loyalty) to that claim. You and everyone that disagrees with that claim need to take it up with the one who claims it. This is how wars start by certain folks upholding and taking the fight for those that cannot let it be.

 

[chickened]

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you were saying. I am usually on the end of those horns with those that think separation of church and state and not establishing a state religion are synonymous. Wife was in one ear telling me "we have to go"

Ed, and exactly why do you choose to infer that I disagree with anything? You are seriously confusing me - once again.

 

[chickened]

Let me ask you something, are you married? if so does your spouse have any influence in your decision making? if not then your marriage is not equal any more than when women had no right to vote. If your spouse does influence your decisions then she is just as equal now as she was then. A single woman wanting liberation is all fine and dandy , more power to her but if she is married there should be no liberation if she wants liberation than she is not needing her spouse and in a marriage spouses need each other equally. I highly doubt that the forefathers that were married especially for any length of time were capable of not being influenced by their wives. It may have been a simple case of perceived roles in that time and culture that kept women from voting and for the record we do not really know that the majority of women in that time even had a desire to do so. Most were too busy running a home and family, which they were actually better at than the men.

So some old long dead white guys (who probably also believed that women shouldn't vote and that minorities were below them) put god in state preambles and that somehow settles or legitimizes.... what? God's role in government? What exactly is the point of mentioning this?

 

[AquaEyes]

Wow -- there are no other words.

 

[chickened]

I understand from PM's between you and I a long time ago that you are bent on challenging certain topics with the end result of getting them locked for whatever reasons of insecurity you harbor or feel threatened by. My suggestion is that you add a few more anti-christian sayings to your signature so we are all clear of your thoughts and feelings and skip your usually anti christian biases and either have a civil discussion and/or allow those that may want to support this thread a chance to do so without you intimidation tactics.

As for debating something I think history speaks for itself, I obviously did not make this up and you were not there to see the minds or reason that these things were put into remembrance but you argue more to preserve your persuasion than to get to the truth of a matter.

I think it is safe to conclude that these preambles were not written by Satan worshippers, can we agree on that and let it be?

OK, so what discussion can this promote? I'm thinking that your last line is in reference to my thread below, when I used a similar line to circumvent "creationism" debate in a topic about sequencing the gorilla genome. I posted a topic about science, and tried to cut short any inappropriate and "strongly discouraged" (per BYC rules) religious interjection into the discussion. This thread, however, is doing the opposite -- you are starting a topic about religion, and discouraging any rational debate by using the "if this is not your bag move on" defense.

I also don't see how you get that this was "an era that held to the idea that our rights, ability, and pretty much all that was good in the country at the time was not of man's doing but of God." If, as you say, these lines were a simple celebration of thanks for things being as they were with no "doing" by man being responsible, then why was there so much effort involved in establishing this country, drawing up its code of government, etc?

Honestly, your posts seem to derive no purpose other than to be divisive, as you hide behind your "right to believe as you wish." If these are things you believe, that's fine. But you seem to seek conflict from throwing polarizing topics and opinions up on the wall and reveling in the drama that ensues.

 

[AquaEyes]

I understand from PM's between you and I a long time ago that you are bent on challenging certain topics with the end result of getting them locked for whatever reasons of insecurity you harbor or feel threatened by. My suggestion is that you add a few more anti-christian sayings to your signature so we are all clear of your thoughts and feelings and skip your usually anti christian biases and either have a civil discussion and/or allow those that may want to support this thread a chance to do so without you intimidation tactics.

As for debating something I think history speaks for itself, I obviously did not make this up and you were not there to see the minds or reason that these things were put into remembrance but you argue more to preserve your persuasion than to get to the truth of a matter.

I think it is safe to conclude that these preambles were not written by Satan worshippers, can we agree on that and let it be?

No, what I said was that if you continued to jump in and push your religion into posts, I would challenge the assertions, and then the posts would get locked.