Why? Why? Why?

[rach n bach]

do english professors have no problem with assinging you to write a 2500 word essay on the deeper meaning of the Constitution... and then tell you that it is due the next day?  Guess what I'm doing right now at 3 am.     BLAST IT ALL!!!!  I need sleep, I need to practice piano, I have a billion other things to do....  Why? Why? Why?

Allright, rant over.  Thanks for listening, I needed to get that out of my system...

[pianistimo]

i think the constitution of the usa is unique as to how it came about.  i think it was the product of prayer among praying believers and the product of logic among those who did not want america to be ruled by a king but by the common people for common objectives such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

if i were you - i'd research a few other forms of government and compare how they first came about - with the dawn of the constitution.  what immediately comes to mind is how john adams ASKED jefferson (because he felt he was not inspired at the moment) to help draft the constitution and write the declaration of independance.  now, he and jefferson had been friends but had somewhat of a falling out - but came back together so that they would be able to do something for a common cause.  they both had different views of government, but recognized the need for people of different views to get along and promote peaceful debate.  i think john adams had to preside over the first continental congress sessions - and was not allowed to speak (being chair).  this was VERY hard for him because he had such deeply felt views.  he liked to speak and think at the same time.  delineating to himself what - to him - was a perfect government.  and, yet - he allowed others to express themselves freely in debate because he had learned the hard way that if one pushes their views to extreme...then it defeats the purpose of a democracy.

[pianistimo]

i think this site has some info:  www.constitutioncenter.org

here's 'exploring the constitution' :  https://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/BasicGoverningPrinciples/index.shtml

[rach n bach]

Yeah, that's all just about what I'm doing... compare and contrast with documents such as the Magna Carta, and other forms of government.  I am also submitting that the Constitution (more specifically, the bill of rights) in and of itself doesn't give anybody any rights whatsoever.  What it does do is protect thoes "unalienable" ones that are innate to humans.

Thanks for the sites too.

I gotta get back to work...

RnB

[counterpoint]

You understand the circumstances of the american constitution much better, if you have played "The Day of the Tentacle" 

[pianistimo]

well, as it so happens - i agree with you because at the same time they were committing to paper the 'ideas' of freedom - they were being implemented on the battlefield with george washington.  if they had not defended freedom - they would not be free.

here's a site for international constitutional law:
https://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/

click on any of the countries to get info on their constitution


also, there is the universal declaration of human rights - formed by the united nations.  here is the declaration:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=universal+declaration+of+human+rights&btnG=Google+Search

[pianistimo]

the only problem is that it hasn't been backed up by military muscle - so the declaration is worthless in sudan.

people say they hate bush - but frankly, he is between a rock and a hard place.  for many years the usa was terrorized.  in beiruit, also with other embassies, and with the uss cole.  now, we had 911 and really could not put all the blame and fault on iraq BUT - despite the craziness of the political scene after going to war with iraq a lot of foreign terrorism was made to 'fess up' to how it got a foothold.  where the money was coming from to support it.  and various things to ferret out how terrorists work.  noone would know that today if somebody didn't go in and find out the details.  it would be a mystery.  it probably still is somewhat a mystery in remote locations such as afghanistan. 

the thing is - a constitution does NIL.  it is the will of the people to be free, remain free, and promote freedom for others.  our boys have died for the freedom of iraq.  it did not actually sTOP terrorism - but it made them realize the truth of their actions would come out in the press.  there are diplomatic means of peaceful negotiation and there are ways that kill innocent civilians.  which way do terrorists choose.  innocent civilians.  when it comes back to their own country - they all of a sudden don't like it.  of course, not.  neither did we.  is it right to do tit-for-tat.  i don't think so.  i think strong nations should uphold morality and integrity.  have we done this always. no.  so our constitution seems invalid now.  but, imo, it will always have integrity even if sometimes the government does not always uphold the rights of EVERY nationality in EVERY nation.  equal rights under the law for everyone.  otherwise we are no better that a dictatorship. 

[ahinton]

i think the constitution of the usa is unique as to how it came about.  i think it was the product of prayer among praying believers and the product of logic among those who did not want america to be ruled by a king but by the common people for common objectives such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

America famously has a written constitution, the written enshrining of which some constitutional historians and legal experts believe contitutes one of the more significant differences between it and the British one which remains unwritten to this day. If, however, the former was indeed the kind of product that you describe, do you think (even though you would clearly not personally like to do so) that it needs rewriting for the far more multi-cultural and less Christian nation that the modern United States is? That is not, of course, to undermine what the constitution was at the time of its inauguration and is therefore a separate issue, but an important one nevertheless.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

not being a legal expert - my opinions are way down here. in any case, i think international law is quickly becoming the standard.  why?  because we are moving to a one-world system. it's already been here - it's just that when people realize they are no longer truly sovereign nations (being that they are so indebted to each other) they can't really give anything but debt to their constituents and therefore leave it to them to work out the disagreements in sometimes rather violent fashions.  this is third world mentality - as the masses start deciding what stays and what goes.  there is no real 'rule of law.'  it is every man/woman for themselves.

part of the reason i say this is that the younger generation has been learning from video games how to solve conflicts.  instead of respecting someone with a different point of view - violence is the first thought.   in yesterday's paper 'germantown highschool teacher frank burd - whose neck was broken after a student attack' - goes on to tell the newspaper that it was over a confiscated i-pod.  i mean if people fight like this over i-pods in highschool - where is rule of law going?

if i were to proscribe what i think works - it would be similar to britains monarchy years ago.  a benevolent king.  Jesus Christ.  with a rule of law that is binding on everyone and not just one country or another.  blessings are said to come from the law of God and they reach out to the furthest corners of the earth.  God says he will even bless the desert and cause it to 'bloom like a rose.'  if this is possible - i want it.  but it won't come before a 'holy war.'  freedom and the law of God fit together like a hand in a glove.  many of the laws of God are also written in the laws of islam.  the basic ten commandments.  how did that come to be?  maybe ishmael and issac were tRULy brothers!  if 'every eye' will see Jesus Christ return - there won't be a need to guess if He is real or not.  He'll come and end the senseless destruction and make everyone realize that noone is perfect.  freedom is somewhat of an illusion until everyone agrees that law is important.

*about the ammendments to the constitution - if they are broken without penalty they are proven invalid and purposeless.  same for any law.  ok.  free exercise of religion (i don't think it's free in public places anymores) the right of people to bear arms (only within proscribed gun control laws that are becoming tighter?) soldiers shall be quartered well (veteran's hospitals?) the right against public search and seizure without warrant (telephone and internet records checked at random?) no person/without grand jury/shall be held to answer for a capital crime (abu grabe?)  the right to a speedy trial (?) - trial by jury for even the poorest members of society (ok that one is one we hang on to - good thing that we have free lawyers.  the problem is - how effective are they?)  excessive bail shall not be inflicted nor cruel and unusual punishments (? - prisons are overcrowded and bad airconditioning caused quite a riot in alabama) - certain rights should not disparage the rights of other people (divisive thinking in public schools and in public places that the rights of one group are upheld over another) the powers not deligated to the united states by the constitution are reserved to the states (which ones?  we are becoming somewhat over-regulated, imo - and even our national parks have become 'off limits' - to go anywhere in the park - to citizens of their own country).

i suppose i am a wild-west democratic thinker.  i think that within the rule of law there should be ample freedom.  i do not want to be told that i MUST fill out my race or give my social security number - or have no choice in health matters.  and, yet our liberties are taken advantage of by people who do not have citizenship.   should illegal aliens have credit cards that stem from bank of AMERICA?  wierd.  yes - i want to die with the flag over my head - but also a white flower (symbolizing peace for the entire world).

[ahinton]

not being a legal expert - my opinions are way down here. in any case, i think international law is quickly becoming the standard.  why?  because we are moving to a one-world system. it's already been here - it's just that when people realize they are no longer truly sovereign nations (being that they are so indebted to each other) they can't really give anything but debt to their constituents and therefore leave it to them to work out the disagreements in sometimes rather violent fashions.  this is third world mentality - as the masses start deciding what stays and what goes.  there is no real 'rule of law.'  it is every man/woman for themselves.

Some of what you write here is correct and apposite but I don't buy the whole of it. It is undoubtedly the case that sovereign nations (be they republics, monarchies, dictatorships of any kind) have for some time been becoming increasingly interdependent, in terms of international trading and other contractual obligations and well as lending and borrowing; indeed, international indebtedness is such that, were every nation to call in all its international loans immediately, financial meltdown would almost certainly result. That said, however, the fact remains that nations are dividing rather than merging in recent years; you need only look at the splitting in two of Czechoslovakia, the multiple carve-ups of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and the possibility (albeit a fairly faint one) that the currently United Kingdom may divide into four to realise that these fragmentations are indicative of moves away from, rather than towards, the notion of "world government".

As to the weakening of the "rule of law" and the supplanting of reason by mindless violence, you should be careful about assuming that the former is breaking down everywhere just beause technology not only allows us to hear far more about far more of it than was once the case but that it goes farther and insists that we hear about it. Yes, there are some pretty terrible human activities going on in the world today, but a pragmatic approach to this fact requires the taking on board of the fact that we are now in the 21st century and so far we have neither world war nor dictators each committing mass murder of millions, whereas in the 20th we had two world wars which between them occupied a whole decade and three dictators - Mao, Stalin and Hitler, all five of which together wiped out at least one-fifth of the entire world's population.

part of the reason i say this is that the younger generation has been learning from video games how to solve conflicts.

How many Sudanese, North Korean, Congolese, etc. children have been doing this?

if i were to proscribe what i think works - it would be similar to britains monarchy years ago.  a benevolent king.  Jesus Christ.

I am not an expert on the history of the British monarchy but I do know that Jesus Christ was not only never a British monarch but that He died some nine centuries before there ever was such a thing as the british monarchy.

with a rule of law that is binding on everyone and not just one country or another.

That sentiment sounds almost like the old "Britain rules the waves" thing that used to be bandied about until some wisecracker first said that, in reality, Britain waives the rules (only not as successfully or frequently as do the French).

blessings are said to come from the law of God and they reach out to the furthest corners of the earth.  God says he will even bless the desert and cause it to 'bloom like a rose.'  if this is possible - i want it.  but it won't come before a 'holy war.'  freedom and the law of God fit together like a hand in a glove.  many of the laws of God are also written in the laws of islam.  the basic ten commandments.  how did that come to be?  maybe ishmael and issac were tRULy brothers!  if 'every eye' will see Jesus Christ return - there won't be a need to guess if He is real or not.  He'll come and end the senseless destruction and make everyone realize that noone is perfect.  freedom is somewhat of an illusion until everyone agrees that law is important.

This is all very much on topic, but only because one may well ask, despairingly, "Why? Why? Why" you still insist on promoting all this stuff here when you agreed to ease off on it; the actual topic is about constitutional history, not religion and, whilst I accept that "laws" are a fundamental constituent part of each, the differences between the sovereignty of independent nations and the tenets of religions are infinitely greater than their similarities.

*about the ammendments to the constitution - if they are broken without penalty they are proven invalid and purposeless.  same for any law.  ok.  free exercise of religion (i don't think it's free in public places anymores)

You mean that the providers charge for it?

the right of people to bear arms

Or "arm bears", as "ada" neatly puts it (not that they have too many of those creatures in Australia - bears, I mean, no "ada"s, the latter being, of course, unique...)

soldiers shall be quartered well (veteran's hospitals?)

...and hung and drawn first?...

the right against public search and seizure without warrant (telephone and internet records checked at random?)

Tell that one to the police!...

no person/without grand jury/shall be held to answer for a capital crime (abu grabe?)

Apart from the spelling of that jail, you've hit that one on the head...

i suppose i am a wild-west democratic thinker.

So why do you choose to live and work and raise a family in the not-so-wild east of PA?

i think that within the rule of law there should be ample freedom.  i do not want to be told that i MUST fill out my race or give my social security number - or have no choice in health matters.  and, yet our liberties are taken advantage of by people who do not have citizenship.   should illegal aliens have credit cards that stem from bank of AMERICA?  wierd.

Sure thing - but don't forget that anyone anywhere can have whatever credit card, drivers' licence, social security card, passport, etc. that they wnat as long as they know how to steal or forge it.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i came back to delete the religious part of what i said - but i see you copied it already.  so, what is done is done.  from a religious perspective - you are right in a totally secular world that religion has nothing to do with the laws or constitution of a world system.  in fact, i believe the united nations forced several countries to eliminate any reference to God in their constitutions.  it is a completely secular form of government that will rule next, imo.  and despite the break-up of nations into smaller groups - the ultimate revival of the holy roman empire isn't totally a crazy idea.  the roman empire had many nations and factions under it - and held them together very loosely and yet with force if they tried to be too nationalistic and disregard roman rule.  according to the bible, this 10 toes of the statue in the dream of nebuchadnezzar (daniel 2:42) were made of iron mixed with clay.  the interpretation of God through Daniel was 'and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle.'  some nations take on military directness more than others.  the part of the unified 'beast' will turn into a dictatorship and then eliminate reference to God altogether.  (being Anti-Christ). 

daniel himself saw a dream which confirmed nebuchadnezzar's.  it was a 'fourth beast' (daniel 7:23) in which this fourth beast ' will be a fourth kingdom on the earth (world ruling - fourth reich - so to speak), which will be different from all the other kingdoms (world ruling), and it will devour the WHOLE EARTH and tread it down and crush it.'

now - we have what looks like will happen - on the one hand.  if you look at world news you'd think that nothing is happening.  but, as always with history there is an undercurrent of unresolved conflicts from the last world war.  as i see it - trends can suddenly change and there very well could be as much genocide (mass murder) and for christians and not just jews this time.  in fact, i believe the jews will be the first to see the grace of God because Jesus is coming 'suddenly to his temple.'  'to the jew first...'  but, christians and jews share a common bond.  the law of moses - which Jesus Christ (Yeshua) kept perfectly.  he was a perfect jew - if you want to call him that - and yet was ressurrected to eternity.  so, in the end, race is a moot point.  when we die we subsume into spirit (stephen asked God when he died to 'receive my spirit').  spirit does not have a race!  it is abiding in LIGHT.  the light that Jesus had - in which every color is the color of righteousness.  it is a non-threatening and non-racist belief that every person born has a spiritual potential and everyone has an invitation into the kingdom of God.  there is noone left out excepting anyone who will not come to the table or does not wear 'wedding clothes.'  sometimes that parable is misunderstood, i think, because we don't have to become jews to be like Christ.  we have to become humble and not think of ourselves as BETTER.  wearing wedding clothes means, to me, to have a respect for God AND man.  to respect others as much as ones own self.  if all the nations of the world did this today - there would be peace already.

ps interesting that you bring out the break-up of yugoslavia because i do believe that seems always to be a flaming point for world war.

[ahinton]

i came back to delete the religious part of what i said - but i see you copied it already.  so, what is done is done.

OK.

from a religious perspective - you are right in a totally secular world that religion has nothing to do with the laws or constitution of a world system.

I did not say this. What I did say was that the two things were different, by which I meant (and might have been clearer had I written) independent of one another; that is not, in itself, to say that they are therefore also mutually exclusive; furthermore, I did not say that the world is "totally secular" and I would not say such a thing because it isn't.

in fact, i believe the united nations forced several countries to eliminate any reference to God in their constitutions.

I do not know if that is the case, but the difference (not mutual exclusivity, please note) between laws framed by national constitutions and those laid down by religions is such that this may not necessarily be a bad thing even in countries where religion - or even just one particular religion - is widely practised, for I think that even you might agree that it is not likely to be a good thing for the power of religious doctrine somehow to be weakened and undermined by being mopped up or sucked in by lawyers and constitutional experts just so as to ensure that the law of the land can assume and maintain precedence over religious law (of course, this statement does not apply in the case of countries such as Iran where the government is supposed to be a specifically religious one in any case).

it is a completely secular form of government that will rule next, imo.

Where? In the United States? China? Finland? Australia? At the present, there are religious governments and secular governments, as well as religious practices continuing to be legally sanctioned and condoned in secularly governed countries - and there are countries whose monarchies are autocratic, those whose monarchs are merely figureheads, those run by dictators and those whose governments are voted in and out, so unless your "world government" idea is what you're talking about here, what you predict just won't happen and, in any case, a "world government" is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future either. Why, if you can possibly answer this without resorting to religious matters (and please refarin from answering if not), do you believe that world governemtn is a certainty and in what ways do you predict it being initiated and run?

and despite the break-up of nations into smaller groups - the ultimate revival of the holy roman empire isn't totally a crazy idea.

It is, you know!

the roman empire had many nations and factions under it - and held them together very loosely and yet with force if they tried to be too nationalistic and disregard roman rule.

But isn't that broadly analogous to the United States, where individual states have certain autonomies but there remains an ultimate government run by its President?

according to the bible, this 10 toes of the statue in the dream of nebuchadnezzar (daniel 2:42) were made of iron mixed with clay.  the interpretation of God through Daniel was 'and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle.'  some nations take on military directness more than others.  the part of the unified 'beast' will turn into a dictatorship and then eliminate reference to God altogether.  (being Anti-Christ). 

daniel himself saw a dream which confirmed nebuchadnezzar's.  it was a 'fourth beast' (daniel 7:23) in which this fourth beast ' will be a fourth kingdom on the earth (world ruling - fourth reich - so to speak), which will be different from all the other kingdoms (world ruling), and it will devour the WHOLE EARTH and tread it down and crush it.'

Here you go again! Are you going to delete these two paragraphs in a moment as well?!

now - we have what looks like will happen - on the one hand.  if you look at world news you'd think that nothing is happening.

I wouldn't - and I suggest that no one else would either, unless they're deliberately refusing to take any notice of what they see.

but, as always with history there is an undercurrent of unresolved conflicts from the last world war.  as i see it - trends can suddenly change and there very well could be as much genocide (mass murder) and for christians and not just jews this time.

If you're talking specifically (or even mainly) about the last world war, it certainly wasn't "just Jews" then, either; plenty of Christians and others also lost their lives during those six years. As to "genocide", as I mentioned before, those who were executed other than during that war under the régimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao included many people who were neither Christians nor Jews - several tens of millions altogether, let's not forget...

in fact, i believe the jews will be the first to see the grace of God because Jesus is coming 'suddenly to his temple.'  'to the jew first...'  but, christians and jews share a common bond.  the law of moses - which Jesus Christ (Yeshua) kept perfectly.  he was a perfect jew - if you want to call him that - and yet was ressurrected to eternity.  so, in the end, race is a moot point.  when we die we subsume into spirit (stephen asked God when he died to 'receive my spirit').  spirit does not have a race!  it is abiding in LIGHT.  the light that Jesus had - in which every color is the color of righteousness.  it is a non-threatening and non-racist belief that every person born has a spiritual potential and everyone has an invitation into the kingdom of God.  there is noone left out excepting anyone who will not come to the table or does not wear 'wedding clothes.'  sometimes that parable is misunderstood, i think, because we don't have to become jews to be like Christ.  we have to become humble and not think of ourselves as BETTER.  wearing wedding clothes means, to me, to have a respect for God AND man.  to respect others as much as ones own self.  if all the nations of the world did this today - there would be peace already.

Another great long paragraph that is about religious matters and not constitutional ones! The delete button's below the (...). In any case, since the world is not exclusively populated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, atheists, Zoroastrians, etc., some other mutually acceptable and agreeable route to that peace will have to be found if such peace itself is ever to be established.

ps interesting that you bring out the break-up of yugoslavia because i do believe that seems always to be a flaming point for world war.

Hardly "always", but you are correct to the extent that it has indeed more than once proved to be something of a confrontational tinder-box; the area that was once Yugoslavia is hardly at peace with itself now, but its fragmentation remains indicative, as I suggested, of a move away from, rather than towards, one-world domination.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

was just reading the paper today - and although sometimes i may read it differently as a christian - the same news is there for everyone.  'everyone is getting the first presidential coin free.'  was the title of the article (in the usa paper) that caught my eye.  at first glance i thought it somewhat odd that 'in God we trust' was printed on the edge of the coin and not the front.  then, the free-give away seemed somewhat scammish.  so, reading the fine print - come to find out that they are not guaranteed by the us mint -but rather the world reserve monetary exchange - and CAN be exchanged in the next three days if you call the World Reserve.  it's getting people used to the idea of changing money internationally at the world bank.  the world bank is why bank of america was not fearful of the repercussions of americans towards selling credit cards to illegal aliens.  our system is so far deteriorated that we are not even GUARANTEEING our own presidential coins.  this is a new low.

we have been pawned into accepting 'free gifts' in exchange for our identity.  like esau's bowl of porridge.  our money, our military, our might is being dashed.  it's not too late to pray - but it's really becoming scary.  as i see it - if you are for freedom, for national identity, for human rights - don't buy into a world system.  and read the fine print.

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,

not being as historically sound without reading about wwII again - i vaguely remember that germany was attempting to kill off the serb population in wwII and had no problems recently with agreeing that it should be a break-away state.  germany always had plans for serbia to be a part of itself.  of course, they may say the same for us and iraq.  what are we doing over there?  well, as i see it - we are now over there for the purpose of staging a 'showdown' of christianity and islam - even if we don't intend it.  ie israel is in the heart of the christian population.  and you are right!  there are many many religions - but the world has gone on so many thousands of years and each religion battles to find itself dominant on the world scene.  it is not something done by conversion only.

so - where will this find us in a few years?  i think three camps (non-religious, islamic, and christian)  of course, within each of these camps there are fundamentalists, and non-fundamentalists - and the various groups within each.  but, there is another element that came directly to the fore in hitler's regime.  that was worship of Satan himself.  through astrology and occultism.  that is a 'religion' too - but a false one.  the anti-christ because it mimics the ideas of christianity without adhering to all the words of the bible.  for instance there is blood sacrifice (of the enemy) and all in the name of the 'cause.'  many genocides have been for evil purposes spiritually - but people don't see the demons behind the deeds.  why were the jews targeted?  because they were chosen by God to represent Him to the entire world.  to keep the law holy.  i think if there is to be a revival - it has to start with jerusalem and spread to the entire world.  this world war is about God and His return.  we know from the bible that none of the stones of the temple will be left standing.  that means - jerusalem will have some things to deal with (as iraq has) before a true peace will be established.  when armies surround jerusalem - we know the time is very near for our Savior to return.

[nicco]

You understand the circumstances of the american constitution much better, if you have played "The Day of the Tentacle" 

Possibly the best game in history.

[lichristine]

  Gues what I'm doing right now at 3 am.   

talking on pianostreet?

[ahinton]

was just reading the paper today - and although sometimes i may read it differently as a christian - the same news is there for everyone.  'everyone is getting the first presidential coin free.'  was the title of the article (in the usa paper) that caught my eye.  at first glance i thought it somewhat odd that 'in God we trust' was printed on the edge of the coin and not the front.  then, the free-give away seemed somewhat scammish.  so, reading the fine print - come to find out that they are not guaranteed by the us mint -but rather the world reserve monetary exchange - and CAN be exchanged in the next three days if you call the World Reserve.  it's getting people used to the idea of changing money internationally at the world bank.  the world bank is why bank of america was not fearful of the repercussions of americans towards selling credit cards to illegal aliens.  our system is so far deteriorated that we are not even GUARANTEEING our own presidential coins.  this is a new low.

we have been pawned into accepting 'free gifts' in exchange for our identity.  like esau's bowl of porridge.  our money, our military, our might is being dashed.  it's not too late to pray - but it's really becoming scary.  as i see it - if you are for freedom, for national identity, for human rights - don't buy into a world system.  and read the fine print.

But all that you write about here is specifically Americanocentric only and, whilst I am not undermining the importance of America, it's not something that's happening simultaneously across the entire globe - AND it's only what you've read in an American newspaper...

Best,

Alistair

[rach n bach]

talking on pianostreet?

Well....   

[ahinton]

dear alistair,

not being as historically sound without reading about wwII again - i vaguely remember that germany was attempting to kill off the serb population in wwII and had no problems recently with agreeing that it should be a break-away state.  germany always had plans for serbia to be a part of itself.  of course, they may say the same for us and iraq.  what are we doing over there?  well, as i see it - we are now over there for the purpose of staging a 'showdown' of christianity and islam - even if we don't intend it.

No - that's not the case. What US, British and other forces are doing over there may be open to endless arguments and few reliable conclusions but, whatever the reasons and motives, pitching Christians against Muslims with a specific aim of a "showdown" between the two groups simply isn't it; all the forces active in Iraq are not Christian in any case.

so - where will this find us in a few years?  i think three camps (non-religious, islamic, and christian)

What? No other groups at all? Who will have seen off all the other religions, then?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear rach n bach,

sorry if this thread went off tangent.  how did your paper go?  at least you see individual ideas here about whether the constitution was a God-given blessing for the rights and liberties that we have - or only humanistic in reasoning.  i think it was a combination.  and, actually one of the first acts of congress was to get a bible printed in america.

changing back to what alistair and i have been discussing - i found out that in 1908 a coin was issued (as gold one dollar coins are now) without the motto 'in God we trust' on it.  they were the st. gaudens double eagle coin.  there was an outcry from citizens and they put the motto back on.  this time - noone noticed or cared.  i didn't see any newspaper articles addressing it at all.  in fact, they're kind of dead in the head when it comes to even who is backing this stupid currency.  it's not even us mint.  it's the WORLD bank.  now, other countries have been dealing with their own debt in their own way - but we knew it would catch up to us sooner or later.  that is what results from fiat money and also owing so much debt to other countries.  the dollar was overtaken by the euro in december 2006.

now, as i see it - if you buy into the system now - you are NOT buying into AMerica even if you see presidents on the front of the coin.  in my estimation - the world bank gave the edict of 'no mottos with God' - although i cannot prove this.  otherwise we would not be so desperate as to leave God out.  it's on the side of the coin -but unreadable.  on one other coin the word 'liberty' is left off of the statue of liberty as supposedly people will assume there is liberty by the statue.  are words now meaningless?  is liberty that is fought for worthless? 

in wikipedia 'senate bill 1047 was introduced in the US Senate on May 17, 2005 by Senator John E. Sununu with over 70 co-sponsors.  It was reported favorably out of the US Senate Committee on Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs without Ammendment on July 29, 2005.  The House of Representatives (yes, really representative, huh!) passed it (291-113) on Dec. 13, 2005.  The engrossed bill was presented to President George Bush on Dec. 15, 2005, and he signed it into law on Dec. 22, 2005.'

i am outraged that the public had no say.

[rach n bach]

It went pretty good considering the time constrictions... 

Oh, and if this goes much further off topic somebody can go ahead and start a new thread.

And yes, if you accept moral relitivsm totally, then words have no meaning. 

Unfortunately, because of the "representitive" system we have set up, the people who voted for this bill are suppposed to be representing the people in their jusritiction.  What do you think would happen if we had every bill had to be passed by a direct vote from the people?  Chaos. Really, there are way to many issues that they disscuss up there... that's why they get the full-time jobs.  They are supposed to be reporting back to us and getting a feel for how we the people believe.  Or at least, that's the way it is supposed to work...  Don't get me wrong, I don't like the bill, but unless we can find something unconstitutional about it, and get it into the federal court system, there isn't anything we can do.

RnB

[cmg]

i am outraged that the public had no say.

You DO have a say.  You have representatives from your state whom you may contact and you are very welcome to subscribe to the "Congressional Record" to keep yourself informed.  If you want to influence the government, you have to work very hard at it.  Killing the infidel just isn't enough.

[ahinton]

you see individual ideas here about whether the constitution was a God-given blessing for the rights and liberties that we have - or only humanistic in reasoning.

Unless you are aware of "rach n bach"'s stance or otherwise on religion, I don't think that it seems either fair or realistic to assume that he "can see" anything of the sort, actually.

i think it was a combination.  and, actually one of the first acts of congress was to get a bible printed in america.

Well, that's abit misleading, I think; it might indeed have been one of the first Acts of Congress but that doesn't mean that the Bibles produced in accordance with it were the first ones ever to be seen in America.

changing back to what alistair and i have been discussing - i found out that in 1908 a coin was issued (as gold one dollar coins are now) without the motto 'in God we trust' on the FRONT.  they were the st. gaudens double eagle coin.  there was an outcry from citizens and they put the motto back on.  this time - noone noticed or cared.  i didn't see any newspaper articles addressing it at all.  in fact, they're kind of dead in the head when it comes to even who is backing this stupid currency.  it's not even us mint.  it's the WORLD bank.  now, other countries have been dealing with their own debt in their own way - but we knew it would catch up to us sooner or later.  that is what results from fiat money and also owing so much debt to other countries.  the dollar was overtaken by the euro in december 2006.

But, frankly, so what? Coin is being increasingly used less and less, partly becuase of fears of the risks attached to money laundering. This year - the 150th anniversary year of Elgar's birth - it has been decided to withdraw his picture from the UK £20 note and replace it with that of Adam Smith. No one much cares about that either. Currency values can and do go up and down at a whim and, in any case, since almost the entire world is indebted, from governments to individuals, its actual worth is even more mythical than once it may have been. So why anyone would give a fig about whether coins used less and less frequently by religious people and atheists alike do or do not have "In God we trust" on them is far from clear. The only way I ever even remember that phrase is when it is uttered in full, as in "In God we trust; all others pay cash".

now, as i see it - if you buy into the system now - you are NOT buying into AMerica even if you see presidents on the front of the coin.  in my estimation - the world bank gave the edict of 'no mottos with God' - although i cannot prove this.  otherwise we would not be so desperate as to leave God out.  it's on the side of the coin -but unreadable.  on one other coin the word 'liberty' is left off of the statue of liberty as supposedly people will assume there is liberty by the statue.  are words now meaningless?  is liberty that is fought for worthless?

No. Certainly not. But the coins that may or may not be emblazoned with references thereto are worth less and less. Don't forget that, in UK, the Royal Mint has had to change the chemical constitution of UK coins on a number of occasions beause their metal value was overtaking their purely monetary value; we are in a relatively low inflation period right now and have been for some years, so this is rather less of an issue now than once it was.

in wikipedia 'senate bill 1047 was introduced in the US Senate on May 17, 2005 by Senator John E. Sununu (was he a citizen born in the US? - holding to the rights of the constitution - or wanting to attach himself to a world-government and eliminate traces of US sovereignty?) with over 70 co-sponsors.  It was reported favorably out of the US Senate Committee on Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs without Ammendment on July 29, 2005.  The House of Representatives (yes, really representative, huh!) passed it (291-113) on Dec. 13, 2005.  The engrossed bill was presented to President George Bush on Dec. 15, 2005, and he signed it into law on Dec. 22, 2005.'

i am outraged that the public had no say.

I cannot comment on this because you appear to omit to tell us what that bill contained that President Bush signed into law on the date you mention.

Best,

Alistair

[living_stradivarius]

I suggest that everyone read/review the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of the issues surrounding the formation of the Constitution. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were very perceptive about the issues the nation could run into over time.


Pianistimo, before you sling racial/ethnic epithets at Senator Sununu, I suggest you read more on his background.

[pianistimo]

thank you cmg and alistair for your observations.  what i meant, alistair, was signed into law was leaving OUT the motto on the front of the coin, 'in God we trust,' and minting these presidential coins as though the public was fully aware the motto would be unreadable on the side of the coin.

something else sneaky that has been going on is that the committee for housing and urban affairs now calls itself 'BANKING, housing, and urban affairs.'  why?  because it wants the ability to put a GSE (government sponsored enterprise - controlling fannie mae, freddie mac, and the federal home loan banks) into receivership.  GSE has always had privleges that other's don't - namely 2.25 BILLION line of credit from the us treasury.

https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/gse/gse.cfm  your tax dollars at work. 

sununu isn't american if he randomly decides with 70 cosigners to do something to us currency.  i do not like him.  but, of course, cmg and alistair are right that the coin itself may prove more potent by what is in it than on it.  for me, personally, it's like saying - let's burn the constitution tommorrow out in times square.  for as many men as we've lost - i think God should be added back in ASAP or we're going to keep losing big time.  God is our strength.

[living_stradivarius]

The costs associated with structural changes to the Constitution are immense. If you are concerned about execution of governmental responsibilities and corruption, other means are less risky and more effective.

The Constitution is founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State.

[thalbergmad]

Here we are again
Happy as can be
All good friends
And wonderful company.

[pianistimo]

i admit barely passing a government class - and readily see the antiquity of laws in the 1700's (even though so many amendments) to today.  i know you are right about some things (between our opinions) - living_stradivarius, and i respect what you are saying.  i suppose i should just go stand in front of mt rushmore and make sure somebody doesn't change the faces anytime soon.  it's like one of the last things that i can think of that hasn't been ruined.

hello, thal.  just for you i bicycled 15 miles today and didn't eat lunch.  are you still coming - or are you now afraid of me?  i'm really quite neutrally charged on most things not dealing with religion and politics.  well, sex is an item - too - but i try not to talk about it.  i mean, there are so many people that already do.  you just have to take some things on faith.  anywyas, i'm married.

[living_stradivarius]

It's all about political balance. That's why interest groups exist. Politics is driven by competition. If you are worried, be a competitor. If you feel Mt. Rushmore is in danger, lobby in Washington.

[cmg]

i suppose i should just go stand in front of mt rushmore and make sure somebody doesn't change the faces anytime soon.  it's like one of the last things that i can think of that hasn't been ruined.

I wouldn't worry about Mt. Rushmore, if I were you.  It's just another Urban Myth that someone carved those faces up there.  It's a totally natural formation. 

(God's Hand Is Everywhere! Hosanna Hokum in the Highest!!)

[rach n bach]

The Constitution is founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State.

Please provide us with a quote.  I couldn't find this in the Constituion, or in the federalist papers... 

RnB

[living_stradivarius]

First Amendment of the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

A further look into the drafter's thinking:
"Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States... practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" - James Madison

[rach n bach]

Finish the ammendment... "or prohibiting the free exercies thereof..."

Wait, so you are for an original intent interpertation?  Also, before we get any farther, how do you define "seperation of Church and State?"

RnB

[pianistimo]

witchcraft is a religion and harry potter books were required reading for my son's fifth grade class.  go and look in the libraries. you'll find all kinds of non-historical silly stuff, but factoid historical books and books on religion have been weeded out.  why?  to dumb down americans.  unless you have a really unusual library - you're better off at barnes and noble.

the freedom of church and state doesn't mean that people cannot exercise their religion freely.  take prayer for instance.  who has the power to ban that?

[ahinton]

thank you cmg and alistair for your observations.  what i meant, alistair, was signed into law was leaving OUT the motto on the front of the coin, 'in God we trust,' and minting these presidential coins as though the public was fully aware the motto would be unreadable on the side of the coin.

OK - well, thanks for that; now I understand what you were writing about, I still say "so what?", however; I just do not think that it is important other than symbolically - and not even that any more if people do not use the cash as they used to do.

something else sneaky that has been going on is that the committee for housing and urban affairs now calls itself 'BANKING, housing, and urban affairs.'  why?  because it wants the ability to put a GSE (government sponsored enterprise - controlling fannie mae, freddie mac, and the federal home loan banks) into receivership.  GSE has always had privleges that other's don't - namely 2.25 BILLION line of credit from the us treasury.

https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/gse/gse.cfm  your tax dollars at work.

But then why would you assume that a government would not find any excuse or none to steal your money and control at least part of what you might otherwise have wanted to do with it? always remember that, even in Communist states, the government has no money except what it can take off its people and it won't take any off them if it fails to make any. 

sununu isn't american if he randomly decides with 70 cosigners to do something to us currency.  i do not like him.  but, of course, cmg and alistair are right that the coin itself may prove more potent by what is in it than on it.  for me, personally, it's like saying - let's burn the constitution tommorrow out in times square.  for as many men as we've lost - i think God should be added back in ASAP or we're going to keep losing big time.  God is our strength.

I didn't say what you appear to attribute to me here; I simply do not believe that anyone other than professional numismatists care a fig for what's on a coin or a banknote or what may be removed therefrom. PLEASE stop bringing God into this at every opportunity and/or none; even He must be getting abit fed up with it by now...(!)

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

back to separation of church and state.  why don't we just declare ourselves socialist and admit that the separation isn't a separation - it's a obliteration of church.  and yet, who does the government call on in catastrophic events to help feed and house?  the church.  ironic.  very much so...because they don't organize as fast as churches do to respond to needs.  hmmm.  maybe God is more organized?  less bureacracy.  maybe He cares about people more?

i hope nobody buys those coins.  if i ever get my hands on one - i'll bury it six feet under.  although, i suppose melting it makes better sense.  not really sure what exactly they are made of.  just read that some of them do not have the motto 'in God we trust' even on the edges.  an 'error' supposedly.

https://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=7fffef04-f21f-40f2-8654-b739df6e3198&k=64770

[pianistimo]

psst.  to top it off - they are 'gold colored.'  what is going on.  getting americans hyped about BUYING THESE FOR $50. (without the motto) on e-bay.  people are stupid.  don't they know what the coins metal value is?  probably 79 cents.

when they try to sell them again - it will be like a happy meal toy gone bad.

[living_stradivarius]

witchcraft is a religion and harry potter books were required reading for my son's fifth grade class.  go and look in the libraries. you'll find all kinds of non-historical silly stuff, but factoid historical books and books on religion have been weeded out.  why?  to dumb down americans.  unless you have a really unusual library - you're better off at barnes and noble.

the freedom of church and state doesn't mean that people cannot exercise their religion freely.  take prayer for instance.  who has the power to ban that?

Harry Potter books do not teach witchcraft as a religion. It is simply a basis for the plot  and setting. Stories revolving around the church and certain religious parables are used as well... though they are probably not as popular or interesting.

[living_stradivarius]

i hope nobody buys those coins.  if i ever get my hands on one - i'll bury it six feet under.  although, i suppose melting it makes better sense.  not really sure what exactly they are made of.  just read that some of them do not have the motto 'in God we trust' even on the edges.  an 'error' supposedly.

https://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=7fffef04-f21f-40f2-8654-b739df6e3198&k=64770

Doesn't Jesus teach us NOT to bury coins in the ground?     
Matthew 25:14-30

[pianistimo]

so you DO read the bible, too.  well, you're alright.  i'm ready to read your essay on moral relativism.  you said reagan, churchill, and RACHMANINOV?  how did he get into this?

did you know that reagan and rach had attention deficit problems.  and, well, churchill was dyslexic.  but, all three were star quality.  they really didn't seem to worry about occasional mishaps because the general direction of their lives was moral.

[rach n bach]

When you have less than a half hour to write a two page essay... well, your mind makes strange connections...

[pianistimo]

i suppose those are the favorites of most teachers - even if they complain.

[ahinton]

back to separation of church and state.  why don't we just declare ourselves socialist and admit that the separation isn't a separation - it's a obliteration of church.

Who's "we"? The American people? Or other countries' people as well (and, if so, which ones and why?). And why "socialist"? Your statement sounds almost as though only a socialist state can separate the Church from the government. That's plainly not the case. In UK, we have what is called an "established" Church - the Church of England, Church of Scotland, etc. - which is a Protestant Christian Church; heads of state and the royal family are supposed to be subscribers to this, but there is no bar on members of the House of Commons, the House of Lords or the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies that are Roman Catholic, agnostic, atheist or of other faith and it is in any case only in quite exceptional circumstances that the Church appears overtly to try to interfere in any way with the running of the state so, in practice, Church and state are, to a large extent, kept reasonably separate in UK. We have an increasingly weak and discredited pink-nappy, nanny-socialist government in UK right now but we have not always had this and it won't last much longer; even in the very different days of Margaret Thatcher, however, Church and state were pretty much as separate as they are now. That didn't and doesn't appear to constitute a problem in itself, either for members of parliament, archbishops or anyone else. No one here is calling for the "obliteration" of the established Church; even some of the few extreme left-wingers accept that the Church has its place, even if not necessarily for them. Would you advocate a Christian equivalent of the People's Islamic Republic of Whereveristan, where Church and state are largely inseparable?

and yet, who does the government call on in catastrophic events to help feed and house?  the church.  ironic.  very much so...because they don't organize as fast as churches do to respond to needs.  hmmm.  maybe God is more organized?  less bureacracy.  maybe He cares about people more?

I can't speak for US, but that certainly doesn't apply over here in UK! The Church does its bit in times of catastrophe, of course, but then so do many other organisations; no one throws up their hands in despair at such times and calls in the Church as though it's another emergency service like the police, fire and ambulance departments.

i hope nobody buys those coins.  if i ever get my hands on one - i'll bury it six feet under.  although, i suppose melting it makes better sense.  not really sure what exactly they are made of.  just read that some of them do not have the motto 'in God we trust' even on the edges.  an 'error' supposedly.

But if the coins were to reflect a more realistic and honest representation of present-day users of the currency, the appropriately revised phrase "In God some of us trust" would surely either require a smaller point size or larger coins? Come to think of it, the full phrase would then presumably have to be something like "In God some of us trust; the rest pay by Mastercard or Visa"...

Best,

Alistair