What difference does that make? It was voted on in 2007 in the Senate and 2011 in the House. The issue is what the phrase means today, not what it meant 150 years ago. You are aware that any votes by Congress in date A nullifies a vote in Date B if Date A is more current than Date B, right?
You’ll have to take that up with Czarcasm, because this is the statement we are debating:
Well, I’m discussing the religious makeup of the 39th Congress(1865-1867) that voted this into being in the first place-I have no idea what the fuck you are bringing to this particular part of the conversation.
Plenty of atheists have given their lives for this country too, fighting alongside those Christians who you want to remember. And those atheists who died for America had a harder time than any of today’s Christians have gone through. So they deserve the comfort of knowing their beliefs are given equal respect to yours.
Intent might sometimes be relevant in discerning a public purpose if it is a difficult question, and is entirely relevant in other types of legal analysis, but in establishment clause jurisprudence showing a public purpose can foreclose any further discussion of intent and make it irrelevant. Like I said, it is permissible for Congress to stumble blindly into a public purpose with completely obnoxious intent. It is fascinating how evil intent can sometimes lead to unforeseen good consequences, and I believe (as my opinion, not necessarily as the state of the law) our law seems to recognize that in a number of ways.
Nice, and valid if supportable with facts, but Congress simply did not choose to do this. They could and I’d not complain in any legal sense.
If someday getting over a monumental challenge to the nation is supported by a belief in Allah, I am capable of recognizing that is worth remembering too.
Yes I agree, an atheist might have a harder time reasoning why he should run headlong to almost certain death. No matter how you put it, this is a hard thing to do.
But I seriously doubt any super-majority of our people ever cited atheism as a reason to die in the name of ending a great evil. Irrational or not, a belief in an afterlife makes it a little easier to get the job done, if dying is what is required.
But I admit to bias too, in favor of remembering the Christian heritage of ending slavery because my family history is rich in abolitionists arguing God requires us to do this, (as well as soldiers who died–on both sides–brother fighting brother is a fairly real thing to me because I can name names of my ancestors and their close relatives who died in this war, ad some who came out alive.) and that is what got slavery ended more than anything–a belief it was the will of God. I know the subject deeply because of our family oral stories and the genealogy papers tracing the family. I’ve got a lot of family pride on this that is hard to set aside.
Even if I were an atheist I’d still respect this a great deal, because even stupid reasons to do something that needed done as badly as the civil war did (or the abolition of slavery) are worth doing even if your reason for it is dumb as a box of rocks.
Anyways, due to being told these stories from a young age
John Rankin was my great great several greats Grandpa. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin after becoming familiar with Reverend Rankin’s underground railroad, said by many to be the first, but no-one is really sure of which was first. We have a signed-by-Stowe first edition dedicated to Reverend Grandpa and thanking him for the inspiration. This is a family treasure that I risked arrest for after police and fireman commands to not go into her burning house. When they saw what I went in for, they all shut up.
I’d rather die than let this book be lost, I told them. They were all nodding.
Conceivably this book is worth hundreds of thousands or more–my mom refuses to appraise because I have a problem atheist brother who hates that book and what it means to our family because he wants to erase that He’s already said he will damn well sell it and divide the money if ti falls into his hands, meanwhile, my firm upholding of our family heritage has caused my mother to will it to me and she refuses to add to family controversy by all of us knowing how much the book is worth. That and I was the only one of six brothers and sisters to say, “fuck this, the firemen won’t go in for a mere “book,” but I sure as hell will.” Yes, we all expect my brother to sue and say she wasn’t in her right mind to try to get it. It’s all dollars to him. I will probably put it in a museum, perhaps see if Ohio will maintain it at Rankin House itself, that’s where I think it belongs, in a museum, all Indiana Jones like. Don;t tell my mom, she wants it continued to be handed down. I want it beyond reach of people like my brother who might be in my family’s future.
So yeah, I might put more emphasis on Christianity’s influence in ending slavery than some might–but I have seen a lot of Reverend Rankin’s letters, and I know there were a lot of people talking God’s will in that time.
Not really relevant, but I sure like telling the story, and it is somewhat amusing. some people think.
Of course not; there’s never been a majority of atheists.
Christianity also supported and promoted slavery. It was after all a very successful way of converting the descendents of the enslaved people to Christianity, as well as useful for excusing it. And what ultimately ended slavery more than anything else as that it was finally recognized as economically non-viable.
No offense, but your brother is an idiot. I’m an atheist and a genealogist and would feel about that type of document in my family the way you do. I’d also probably donate it since museums and the like have professionals to store, maintain it and make it available for others to see.
I also have Bibles from both grandmothers and my maternal grandfather. They are a part of my family history as much as land, marriage, probate records etc. Throwing them away or selling them cutting off one of the few connections I have with my ancestors. Hopefully your brother will get wiser as he gets older.
38th Congress.
I think we’re both half right. From Wiki:
It started with the 38th, and finished with the 39th.
No need to get so testy. If you really have “no idea” what my posts say, then I guess there isn’t much point debating you on this subject. One of us either can’t read or one of us can’t articulate to the satisfaction of the other person.
Lots of statements are ridiculous if you take them out of context. Did you read the rest of the thread?
I know what your posts say, and I know that they are off-topic as to the point I have been making about how this all started and the motives behind those who started it. Do any of the words in the previous sentence jump out at you, John Mace?
edited to add: If that wasn’t articulate enough for you, just let me know.
Yes. Jews are not Christians. Period. Full stop. If you want to lump them together as “Judeo-Christians” - fine. Lump them together as “monotheists” - fine too. But Jews are not Christians and any time you say “non-Christians”, Jews qualify.
Your reverence for the original intent of the law is refreshing. May I assume that you will also be applying that reverence in discussions of other laws?
No, you may not assume that an approach to one situation is equally valid in all other situations. Real life is just a bit more complicated than that.
The “In God We Trust” bill was passed on on March 3, 1865, the last day of the old Congress. The 39th Congress was sworn in on March 4, 1865, which was also the day that President Lincoln started his second term.
So you don’t think
was the tag end of the whole thing?
Since the motto has been re-affirmed by both Houses of Congress in the** last 10 years**, what difference does it make now what people thought about it 150 years ago? Especially since 90% of Americans support it today.
Your original argument was that we knew “God” was “The Christian God” because everyone in Congress who voted for it was Christian. But that is no longer true, and so your argument cannot be valid today (not that I think it was valid 20 years ago, either).
What are the peculiarities of this issue that make such an approach appropriate to it, especially in light of current events? It seems to me that “we voted on it again recently” pretty much makes its original intent moot.
All I wanted to do was bring up the history behind the motto. I wasn’t making an argument about the people that are supporting it today.