It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you agree with this quote?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Is that too out there for a national leader or just right?




posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
There should be no mention of a specifice religion in the statement if uttered or written by someone within the government. The individual should be the basis of national life.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   


I was wondering why Joe P.'s teams have been in the toilet lately.......he was pretty awful on the live CSPAN feed I saw.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I don't think religion should be brought into government either but I agree with emphasis on family. I don't think that can be over stated.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Well it depends, sometimes religion can be viewed as a way of life and therefore the countrys running must be change to suit this religion.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

There should no be mention of religion in government, but the rest I agree with.

From what I understand the Presidents of the United States swear on a Masonic Bible is this true and if so why?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
It's not really religion being discussed, no? We have had nations rise & fall since "A.D." ; isn't that a valid summation, the "foundation" part?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
First of all just like everybody has stated Religion should not be an Issue.

(The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation)

In this part I see as a if this government will use force to make me and the nation cooperate with its personal views.

(to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity)

In this part is obviously giving a warning to none Christians in this country, I see it as telling people of other religious denomination to be careful about exercising their religious beliefs because Christians will always win.

(as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." )

I see this part as making Christianity national religion in this country. And it will be Christianity for all regardless on beliefs.

That is my opinion this sound like the views of a fanatic, a religious fanatic



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Is that too out there for a national leader or just right?


Who knows! If it's still in reach, It's going to be a long walk to get there again. Also, I agree that Religion shouldn't be the issue. Not everyone is a Chritian. I'm Native American, My beleifs are very different from those of most people. Also, there is a seperation of church and state in the US for a reason.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Is that too out there for a national leader or just right?


It's kind of surprising more people aren't jumping on this as 100% dead on what they believe. Add the word "Judao" to Christian and this is pretty much the basis for everything Bush or half the Senate argues for.

Protecting the sanctity of marriage, allowing prayer in school, the ten commandments in courthouses, outlawing abortions...whatever. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT, RIGHT?

[Edited on 21-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I have no problem with this. Morality is completely (and I mean completely 100%) subjective, and we can live by what moral codes we chose as a society to define ourselves as.

The "Christian foundation" (or Judeo-Christian) is basically what the world uses as it's moral compass.

I would just like to chose a foundation rather than distroy the one we have by fighting and nitpicking it to death. Either re-enforce the one we have, or come up with a new one.

America will fall should there not be a foundation. Once it is gone, there will be nothing to base it on but our current ideas and pre-exsisting laws (which number too high to count, and much too high to enforce). This is the problem with the Judicial system. The legalities have become too conveluded so that any case can go any way depending on how much you dig, and digging costs money.

Now we have a money = defense situation.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I'm not a member of any organization advocating the separation of Church and State.

But I don't agree that the foundations of a "national" morality in a much-abused religion are appropriate.

How is it different in principle to an Islamic state?

It's all good for fuelling crusades and the war machine.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
I don't think religion should be brought into government



now if only iran would get that message.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I'm not a member of any organization advocating the separation of Church and State.

But I don't agree that the foundations of a "national" morality in a much-abused religion are appropriate.

How is it different in principle to an Islamic state?

It's all good for fuelling crusades and the war machine.


Regardless, America is based in Judeo-Christian morals.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." --Adolph Hitler, 'My New World Order Proclamation' Berlin, February 1, 1933

The intent here was to show how far we've come, or how much we've stayed the same, on this subject.
Given the author beforehand, most would have given a knee jerk dismissal of the statement. But, if given to our GOP majority in the same context with the author hidden, I'm sure they'd all attest to it's veracity. Tom Delay is on record as saying the same. Ashkroft annoints himself with Crisco, Bush takes direction from his Savior ( now if we find that's Jesus, Id be suprised!!), and so on.
It's such a tread worn aspect of poor leadership: ralley the masses & tell them they've decayed from the inside & to give themselves to sterner stuff and Deist rule....then maybe, they'll be as good as their father's father.

That's what we have going on now; but in hyperdrive. It's a big base, but no where near a majority one. I am a moral person, so are you. The "saving" needs to be done on the country, so that it can be delivered from poor leadership & continued rape.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Krazy,

You write "Regardless, America is based in Judeo-Christian morals."

True, However the founding fathers created a country where everyone has the right to there own religion.. they never wanted a "national" religion put in place.. nor stressed the country should be run based on Christian morals.. but what is good for the people.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
He got the religion wrong


"The Government will regard as its first and foremost duty to revive the spirit of unity and cooperation in the nation and to preserve and defend its basic principles of Pixianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the pixies as the basis of national life."



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Krazy,

You write "Regardless, America is based in Judeo-Christian morals."

True, However the founding fathers created a country where everyone has the right to there own religion.. they never wanted a "national" religion put in place.. nor stressed the country should be run based on Christian morals.. but what is good for the people.


OK, again. What's the point. Because it was formed upon the principles does not endorse it as a national religion or anything relating to that.

My point is, is that it is based on them because the majority of the civilized world is based on them, as is most of it's religions.

So, basically what does it matter where the view comes from? The society we live in has the right to define morals as it sees fit, mainly because ALL morals are subjective. There must be some moral guildlines, and since 86% (roughly) of Americans are religious then it stands to reason that most are swayed by it.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I am pro-morals too.... but you can be a moral person and not be a religious person.. morals don't always have to be religious based... they are a "code of conduct" on how one should treat people in a way of common sense.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Bout Time (btw, how are things?) on the flip side of what Bush said, which doesn't really bother me all that much btw, after all 80%+ of Americans are said to be Christian, and I'll spare you the founding fathers stuff, doesn't it bother you that Kerry, a so-called Catholic, votes and supports, time and time again, for things that aren't in line with the catholic faith? I mean, is he, or is he not Catholic? Total opposite of a Catholic, imho.

meaningless political analysis for Bout Time: That's where Dennis the Menace went wrong. IMHO. He WAS a typical Clevelander: Pro-life, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-meat, Catholic-Democrat, etc. He goes vegan and pro-abortion and his political career is almost over.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join