Official Religion of the United States

a reply to: arpgme

NGO means non-government organization.

a reply to: Annee

But this is not NGO (Noahide laws in the US): .gov site

Although, the laws are not enforced yet.

Of course, at first, they'll need to form a NGO for the UN members approving this. The whole world won't easily agree.

Keep in mind most groups start off as NGO and then grow as they gain more followers, then it becoms gov involved / a political movement.

originally posted by: [post=19302255]
Keep in mind most groups start off as NGO and then grow as they gain more followers, then it becoms gov involved / a political movement.

That's really stretching the paranoia.

I'm atheist. I'm not concerned.

a reply to: Annee

It's not a concern, yet, just something to be aware of. The fact that the religious noahide laws made its way into law at all is something to be aware of.

The Constitution grants Freedom of Religion, claiming that these religious noahide laws which demands worship of the old testament war god yahweh, is the "bedrock of society" (as stated in the .gov site) is granting favor to one religion over the others.

a reply to: arpgme
.

The Constitution gives Freedom of Religion, noahide / laws signed in 1991 forbids it. Why are more people not talking about this?

Hello arpgme,

After a 3 1/2 year silence, this thread has now been bumped.

Thank you. Perhaps it is time to think about this again.

a reply to: Annee
.
Hello Annee,

I'm atheist. I'm not concerned.

And yet you posted? Why is that?

If it isn't too much to ask, would you be willing to describe what being atheist means to you?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Annee
.
Hello Annee,

I'm atheist. I'm not concerned.

And yet you posted? Why is that?

If it isn't too much to ask, would you be willing to describe what being atheist means to you?

My interest is Social Anthropologie.

Also, 100% separation of church and state. But, I don't see any issue here that concerns me.

Atheist is "lack of belief in a god". That's it.

My personal independent belief is: god and religion are both man made creations.

a reply to: Annee
Is this what you mean, or is Social Anthropologie differentiated?

Social Anthroplogy
Topics of interest for social anthropologists have included customs, economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, kinship and family structure, gender relations, childbearing and socialization, religion, while present-day social anthropologists are also concerned with issues of globalism, ethnic violence, gender studies, trans nationalism and local experience, and the emerging cultures of cyberspace,

My personal independent belief is: god and religion are both man made creations.

If I'm reading this correctly, For you, your default position is no gods.

Religion and gods exist as man made. If so then, we (or I) may assume that some purpose was being served, or goal in mind when they were created.

This thread concerns a conscious attempt to set a particular mythological deity as the officially recognized default creator and sustainer of civilization.

It seems to me that this should be of some concern to anyone interested in the workings of social systems and interactions. That's why I started the thread. I'm not quite sure yet how I want to proceed with this problem. Should I look for a different approach?

a reply to: pthena

There's the lone ant, then there is the ant hill.

Awareness that the lone ant can develop into a colony is enough for me at this time.

I have no desire to go beyond awareness at this time.

Good luck with your thread.

This may shed some light....... a pretty tough act to follow.

www.facebook.com...

a reply to: Plotus

Thank you for the link.

Transcript of speech here: Jonathan Cahn Says This Is the Only Way to Save America From Hell .

opening of speech:

On this night, over two hundred years ago, George Washington held in his hand the first ever presidential address. In that address was a prophetic warning: It was this:"the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained." In other words, if America should ever turn away from God and His ways, if it should ever disregard His eternal rules of order and right, then His blessings, the smiles of Heaven, would be removed from the land.

compare: excerpt of Washington's speech:

I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

WASHINGTON'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF 1789

What do you make of the speech?

To me it's just a constitutionally protected speech.

a reply to: pthena

George Washington believed in God, but that doesn't mean he believed in the bible or noahide laws:

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.

-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

He believed each person should have the right to their own beliefs about God. The guy in that link you posted made it seem like by "order", George Washington meant biblical or noahide.

a reply to: arpgme

The guy in that link you posted made it seem like by "order", George Washington meant biblical or noahide.

Washington said Almighty once, never said God, never said Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, never said Israel or God of Israel, or Noah or Moses or Bible.
What he did say seems kind of a deist heaven ordained natural law, as in natural order.
"the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government".

I didn't want to quote the whole speech because it's the guy's own web page. He sent his own speech to the news service as a self promotion. Not really newsworthy.

In other words, if America should ever turn away from God and His ways,

Obviously Washington never said that, he just pretends that he did.

His speech is easily picked apart. What sucks about the whole thing is that so many Congress people show up to listen to this garbage, and want to be seen listening to it as if that somehow increases their credibility.

You might also be interested in a thread I did 3 years ago, The One Sided Nature of Jewish and Christian Dialog

originally posted by: pthena
Washington said Almighty once, never said God, never said Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, never said Israel or God of Israel, or Noah or Moses or Bible.

Washington did actually use the word God in both public writings and speeches as well as personal writings and correspondence. He did this a total of 146 times. However, he never mentioned Christianity specifically, with one exception in which he said to the Delaware indian Chiefs that "learning the religion of Jesus Christ is the most important thing they can do". Aside from that, his attitude, lack of even admitting he was a Christian despite being implored to do so or even bringing up Christianity and the tone of his speeches and writing gives him the appearance of being if not one, very much influenced by Deist thought and writing.

In other words, if America should ever turn away from God and His ways,

Obviously Washington never said that, he just pretends that he did.

no, the closest he came to something like that was his Farewell Address-

Washington believed in the importance of religion for republican government. His 1796 Farewell Address, written by Alexander Hamilton and revised by himself, said that it was unrealistic to expect that a whole nation, whatever might be said of minds of peculiar structure, could long be moral without religion, that national morality is necessary for good government, and that politicians should cherish religion's support of national morality:


Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

As to the topic of the OP, I think you're jumping the shark just a little bit by giving too much credit to a Hasidic movement that is super into Kabbalah. Hasids aren't even considered Jewish by "real Jews". They are an extant cult by their standards and do not speak for or represent the average Jew anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for the Catholic Church or Church of England. The joint resolution in now way whatsoever has any sort of binding effect of the nature you are fearful of. Aside from a new amendment repealing or altering the 1st Amendment, no law can supersede the US Constitution. It's that simple. There is not nor can there be, a state sanctioned religion in the US.

If it makes you feel better, I came across someone else who's views on this resolution have not just jumped the shark, they've caught a ride on the Phoenix Lander to Mars! Check out this insane fear mongering, it's good for a laugh or 3. Keep in mind that this is attributed to a former US Congressman who served when this resolution was passed and signed.


www.takebackourrights.org...

a reply to: peter vlar

Washington did actually use the word God in both public writings and speeches as well as personal writings and correspondence.

I was referring to usage in the inaugural speech. I should have been more specific in wording.

I think you're jumping the shark just a little bit by giving too much credit to a Hasidic movement that is super into Kabbalah. Hasids aren't even considered Jewish by "real Jews".

I have to admit that I haven't thought about this Noahide issue in the last couple of years.

Their mission is for the benefit of worldwide Jewry. They do have access and influence with U.S. politicians. In that position they may be viewed as a powerful lobby.

Whether the group that pushes for Noahide is minority or not, the Noahide laws are in the Talmud. The Talmud is not a minority only work of writing.

Aside from a new amendment repealing or altering the 1st Amendment, no law can supersede the US Constitution. It's that simple. There is not nor can there be, a state sanctioned religion in the US.

If the Supreme Court ruled a certain way on certain cases, a precedent could be set which could theoretically have the same effect, without a change in the constitution. That's why there are groups of people who pay lawyers to testify in the Supreme Court in ways to caution the Justices.

An executive order, if not countered by Congress or Supreme court could result in the favoring of one religion over another without a change in Constitution.

Freedom of religion does not seem to be automatically safeguarded, some effort and work and vigilance seems to be required.

Thank you.