Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Woodruff]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

That doesn't really make any sense.

[bradleybadly]

.

[john9blue]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Maybe you're right. If you want, you can remove the text at the bottom and let the rest of the picture speak for itself.

[Phatscotty]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Maybe you're right. If you want, you can remove the text at the bottom and let the rest of the picture speak for itself.

A for effort

[PLAYER57832]

You choose to make such an issue of it becuase you have alterier motives. This is not about Obama's words. This is about your view that Obama is some kind of "evil Satan" (though you may not have used those exact words). Obama's paraphrasing, for whatever reason was his right, as long as he did not say "I quote..". YOU, by contrast have voiced much here that indicates you believe this is to be a theocracy and that the only valid leader is one who is not just a Christian, but YOUR BRAND of Christianity. As a CHRISTIAN, I find that offensive and dangerous. It is dangerous politically, because there is no end to that road. Either we tolerate all but the outright dangerous or we become opporessive.

Furthermore, it is not what Christ instructed us to do. You take the spiritual and demean it to petty politics. That is blasphemy. (Even aside from the "false witness" bit).

I have ulterior motives? We know there are progressive organizations who wish to wipe out any reference to God or Christianity in the public sphere, so why wouldn't they try to remove it from the Declaration? Removing God means that the only place rights come from is the government, therefore it can add or remove rights on a whim. I have never said, nor even though, that Obama is an "evil Satan". I'm saying his beliefs are against what our country was founded on.

Ah gee, and here I was thinking that religious tolerance is one of the foundations of our country.

A theocracy is a government that forces its citizens to follow a certain religious belief: i.e. Iran and colonial England. The US was specifically barred from becoming a theocracy, but that DOES NOT mean religion can't be used to influence policies and politicians.

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in your statement, then you are not paying attention to your own words.

[PLAYER57832]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

As opposed to the fact that the man is a teacher.. and therefore prone to taking the time to actually explain things? Or just that he is quick to see and point out when others fail in their comprehension skills.

[PLAYER57832]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Maybe you're right. If you want, you can remove the text at the bottom and let the rest of the picture speak for itself.

A for effort

Well, by this logic, you understand neither liberalism, socialism, conservativism, capitalism, Obama's policies, reduction of taxes, etc... etc... etc. Say, seems you don't understand much, if using words a lot means you don't understand those words.

What ever happened to that long-standing thread with similar examples of "logic".

[Ray Rider]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument. Three times in the last month Obama omitted an integral phrase when quoting/paraphrasing--whatever you want to call it--the constitution, so it was definitely a purposeful omission and not just a slip of the tongue (especially considering that Obama used to hold a professor's position teaching constitutional law). Criticism of his adjustment to the wording of the US' founding document is justified.

[Woodruff]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument. Three times in the last month Obama omitted an integral phrase when quoting/paraphrasing--whatever you want to call it--the constitution, so it was definitely a purposeful omission and not just a slip of the tongue (especially considering that Obama used to hold a professor's position teaching constitutional law). Criticism of his adjustment to the wording of the US' founding document is justified.

But that word is NOT "integral"...it's NOT "a key word" in the statement. It just is not. The statement stands perfectly fine without those three words there (by our Creator). It's significance is not changed.

[Woodruff]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

As opposed to the fact that the man is a teacher.. and therefore prone to taking the time to actually explain things? Or just that he is quick to see and point out when others fail in their comprehension skills.
You instead decide that consistant use of a word means he fails to understand it?

I notice they weren't very quick to complain when it was your comprehension skills I was complaining about. I guess that was different.

Of course, the obvious difference may be that you recognized that you mis-read what was typed and admitted it. I haven't really seen that from significant others.

[Night Strike]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument. Three times in the last month Obama omitted an integral phrase when quoting/paraphrasing--whatever you want to call it--the constitution, so it was definitely a purposeful omission and not just a slip of the tongue (especially considering that Obama used to hold a professor's position teaching constitutional law). Criticism of his adjustment to the wording of the US' founding document is justified.

But that word is NOT "integral"...it's NOT "a key word" in the statement. It just is not. The statement stands perfectly fine without those three words there (by our Creator). It's significance is not changed.

Actually, as has already been discussed in this thread, that phrase is completely integral. The fact that rights do NOT come from a government was the entire basis for beginning the revolution. If rights are granted by a government, then everything the King of England was doing was legitimate and the revolution had no higher purpose. If rights come from a Creator, then it is realized that all of us are the same in regards to our rights and no one person or group of persons can justly infringe upon them.

[PLAYER57832]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument.

No, I fully understand what they are saying. I firmly disagree about the import. And yes, putting such significance on a fundamentally religious term is something that should not matter in a religiously nuetral nation, but absolutely would in a theocracy.

[PLAYER57832]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

As opposed to the fact that the man is a teacher.. and therefore prone to taking the time to actually explain things? Or just that he is quick to see and point out when others fail in their comprehension skills.
You instead decide that consistant use of a word means he fails to understand it?

I notice they weren't very quick to complain when it was your comprehension skills I was complaining about. I guess that was different.

Of course, the obvious difference may be that you recognized that you mis-read what was typed and admitted it. I haven't really seen that from significant others.

Looks like I rather mistook john's words as well. Seems we all agree you do understand the words.

[PLAYER57832]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument. Three times in the last month Obama omitted an integral phrase when quoting/paraphrasing--whatever you want to call it--the constitution, so it was definitely a purposeful omission and not just a slip of the tongue (especially considering that Obama used to hold a professor's position teaching constitutional law). Criticism of his adjustment to the wording of the US' founding document is justified.

But that word is NOT "integral"...it's NOT "a key word" in the statement. It just is not. The statement stands perfectly fine without those three words there (by our Creator). It's significance is not changed.

Actually, as has already been discussed in this thread, that phrase is completely integral. The fact that rights do NOT come from a government was the entire basis for beginning the revolution. If rights are granted by a government, then everything the King of England was doing was legitimate and the revolution had no higher purpose. If rights come from a Creator, then it is realized that all of us are the same in regards to our rights and no one person or group of persons can justly infringe upon them.

Belief in a creator is not necessary to know that we have fundamental rights. In fact, that belief has as often been used to suppress rights as to uphold them, so your entire argument is just false.

[Night Strike]

Belief in a creator is not necessary to know that we have fundamental rights. In fact, that belief has as often been used to suppress rights as to uphold them, so your entire argument is just false.

Where does "fundamental" come from then? There has to be a basis for them as they weren't just made up out of thin air.

[PLAYER57832]

Belief in a creator is not necessary to know that we have fundamental rights. In fact, that belief has as often been used to suppress rights as to uphold them, so your entire argument is just false.

Where does "fundamental" come from then? There has to be a basis for them as they weren't just made up out of thin air.

They are part of being human.

Really, it makes no difference if you say that a creator gave us those rights or we simply have them innately, the result is the same.

In the middle ages, monarchs were said to have their place through "divine destiny". Gregorian monarches had absolute power, even to the point that murder and rape of "commoners" was discounted as "not a crime" or even the full right of the "noble". They cited God as the source of their power. Slave owners, too. In fact, many racists today, cite the Bible and God as "reason" for why certain people are not as valuable as others. Yet, I can point to many a San Francisco "hippie" atheists (not that all hippies are atheists by any means!) who firmly believe in the equality of all.

Furthermore, as was said earlier, the founding fathers did not necessarily uniformly believe in equality even as much as many atheists today do. I have to go now.

[john9blue]

Just because I speculate as to Obama's motivations for removing the word, doesn't mean I advocate a theocracy or even any religious involvement in government at all. It's called questioning authority and it's part of being an informed citizen and human being.

[PLAYER57832]

Just because I speculate as to Obama's motivations for removing the word, doesn't mean I advocate a theocracy or even any religious involvement in government at all. It's called questioning authority and it's part of being an informed citizen and human being.

Use of the word "creator" is religious expression. When you question a political leader on ground of religious expression, it is approaching theocracy and definitely means you are advocating religious involvement in the government.

[Night Strike]

Just because I speculate as to Obama's motivations for removing the word, doesn't mean I advocate a theocracy or even any religious involvement in government at all. It's called questioning authority and it's part of being an informed citizen and human being.

Use of the word "creator" is religious expression. When you question a political leader on ground of religious expression, it is approaching theocracy and definitely means you are advocating religious involvement in the government.

The Constitution never barred religious involvement in government. It barred the government establishing a national religion. Those are HUGE differences.

[Phatscotty]

Just because I speculate as to Obama's motivations for removing the word, doesn't mean I advocate a theocracy or even any religious involvement in government at all. It's called questioning authority and it's part of being an informed citizen and human being.

Use of the word "creator" is religious expression. When you question a political leader on ground of religious expression, it is approaching theocracy and definitely means you are advocating religious involvement in the government.

The Constitution never barred religious involvement in government. It barred the government establishing a national religion. Those are HUGE differences.

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

[Metsfanmax]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

[Night Strike]

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

Actually, no, we can't just agree. By humans agreeing that certain rights are inalienable, you are actually living by majority rules. If humans are the ones who define which rights are inalienable, then they can change those definitions based on the culture or time period. If these rights come from something greater than humans, then they actually exist no matter what kind of government or desire of the people comes along.

[Metsfanmax]

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

Actually, no, we can't just agree. By humans agreeing that certain rights are inalienable, you are actually living by majority rules. If humans are the ones who define which rights are inalienable, then they can change those definitions based on the culture or time period. If these rights come from something greater than humans, then they actually exist no matter what kind of government or desire of the people comes along.

All rights are functionally determined by majority rule, whether you like it or not. You may believe that God granted you the right to be free of imprisonment if you've done nothing morally wrong, but you'd better hope that God is listening to your prayers with the tyrannical government decides to lock you up for no reason, because if he's not, then your "God-given rights" are totally and unambiguously worthless in that scenario.

[Phatscotty]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

[Metsfanmax]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

Not at all - it's totally pragmatic. Jews in 1930s Germany probably thought God gave them certain inalienable rights, but that didn't stop the Nazis, now, did it?