Bush listening to "a Higher Father" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

[LittleApple81]

It is breaking the separation of church and state.

This is a quote (not verbatim) from Chalmers, the author of
"The Sorrows of Empire" during his interview today at the L.A. book festival. It was a stunning program. If they repeat in C-Span 2 please do not miss it.

Panel: The Seduction of War

Anthony Swofford, "Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles"
Chris Hedges, "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"
James Hillman, "A Terrible Love of War"
Leo Braudy, "From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity"
Samantha Power, "'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide"—Moderato

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NuttyFluffers]

2. our currency also has...

nuovo ordo seculorum on the 1 dollar bill. it translates into 'new secular order.' and that has been there longer than the mccarthyism placed 'in god we trust.' we need to take this religious stuff off our currency!

[Iceburg]

3. NOVUS Not nuovo and more ....

Novus Ordo Seclorum was borrowed from the Roman poet Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, in which he describes the beginning of a new age of peace and prosperity. It literally translates best as 'new order of the ages' or 'new order of the generations.



Also, you conveniently left out “Annuit Coeptis” which means “He (God) has favored our undertakings”

http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html

[NuttyFluffers]

22. My mistake, sorry. Your selectivity...

went to that website, after spending oodles of time trying to find an adequate translation. most of the translators give definitions that can lead to conflicting interpretations.

but the site is handy - though i loathe using .coms as cited sources (notoriously slanted). but this is a good start:

Great Seal Mottoes
Annuit Coeptis

Providence Has Favored Our Undertakings
In the zenith of an unfinished pyramid on the reverse side of the Great Seal is "an Eye in a triangle, surrounded with a glory... Over the Eye these words 'Annuit Coeptis'."

This Latin phrase has been traced to Virgil, the renowned Roman poet who lived in the first century B.C. His epic masterpiece, the Aeneid, contains the sentence: "Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue coeptis." (All-powerful Jupiter, favor daring undertakings.)

Also, in Virgil's Georgics is: "Da facilem cursum, atque audacibus annue coeptis." (Give an easy course, and favor daring undertakings.)

Charles Thomson changed the imperative annue to annuit, the third person form of this verb meaning to favor or approve (in either the present tense or the present perfect tense). Coeptis means undertakings or endeavors.

In the motto Annuit Coeptis, the subject of the verb must be supplied, (and the translator must also choose the tense). Thomson explained:

"The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: the Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."

The Eye is therefore the missing subject, and the motto translates as:

"It (the eye of Providence) is favorable to our undertakings."

Or, as it is now translated by the U.S. State Department:
"He (God) has favored our undertakings."
----------------------------------------
though i noticed 2 things. in Georgics of Virgil God is not mentioned anywhere in that sentence so the (He) is not assumed. and glaringly the first translation offered:

"It (the eye of Providence) is favorable to our undertakings."

is also bothersome. why didn't you offer that translation too? does Providence equate with God? Not in my view. Providence is an abstract concept just like Justice or Temperance and need not be associated with God.

Sure the US State Dept. reads it this way, but also we have "In God We Trust" plastered onto it as well. a condition that i'd be suprised to find the original framers of the nation enjoying.

now i admit i was wrong about 'new secular order.' but 'seclorum' doesn't translate easily. some of the better versions give me similar concepts as mentioned on this site, and one dictionary translation i particularly liked was 'everlasting' or 'eternal.' so 'New Order for the Ages' works (ages expressing sense of time, in perpetuity). I also like the idea of 'new everlasting order' or 'new eternal order.'

though i don't find this enough to state god was part of the original framework of these seals (noting the glaring omission you had in annuit coeptis). i find that the translations are, first seemingly butchered latin (they may be clear to someone out there alive, but the vaguaries in interpretation seems to indicate otherwise) - the search was painfully tedious, but also quite plain. outside of the mention of Jupiter in that one quote from virgil, i cannot find an essential tie in for "He" being integral to annuit coeptis. what i found on my own was:

coepto : to begin, undertake,

annuo : to nod, consent, give assent to / approve, favor.

annuo : to allow, grant, promise / designate

so "It (the eye of Providence) is favorable to our undertakings." works well here. the change into the third person in reference to the eye is interesting. but once again Providence is an abstract concept, like Justice, that can and has been divorced from God.

and now i need to find more historical agreement with this *one* source's assertion. the simple conclusion to this obviously isn't. there seems to be great range of interpretation so far.

[mrfrapp]

4. Rubbish

Right wing propoganda. Half truths and exagerations.

Snopes article


on edit: and of course, none of what you say has anything to do with whether the President should listen to "God" or not.

[July]

9. Why don't you try a different tone?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Use your head.
Are you ignorant?

Those are your words.

Why don't you explain your view and tone down the aggression?

[jean]

15. excellent suggestions, July.

[seemslikeadream]

10. your flag decal won't get you into Heaven any more

Flag Decal Heaven, by John Prine
While digesting Reader's Digest
In the back of a dirty book store,
A plastic flag, with gum on the back,
Fell out on the floor.
Well, I picked it up and I ran outside
Slapped it on my window shield,
And if I could see old Betsy Ross
I'd tell her how good I feel.

Chorus: But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
They're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
Well, I went to the bank this morning
And the cashier he said to me,
"If you join the Christmas club
We'll give you ten of them flags for free."
Well, I didn't mess around a bit
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck them stickers all over my car
And one on my wife's forehead.

Repeat Chorus:

Well, I got my window shield so filled
With flags I couldn't see.
So, I ran the car upside a curb
And right into a tree.
By the time they got a doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standing in the Pearly Gates said...
Repeat Chorus:

[unblock]

12. all these things are technically unconstitutional

though they are sufficiently popular and sufficiently "minor" that the supreme court views them as failing to rise to the level of "establishing" a religion. hence they continue.

you are correct in that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. however, it does mean freedom from government religion.

if a private dwelling has the ten commandments on their front doors, that's fine. if a private family wants to start their day with a prayer, that's fine. if a private individual writes 'in god we trust' on every letter they write, that's fine.

but it's not fine when the government does it. that's the distinction.

[July]

13. Freedom from religion.

We are free to follow our consciences and follow no religion, if we wish. We are not free to abridge other's rights to follow a religion.

The right-wing cliche that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion seems to be a justification for the presence of religious language or symbols in the public realm. It also seems to be the back-door approach to justifying putting more religion into that realm (e.g., the prayer in schools debate). Their cliche falls apart when you propose putting a religion other than Christianity in the public realm.

The separation of church and state protects everyone's freedom of religion (and yes, even freedom from religion if we choose it).

You point out the distinction clearly. But, as a couple of posts here show, the existence of a few examples of religion in the public realm is considered proof by some people that we don't have separation of church and state, despite anything in the Constitution or the founding documents.

[newsguyatl]

26. great

welcome to du :eyes:

so many newbies here lately :eyes:

[newsguyatl]

27. great

welcome to du :eyes:

so many newbies here lately :eyes:

[izzie]

5. A lot was said about this and JFK and the Pope.

The Pope would run this country through JFK. You could look that up. I am not sure now who said it but I will take bets it is the same people who tells us Bush is from God stuff.That is off the wall for me to say it but I just get that feeling. It is so like that group. 'Our' fundamentalist screaming about 'their' fundamentalist. I love people who take guns to churches yelling about people that take guns to mosques.Does not all this crazy stuff make you feel great?

[markomalley]

6. Maybe stating any kind of religious preference by a president ...

...should be considered unconstitutional. Another thing, why does the US have "diplomatic" relations with the Vatican? Another thing, why are there "chaplains" in both houses of Congress? And yet another, why do we have "chaplains" on the payroll in the military?

All of these things should be tested in court and ultimately thrown out!!!

[Pepperbelly]

7. why?

:shrug:

[markomalley]

8. Because...

...if a president expresses a view on religion one way or the other, he is breaching the separation of church and state. A candidate expressing a view one way or the other is expressing the desire to breach the separation of church and state.

As far as chaplains, they are paid by the government to perform ecclesiastical duties. That is an obvious violation of the separation of church and state.

[Pepperbelly]

11. except ...

when calling it the wall of seperation, what we do is take specific legal requirements and collate them together into an abstract that is not accurate.

The two operable requirements are found in the 1st Amendment: the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause. Clearly, every citizen has the right to free and unfettered expression of their personal religious beliefs under the free-exercise clause and that expression by a citizen does not equal the establishment of a state religion. Expressing one's views about religion is equally protected in the Constitution and gets equal billing to the establishment clause.

The use of chaplains also does not, in my view, violate the establishment clause. Citizens who serve the nation's interests in the military do not give up THIER rights to free-exercise by virtue of performing that very service. To ask someone to serve as the spear-point without whatever comfort they glean from their personal religion is inhumane and in fact, violates the free-exercise clause.

[markomalley]

14. And that's fine but...

I'm not arguing that people not in the political limelight and without bully pulpit privileges should be allowed to express their religious views when they are away from the workplace and off duty.

However, people that are in the political limelight should not be allowed to do what is essentially proselytizing. Either that, or they are using religion to advance their political goals. One way or the other, it brings back memories of "crusades" and "inquisitions" that have no place in our society. We are a godless, secular society and we must struggle to keep it that way!

In any event, the concept of having people being paid my tax dollars to promote religion is offensive. That is exactly what a so-called chaplain does.

[StopThief]

17. This is all your personal feelings.

I'm sure many of us think that whatever we believe SHOULD be in the Constitution, but alas it is not the case. If you disagree with what politicians do, vote them out.

[markomalley]

28. and that's the idea...

...but we need to make sure that our children are not faced with the dangers we have. Thus my opinions.

[oneighty]

29. Chaplains

are in the military for those service men and women to USE if they so desire. The Military Chaplin has no power to force his religion on any body in the military. The military also provide Religious of various denominations.

180

[markomalley]

30. Two arguments --

First, a whole lot of ceremonies, formal dinners, etc., both in the military and out are opened up with prayer from the appropriate chaplain. If you are a participant in such a ceremony, dinner, etc., you are forced at least to listen. Your beliefs are subordinated to theirs -- because you are not at liberty to tell them where to stick their prayers.

Secondly, the fact that they are on the payroll means tacit governmental support for that religion. Along with that comes the government-paid and maintained facilities, churches, chapels, sacramental kits, etc.

If somebody in Congress or in the military want to see a religious person, they should be freely able to go off-post and see that religious person. But, it has no place on a government installation and it certainly has no place receiving government monies.

[oneighty]

31. Whoa!

I do not give a rats ass if Chaplains are in the Military or not. My exposure to chaplains in my military career were few and none. And no, I was never any place in the military where I had to listen to a Chaplain preach his thoughts or the religion he was taught.

I did see them often at anti-sex lectures and the denouncing of queers and the dangers of the clap and old joe and other dire diseases one might catch from the whores. Never once did I heard "Thou shalt not kill."

180

[markomalley]

32. Gee Wally, I seem to remember different...

...I seem to remember chaplains being assigned to units, chaplains having offices with those units, people being required to in and out process with those chaplains, chaplain presence at all award dinners and banquets (both opening and closing the event with prayer), chaplain presence at a majority of change of command ceremonies. I even remember seeing unit commanders have chaplains open up staff meetings with a prayer.

I remember being proseltyzed by a couple of chaplains that were visiting our unit when deployed (as the unit first sergeant I had to escort and provide support...it was really fun being asked, "and do you have a faith home?" :-( )

What I seem to remember was a whole lot of involvement. Maybe we were in different militaries...

[oneighty]

33. I was in the small unit Navy

We had neither doctors nor sky pilots. It was every thinking man for himself. God stuff NEVER entered my Navy. For sure, there was not room.

180

[markomalley]

36. I guess there are differences out there...n/t

[oneighty]

34. Wally?

Are you addressing me sir?

180

[markomalley]

35. Yes...

you know Wally, the older, wiser brother of the Beav...

(you should recognize that as self-depravating humor)

[oneighty]

37. Beaver? I never

watched those shows. They were too young for me, devoid of content, useless.

And I do not see any relation ship to Chaplains in the military about which I really do not care.

180

[bleedingheart]

16. Wait til he starts using the phrase "Divine Right of Kings"

then I will know its time for revolution....

The man is an ass...

[Deja Q]

18. If I, or anybody in general, said the same thing in public...

we'd be hauled off to the looney bin.

Why isn't * there? He's proven himself a complete raving nutter a thousandfold and that's before he started shovelling the "God told me to do it" rubbish! x(

[LittleApple81]

19. I think Chalmers Johnson's point is that the president has advisors and

he is supposed to consult with them. The moment he claims to be talking directly to a fundamentalist God and not listening to his advisors, he is not following the Constitution.

[StopThief]

21. I would love to use that point in arguments.

Can you please direct me to the section of the Constitution that lists who the President has to listen to in order to follow the Constitution?

[LittleApple81]

25. I cannot answer for Mr. Johnson. But the way we look at theocratic

governments in the Middle East makes me think that we in the United States do not want a person who cites fundamentalist beliefs to justify taking us to war.

[gulliver]

20. It's also a damned lie.

Bush doesn't consult a higher father. He makes his decisions in his own C-Student, failed-businessman, pea-brained way. Then he uses God for cover and political gain. Bush is unscrupulous. Will no one challenge him?

[robbedvoter]

23. Wronggg! he makes no decisions - he listens to PNAC , cold war hacks

Let's not delude ourselves that the delusional little man decides anything.
Also, I don't believe his religious mumbo-jumbo either. It's his cover for "Me like kill people, make money"

[sniffa]

24. you got it aLL wrong re: higher father

george bush the eLder had his medication doses upped.