Was America founded on principles of Greek Mythology?

[ck4829]

The 'christian' Rightists say "America was founded on Christian Principles! Just look at our money, it mentions God! Christian Theocracy, ha, take that silly Liberal!"

Tell them to take a look at this:

50 dollar note with Atlas on it


90 dollar note from South Carolina with Hercules wrestling a lion on it


Bush's "higher Father" is Zeus?

[xchrom]

1. democracy -- when siphoned from the greeks

is pre-christian.

the founding fathers were classically educated -- many of them -- latin and greek were corner stones of their education.

in short -- you can't get to democracy -- for westerners -- with out a good trip through the greeks.

[Mabus]

2. Bush's higher father is "the mystical warrior, Chang"

and as Jebby describes him:

“Chang is a mystical warrior. Chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society.

“I rely on Chang with great regularity in my public life. He has been by my side and sometimes I let him down. But Chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down.”

Bush then unsheathed a golden sword and gave it to Rubio as a gift.

‘’I'm going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior,'’ he said, as the crowd roared.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/20/jeb-bush-reveals/

Believe it or not.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. according to failed raisin farmers like hanson, yes

but he is just a blabbering neocon prolific writer.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. Don't listen to stupid fundies

They talk about history, then make up historical 'facts' to argue their case. The 'In God We Trust' on money is a perfect example of that. It wasn't on money until a lot later than the creation of the US.

[baldguy]

5. 1956

[EstimatedProphet]

6. Thank you. I wasn't sure of the year, but I thought it was the '50's

[DrDebug]

7. BTW Zeus is an ancestor of Bush

George W. Bush

George H.W. Bush

Prescott Bush

Samuel Prescott Bush

Harriet Eleanor Fay married Rev. James Smith Bush son of Obadiah Newcomb Bush.

Samuel Howard Fay married Susan Shellman

Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay married Harriet Howard

Lucy Prescott married Jonathan Fay

Abel Prescott married Abigail Brigham

Jonathan Prescott married Rebecca Bulkeley

Alice Standish married James Prescott

Ralph Standish married Alice Haryngton

Alexander Standish, Knight married Sybil de Bold

Ralph Standish married Margaret Radcliffe

Constance Gerard married Alexander Standish

Alice Boteler married John Gerard. Had a child Constance Gerard

Alice Plumpton, Baron married Sir John Boteler. Daughter Alice Boteler (-> This branch links to William I "The Conqueror" King of England)

Lucy de Ros married Robert Plumpton, Knight. Two children Sir William Plumpton and Alice Plumpton.

Sir William de Ros and Lucy de Ros

Robert de Ros. Created first covert intelligence organization.

Isabel of Scotland married Robert de Ros

King William the Lion of Scotland (1143-1214)

The rest is slightly more difficult since the source is LDS ( http://rootie.geeknet.com/hudson3.html ) but they say that King William the Lion's bloodline is the bloodline of Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and that line originates at Darda (Dardanus), King of Dardania. In Greek mythology, Dardanus ("burner up") was a son of Zeus by Electra, daughter of Atlas, and founder of the city of Dardania on Mount Ida in the Troad.

[hootinholler]

8. Here's a little more info about the fundie assualt on our democracy...

I wrote the below in reply to some issue they raised as the erosion of our great Chritian National Identity, enjoy.

-Hoot

We can expect a rasher of the talibornagain gnashing of teeth and wailing over their perceived persecution. Bring on the Lions!

In light of that, I thought it appropriate to provide a review of Church-State history in the U.S. As it happens, I have a file full of snippets of events that seem sorta relevant.

This is stuff I've gathered from all over.

The continental dollar of the Revolutionary War, was designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1776:The mottos on this coin are "Mind Your Business" and "We Are One."

The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 - States unequivocally the US is not a
Christian Nation:
ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
---
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and
President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification;
the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this
was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it
was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no
record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in
full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there
were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today."

THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

This is confirmed by at least 2 of the Founders. Now remember this one later:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress
consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in
the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an
establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains
establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to
be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them,
and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not
involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a
provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of
the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by
Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? -- Madison In "Essay on Monopolies,"

Moving right along now... to Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. - Thomas Jefferson 1/1/1802

In 1837 Congress passed an Act that specified which mottos and phrases
were allowed to be printed on currency; this included the national
motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many One). The motto was not
required however.

And then the shit storm starts:

* In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."

* In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".

* In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.

* In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.

In 1865, with the conclusion of the Civil War, a new Act was passed by Congress to allow the addition of the phrase "In God We Trust" to currency. "In God We Trust" was still not the national motto at this point and was not used on all money. It was simply allowed to be used on coins, and was used mostly on small denomination coins along with the national motto, "E Pluribus Unum."

Round one: Talibornagain.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 it read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I like that, simple and to the point.

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 "In God We Trust" remained absent from paper currency.

In the 1950s Congress changed the national motto from "E Pluribus
Unum" to "In God We Trust" (which is how “In God We Trust”
became required to be printed of federal money), "So help me God" was
added to federal oaths (despite the fact that the Christian Bible
clearly states not to swear by God or any other person, place, or
thing when taking an oath. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12), and "under
God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was also about the time the Presidential Prayer Breakfast started.

* In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.

* On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

Round two: Talibornagain.

John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Clearly, some people still 'get it.'

* In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circuit court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".

* In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheists challenges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circuit court ruled "the slogan was secular".

* In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of Americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

On September 4, 2002 Michael Newdow was a guest on the popular FOX program Hannity & Colmes. On this program Mr. Newdow stated that he felt that Congressional Chaplains violated the Separation of Church and State. Sean Hannity responded by saying:

"Who hired the first chaplain for congress? ...James Madison in 1789. Did you know that?"

You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do."

Which would bring us back to the second paragraph, where Madison
Himself admits the Chaplin is a violation of Church-State separation. BWAAHAAAHAHAAAA Go bark at the moon you friggin Codger!

But, sadly it's come to this:

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses
of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God
as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office."

And with this quote from CNN on March 24, 2004:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "are so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

We can expect no help from the Courts with a problem so clearly subversive of the Constitution.

Sad, isn't it? I mean how well versed our public speakers are on the issue? I mean it's like calling a Wiccan a Satanist.

No wonder the talibornagain echo chamber is so freakin loud!

Folks, if you haven't figured it out, we're in round three and I'm tired of loosing.

[hansberrym]

10. I can't agree with everything you say.

While I can agree with much, towards the end of your post you go too far:


But, sadly it's come to this:

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses
of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God
as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office."

And with this quote from CNN on March 24, 2004:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "are so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

We can expect no help from the Courts with a problem so clearly subversive of the Constitution.


However a review of the record shows that O'Connor is correct.

In the very same legislative acts mentioned in your post which forbid religious establishments, both Jefferson and Madison refer to Almighty God, the Universal Sovereign, the Governor of the Universe, etc. as the source of our rights. It then becomes untenable to claim that mere references to God (in a general sense as both Madison and Washington did in their thanksgiving proclamations) are themselves violations of the prohibition on religious establishments.

One could argue that not everyone had the same understanding of what a prohibition of religious establishments meant. But to argue that none of them, not even Jefferson or Madison, really understood it. And that the very same legislative acts which were meant to uphold that principle actually violated that principle as you see it, is not a reasonable argument.





Jefferson(VA Religious Freedom):

"well aware that Almighty God has created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring..."




Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance):

"We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."

[dave_p]

9. Slave-owning democracy?

Go figure.

Not the best start.