According to this reporter, this sign is controversial. Really?
- Thread starter Plainosooner
- Start date
Weird. The sign says:
WARNING: Harris County (Georgia) is politically incorrect.
We say Merry Christmas, God bless America and In God we trust.
We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you, leave.
The sign is attached to the bottom of Welcome to Harris County. The county sheriff paid for that part of the sign and defends what it says. The reporter in the story, from Yahoo's primary news page called the sign controversial in the video report.
Pretty shocking, I guess.
WARNING: Harris County (Georgia) is politically incorrect.
We say Merry Christmas, God bless America and In God we trust.
We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you, leave.
The sign is attached to the bottom of Welcome to Harris County. The county sheriff paid for that part of the sign and defends what it says. The reporter in the story, from Yahoo's primary news page called the sign controversial in the video report.
Pretty shocking, I guess.
I saw it earlier today on yahoo home page...I can't believe where this nation is going.......................
The South is going to rise again................LOL
The South is going to rise again................LOL
I'm offended that I can't read the sign.
Well, so much for the separation of church and state. Looks like the sheriff's personal beliefs far outweigh the First Amendment, so like Kim Davis in Rowan County, KY, he needs to either take the sign down or resign his post since his not carrying out his sworn duty as a public servant.
Let's see. So you're claiming that the only free speech protected by the first amendment, is speech that doesn't mention God? That is the opposite of what the Constitution meant when it was written.
The phrase "separation of church and state," is not in the Constitution. GSX would have us believe that the only protected free speech is what he believes.
In God We Trust is on all of our money. How would that be controversial?
Or maybe it's the support of our troops that you take issue with. Such war mongers.
The phrase "separation of church and state," is not in the Constitution. GSX would have us believe that the only protected free speech is what he believes.
In God We Trust is on all of our money. How would that be controversial?
Or maybe it's the support of our troops that you take issue with. Such war mongers.
G, you have no idea about what true Christianity might be. Your icons have nothing to do with it. Zero. But you consistently build straw men to then tear down. Maybe if you'd lived in the 13th century.
Like the
Like the straw man that you created in your last post. You keep starting these political threads while indicating that they are not political. They wouldn't be, if you actually believed in what you say.
The Supreme Court ruled that "In God We Trust" does not refer to a god of any established (organized) religion and therefore ruled it does not violate the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers likely would have agreed with this ruling as they were strongly influenced by the Deist movement with the belief of a "Nature's God".
The term "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence I interpret as a declaration of faith as revealed by the Deist movement....that is, "the belief that human experience and rationality....instead of religious dogma and mystery.....determine the validity of human beliefs".
Thomas Paine, a deist and a protege of Benjamin Franklin, believed Christianity to be a "fable" and denied "that the Almighty ever communicated anything to man.....by speech....language....or vision. He professed his faith to "Nature's God" by saying "I believe in one god, and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy".
Deism strongly influenced the majority of the Founders.The movement opposes barriers to moral improvement and to social justice.It stood for rational inquiry....for skepticism of dogma and mystery.....and for religious toleration.
The Founding Fathers likely would have agreed with this ruling as they were strongly influenced by the Deist movement with the belief of a "Nature's God".
The term "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence I interpret as a declaration of faith as revealed by the Deist movement....that is, "the belief that human experience and rationality....instead of religious dogma and mystery.....determine the validity of human beliefs".
Thomas Paine, a deist and a protege of Benjamin Franklin, believed Christianity to be a "fable" and denied "that the Almighty ever communicated anything to man.....by speech....language....or vision. He professed his faith to "Nature's God" by saying "I believe in one god, and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy".
Deism strongly influenced the majority of the Founders.The movement opposes barriers to moral improvement and to social justice.It stood for rational inquiry....for skepticism of dogma and mystery.....and for religious toleration.
The Supreme Court also said that Dred Scott was legitimate. We can't imbue the founders with too much integrity. They did pretty well for men of their time and era. Note that there were no women or minorities at the Constitutional Convention, nor at Independence Hall. The framers did not agree on a good number of issues and were heavily divided from the outset. They provided a way to adapt the Constitution to a changing world, and they were sufficiently intelligent and well-read to ascertain that times would be changing. They were far ahead of their forefathers who thought the Magna Carta was a big deal.
Deism,while a influence on a handful of the founders, was not the predominate philosophy of the delegates to the Convention. Paine himself was not at the constitutional convention having by this time been embettered by the American experiment having removed himself to Europe by 1787. Paine was particularly in disagreement with Locke's bicameral approach to government (who was the philosopher du jour of the American revolution, the personal favorite of Jefferson). Deism was popular among the elites such as Franklin and Paine = with Christians such as Washington and Adams concurring with their words in as far as they went. "Nature's God" to both the Deist the Christian and the Jew meant the Intelligence who created and made the universe within the parameters of order versus chaos. It is only after the creation activity of the Intelligence that Deists diverge from the Theism of Christians and Jews.
RAS
The "adaption" to the Constitution they provided was though the Amendment process via a supermajority of both the House and the Senate with an affirmation of 2/3rds of the state legislatures = OR via a petition of the states leading to an Article V Convention. I don't believe that those delegates at the Convention believed that the document itself was a living and breathing set of words that could be interpreted on the whim of the judiciary or an out of control executive.
RAS
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Yeah, everytime I read that 'In God we trust' on the money I have felonious thoughts...
Yes they did. And that was for it to be amended through a difficult legislative process. It was not intended for liberals in black robes to make it say something it was never intended to say.
And Dred Scott wasn't decided by the founders. It came long after the writers and voters who approved the Constitution were dead and gone for more than a quarter century.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the treatment of Africans is the greatest corporate sin in American history. But in many ways, culture generally was superior in many ways, despite that horrible outlook.
I had no intention of making a political thread, seriously. I cannot understand what it would be about that statement that you could possibly find objectionable. Saluting the flag or our troops. God bless America or In God We Trust? Merry Christmas? Wow, I really had no idea. Especially for a country place in Georgia.
Before this thread is deleted, let the doubters have their day. My beliefs, as well as theirs, won't change. I've heard it said that believers have an unwavering faith while non-believers have an unwavering commitment to personal choice and lifestyle.
We do have OSU as a united concern.
Boomer Sooner
We do have OSU as a united concern.
Boomer Sooner
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
I like it when these guys like this push back against the new think. Got to have a balance.
If it pisses some people off, so be it.
I would say that both have an unwavering faith (since all people have faith in something or in nothing that is something for them). We just have faith in different things that often times are not mutually compatible. But that is the greatness of the American experiment - a whole bunch of people with differing backgrounds, beliefs, and ethnicity who have been given the opportunity to be a part of something great - "for out of the many, one." And while that sentiment often times in the past as been theoretical or has been strained into meaninglessness, it was the grand vision of the people before us - no matter how imperfect they were (for who among us claim to have perfect beliefs and practices? - who then among us has the right to judge their imperfections?).
That is why I love this board. All of us have differing beliefs, but all have a common belief in one thing. Boomer Sooner.
RAS
Be honest. The sheriff, himself, created the sign for a political reason, and you have the same reasoning. He had every intention of making a political statement, as did you when you used his political statement to start this thread.
Then, you used the strawman technique that you criticized in creating the opposition to your political statement: saluting the flag or our troops, God bless American, or In God We Trust. You used that to describe those who were against your position, as though they did not support the troops or say Merry Christmas. I can assure you that there are Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists buried beneath those little white crosses in the military cemeteries. And, nobody thinks much about In God We Trust. We will eventually remove it from our currency, and nobody will much care. The strawmen are only effective at rallying a political faithful, a dying one.
That's not a political statement at all. This is a county with less than 35,000 in the whole county and they don't much like outsiders telling them how they should believe. He's using HIS free speech rights, which seem to be the only time you object to that: when somebody disagrees with you.
Not a big surprise.
I still haven't heard which part of the sign that you object to.
Not a big surprise.
I still haven't heard which part of the sign that you object to.
Is this sentiment of yours a political sentiment, a wish, or a mere projection on your part? It has been said for centuries that the "political sentiment" (your words) of your adversaries are dying - and yet they have never died or gone away. Voltaire stated that organized religion (particularly Christianity) would be dead within a generation of his life time. He was not alive to suffer the indignity of seeing his own home converted by a Bible Society to house their printing press to print Bibles for missionaries around the world. I suspect that even with your best wishes and desires the sentiments and beliefs of millions of people in this country and around the world will not die. But then again I have an insufferable faith.
RAS
Last edited:
Be honest. The sheriff, himself, created the sign for a political reason, and you have the same reasoning. He had every intention of making a political statement, as did you when you used his political statement to start this thread.
Then, you used the strawman technique that you criticized in creating the opposition to your political statement: saluting the flag or our troops, God bless American, or In God We Trust. You used that to describe those who were against your position, as though they did not support the troops or say Merry Christmas. I can assure you that there are Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists buried beneath those little white crosses in the military cemeteries. And, nobody thinks much about In God We Trust. We will eventually remove it from our currency, and nobody will much care. The strawmen are only effective at rallying a political faithful, a dying one.
Actually, the most extreme of it dies with each generation. The elderly think that the young will become like them, and always have. But, the young tend to be less extremist than their fathers with each passing generation. We rarely have inquisitions any more, except on a local scale, such as happened today. We have moved beyond a lot of the past. I don't know that we have burned a witch in some time.
The right of women to vote is only ninety-five years old. I doubt that you will find much support for going back. The elimination of slavery is only about 150 years old, although it has had further ramifications. I doubt there is much support for going back.
I am not aware of anyone who has been put in stocks for not attending church in the past hundred fifty years. In general, women are not prohibited from wearing swimsuits of about any variety.
Nothing goes away fast. Society changes slowly, but it changes in a specific direction. The worst elements of it die with each generation........
You couldn't be more wrong regarding The Church and its people Sybarite. Your ideas are interesting and entertaining but way off the beaten path to a believer.
There is good and not so good in all aspects of life - including spiritual matters - yet you only appear to dwell on the negative seemingly to reconcile your belief system. Certainly not uncommon for those of your persuasion.
We're treading hot water for a topic of this type that usually results in thread elimination. You've had your say and I'm happy for you. Let's move on if you don't mind. It's Bedlam.
How do you think we'll do tomorrow?
Boomer Sooner
There is good and not so good in all aspects of life - including spiritual matters - yet you only appear to dwell on the negative seemingly to reconcile your belief system. Certainly not uncommon for those of your persuasion.
We're treading hot water for a topic of this type that usually results in thread elimination. You've had your say and I'm happy for you. Let's move on if you don't mind. It's Bedlam.
How do you think we'll do tomorrow?
Boomer Sooner
Winning a religion argument on SoonerScoop is like winning the Special Olympics.
Unfortunately the most extreme of the the Anti-Theist are still with us. Or shall we dredge up the genocide(s) of Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot? Those atrocities were committed in the last century yet they do not get mention from you in your historical listing. These murderers out committed the worthies (including if you wish to go back to the Crusades) of your list by about a score of 100 to 1.
Your premise is built of course in the belief that humanity is evolving to utopia. Genocides, murders, and atrocities are still with us and seem to be increasing in number not decreasing. The poor are still with us, racism it seems is still in play, and the human condition seems to be as static as it was 4000 years ago or so. What has been done is being repeated, it has not disappeared.
As a further historical note: the demise of slavery in the west was initiated by the worthy William Wilburforce, the noted British abolitionist and PM who also was an evangelical Christian. His work was mimicked by the American abolitionist(s) who were in the main American evangelicals who ran the underground railroad to Mary Beecher Stowe (who also advocated for emancipation for women). Your caricature withstanding, believers have been in the forefront of righting wrongs for good.
RAS
Lets talk about football okay?
A "mythology" that will still be with us when you are gone. Are there things you would be accused of being "childish" about like angry bold faced rants? What about allowing everyone to hold to their illogical, childish fantasies at their pleasure. We acknowledge that you think our beliefs are stupid; but that is okay - your opinion does not deter us from our childish ways.
What is more childish than religiously following a children's game - getting pleasure from a bunch of guys running and throwing a ball around? Getting a short term thrill from their winning = being depressed for two weeks when they lose? Yet you are not clamoring against this childish endeavor = in fact you own it with everyone else on this board.
Boomer Sooner - right?
RAS
Religion is the opiate of the masses. It is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking. It has plagued our society since the inception of man. Teaching children old obscure tales is irresponsible. We should be teaching them critical thinking skills and making society more progressive.
And your bold faced rant is an example of "critical thinking" skills. Interesting.
I noted that you quoted Marx. You do know what Marx' disciples did in the attempt to eliminate the "scourge"? Do you support their methods in order to protect society and children from these evil obscure tales?
As to critical thinking, have you absolutely used objective analysis and the evaluation of this issue in order to form a judgment? Your thinking seems fairly static to me without any room for further analysis and clarification. And that my friend is not critical thinking.
Again you allow for the childish ineptness of us all to follow a football team of kids. So what is the problem of swapping fairy tales around? What is the harm if the "progressive" society you covet is so much greater than what is around today and everybody in the end will clamor for it? If it is inevitable it will come to pass. So what really is the problem here?
RAS
i would rather quote Thomas Jefferson.... History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
Similar threads
