Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

... I'd have to say also that the Founders and ratifiers of the Constitution were explicitly in favor of separation of Church and State, having been persecuted by a state which was advocating a specific religion (Anglican church).

Serious questions here.

If Americans believe in separation of Church and State, why have they allowed the country's motto to be "In God We Trust"?

Why do you display it ("In God We Trust") proudly on what is the ultimate symbol of The State ... fiat currency?

Why is it not the separation of Religion and State ... as Church seems very Christian to me, and not very inclusive of "other" religions?

Just curious.

[c1ue]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

If Americans believe in separation of Church and State, why have they allowed the country's motto to be "In God We Trust"?

See the earlier post by astonas - this "In God We Trust" business is a relatively recent one.

As for Church and State - seriously, you are trying to parse this?

Church applies whether it is Protestantism in general, or Episcopalian/Calvinist/Lutheran/Unitarian. It applies whether it is Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Church as an English word describing the institution of Religion is as relevant as any other word; why should the English word mosque be the substitute for the Arab word masjid (مَسجِد) or the Hindi word for temple : Mandir (मंदिर) when both religions originated in different regions and different languages?

For that matter, there is no word for 'church' in ancient Hebrew, and it is entirely unclear what Church in Aramaic might be since there are no original written texts.

And more goofy questions?

[charliebrown]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

his question is not goofy. He has probably been listening to the MSM who harp that any mention or symbol of God institutes a religion. You are correct, most of the founders when talking about separation of church and state were refering to organized churches and state power intermingalling. for example using things like taxation and the courts to enforce religious duties, or certain "churches" receive preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. Putting "in God we trust" on our money does not institue a religion in the founding father's notion of relegion. They were not referring to God and state, but church and state.

If we have no God, then where does morality written into the law come from? There have been some historic court cases
in the past where the court has stated we are a "Christian nation therefore ..." . I think they did this because the cases involved challenges to moral issues where one side was from a non-christian tradition and they argued that they should be able to do such and such on the grounds that it is their religion. The court fell back on the "Christian nation" defense, because the two ideals could not be harmonized in a rational manner. Can the law be written to honor Sharia, and Judeo-Christian law?? Perhaps there is overlap, but I'm sure there are some diametrically opposing points. Couple that with
equal protection under the law, and you have mess.

I was just about to say you are wrong about church not being mentioned in the bible, because I was thinking sure the word church is in the bible. If we look at Paul's letters which we have copies of probably going back to around 200 AD, and he wrote in Greek, I know they contain the word EkklEsias, which translates to the word church.

However ... In the Greek EkklEsias does not mean a church building or church group as we know it. It is a noun meaning
called-out-one, Thank you for teaching me something today C1ue.

The thread really needs to get back on track, but I have a passion for these topics, and I don't want people to come
away with the impression that all believers are non-thinking, judgemental, robots.

[c1ue]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

The thread really needs to get back on track, but I have a passion for these topics, and I don't want people to come away with the impression that all believers are non-thinking, judgemental, robots.

I have no problems with religion in general, or religious people in particular, or even particular religions or religious people.

While I am personally a-religious (not anti-, nor atheist, but agnostic), I do fully recognize that there is a role and benefit to religion and respect those who have the faith necessary to be religious.

I do, however, greatly oppose the combination of temporal power and religion.

The insinuation that support for Israel is in any way a moral or religious issue is a misrepresentation not only of history but of intent.

Similarly the (often times deliberate) blurring of personal goals and desires with 'religious requirements' is as much as evil as banksters doing "God's work", and for much the same reason.

[astonas]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

Sorry for dragging this thread on yet further still, but I saw this:

If we have no God, then where does morality written into the law come from?

And felt the need to point out an inconvenient fact.

The best-known example of early written law was the Code of Hammurabi (of Babylon, 1780 B.C.); it was not based on religion in any way, but on a summation of cases tried by the secular King Hammurabi. It did, however, include several elements which now form the basis of our current legal system, including the concept of the presumption of innocence, and the presentation of evidence by both parties in a case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

According to Jewish tradition the Torah was revealed to Moses, in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai; (another date given for this event is 1233 BCE).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

So both morality and secular written law pre-exist by centuries any writings or explicit moral codes associated with the three major monotheistic religions.

[charliebrown]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

ok, uncle ... PM me if you want.

BTW, Charlie Rose had Ehud Barak on T.V. last night. He basically went through the talking points, no new information.
He, Ehud, did play kissey face with Obama, interesting. Is this why oil is 102 a barrel with the EU circling the bowl, and
China having some trouble too???

[Slimprofits]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/satell...-was-destroyed

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/28/2011 - 14:53 Iran Israel Reality Today's curious news report posted by Iran's semi-official news agency Fars, which was promptly muted, only to be republished by Israel's Haaretz, of a major explosion near the Iranian city of Isfahan, has left many scratching their heads. As Haaretz reports: "Speaking with Fars news agency, Isfahan’s deputy mayor confirmed the reports and said the authorities are investigating the matter. However, after the incident was reported in Israel, the report was taken off the Fars website." Which led many to wonder: is this a real event or merely a provocation designed to make Iranians believe they were attacked? Further complicating matters is the just released news from Washington Post which shows satellite images of the aftermath of another explosion in Iran, this time from two weeks ago at an Iranian missile base. "The image of the compound, near the city of Malard, doesn’t provide any clues as to what caused the Nov. 12 explosion, which Iranian authorities described as an “accident” involving the transport of ammunition. But it does make clear that the facility has been effectively destroyed. Paul Brannan, a senior analyst for the Institute for Science and International Security, which specializes in the study of nuclear weapons programs, said it’s impossible to tell from the image whether the blast was caused by sabotage, as has has been speculated in this explosion and others at transport facilities, oil refineries and military bases in Iran. Brannan said ISIS had recently learned from “knowledgable officials” that the blast had occurred just as Iran had achieved a milestone in the development of a new missile and may have been performing a “volatile procedure involving a missile engine at the site.” So the question stands: is Iran being systematically attacked with the news being covered up for fear that it can not retaliate and thus seem week; is it being sabbotaged on a weekly basis, or is everything just one big media disinformation campaign designed to provoke Iran to lash out? We will probably know very soon, today's "oversold" and now completely disconnected from reality rally notwithstanding.

[Eryximachus]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

There are unintended consequences of a war between Iran and Israel.

Strong precedent by the accuracy and history of Scriptures shows that the US will be affected. Whether we stand along side or turn away will either result in blessings on the US or judgement. Below is a quote that is a promise from God to the Father of the Jews Abraham. Because we have supported Israel in past, US has been blessed. Now that we are drawing away do not be surprised that God will draw away from US.

Genesis 12:3
I'll make you a great nation
and bless you.
I'll make you famous;
you'll be a blessing.
I'll bless those who bless you;
those who curse you I'll curse.
All the families of the Earth
will be blessed through you."

What the hell is this nonsense? People like you really exist?

[Eryximachus]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

The myth of the U.S. being founded based on religious ideals was first propagated in the 1950's, during the red scare, when politicians found it, as they find it now, to be beneficial to claim superiority on the grounds that the enemy were "godless". This was also the era when "in god we trust" was placed on our money, and the words "one nation, under god" were added to the pledge of allegiance. So using the latter phrase in reference to our founding is historically inaccurate.

In point of fact, the founding fathers were largely secular humanists, or at most deists (who believe in a god that has not intervened in the affairs of the universe since the moment of creation). The lonely exception was John Jay, who actually was as christian as some modern evangelicals pretend all founding fathers were.

Thomas Jefferson actually went so far as to create his own version of the Bible, by cutting out all the parts he thought were either historically innaccurate, or outright lies. Madison, who is responsible for the bulk of the constitutuion, was also quite outspoken in his criticism of religion.

This is not to say that your own religious ideals should not be respected. They should, just as any religious belief should. But claiming that they should hold sway over the United States' policies by virtue of their connection to its founding is based on a version of history that is demonstrably false, and overwhelmingly so.

This is sort of like how when I hear Atheists of the Dawkins variety vociferously denounce religion, but also denounce Darwinism.

The Enlightenment is fundamentally a Protestant venture. Sure, many denied the existence of deities, but their peculiar philosophy - the tabula rasa theory of human nature - stemmed directly from the Protestant notion that all men are equal before god and possess the means and duty to find salvation solely on a personal level with that god. From this, modern conceptions of an atomized man evolved, in particular capitalism and communism.

[Eryximachus]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

Serious questions here.

If Americans believe in separation of Church and State, why have they allowed the country's motto to be "In God We Trust"?

Why do you display it ("In God We Trust") proudly on what is the ultimate symbol of The State ... fiat currency?

Why is it not the separation of Religion and State ... as Church seems very Christian to me, and not very inclusive of "other" religions?

Just curious.

Separation of Church and State is a late-20th century development. The motto was very much a legislative response to a radical supreme court that overturned centuries of tradition in the nation.

Many states had established religions, especially in the Northeast. The purpose of the amendment was exactly as it says, it prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. It does not prohibit states or communities from establishing a religion within their boundaries.

[c1ue]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

Separation of Church and State is a late-20th century development. The motto was very much a legislative response to a radical supreme court that overturned centuries of tradition in the nation.

Many states had established religions, especially in the Northeast. The purpose of the amendment was exactly as it says, it prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. It does not prohibit states or communities from establishing a religion within their boundaries.

I think you are confusing the Depression era surge in religion which continued on into the 1950s with what the Founding Fathers actually said and practiced.

Some excerpts:

Thomas Jefferson: Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]

All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution: freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion.

(Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

James Madison:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

(James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460.

George Washington:

In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.

(George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)

John Adams

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.

(John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, as quoted by Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 1.)

Benjamin Franklin

I am fully of your Opinion respecting religious Tests; but, tho' the People of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that People were 100 Years ago, we must allow they have gone great Lengths in Liberality of Sentiment on religious Subjects; and we may hope for greater Degrees of Perfection, when their Constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it. When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

(Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790, American statesman, diplomat, scientist, and printer, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 93.)

Thomas Paine

Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.

(Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791-1792. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, pp. 499-500.)

The shoulders of giants, indeed.

[Eryximachus]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

I think you are confusing the Depression era surge in religion which continued on into the 1950s with what the Founding Fathers actually said and practiced.

I don't really care about the founding fathers, which was a myth created to assimilate the immigration population in the early 20th century.

The fact of the matter is half the states who signed the Constitution of 1789 had established, state religions and kept them well into the 20th century.

Regardless, everything the founding fathers believed is a total lie. The simple fact that the United States has become such a hellhole in little more than 200 years should be proof of that to any sane man.

The God of Reason has abandoned us. We need new gods. Obama, American Idol, and whatever other sluts and gangsters to which our youth aspire are poor replacements. I'm not sure exactly where we'll find them, but it's a philosophical goal to which we should all strive.

[c1ue]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

The fact of the matter is half the states who signed the Constitution of 1789 had established, state religions and kept them well into the 20th century.

Really? Perhaps you might document what this meant.

Did this mean the states in question did not permit other religions, but only one approved religion?

Did this mean the states in question provided material financial or other forms of support?

Did this mean heads of state religions were state government employees, or vice versa?

Did this mean the states collected tithes for a particular religion from all state residents?

Certainly several states had some form of religion mentioned in their charters, but none of them met any of the above criteria for an actual state religion as might be seen with the Anglican Church, with the Vatican pre-Reformation, and with Christianity in Rome after AD 391.

[Eryximachus]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

Really? Perhaps you might document what this meant.

Did this mean the states in question did not permit other religions, but only one approved religion?

Did this mean the states in question provided material financial or other forms of support?

Did this mean heads of state religions were state government employees, or vice versa?

Did this mean the states collected tithes for a particular religion from all state residents?

Certainly several states had some form of religion mentioned in their charters, but none of them met any of the above criteria for an actual state religion as might be seen with the Anglican Church, with the Vatican pre-Reformation, and with Christianity in Rome after AD 391.

I encourage you to look into the matter, there was more going on here than state constitutions.

You're also focusing excessively on Christianity, and also seem to be an ardent believer in the tabula rasa theory of human nature that was so dear to the founding fathers.

It is a lie.

There are several social behaviors that are consistent in every human society to have ever existed. One is religion.

You should be suspect of any political or social ideology or philosophy that seeks to radically redefine what it has meant to be human for nearly every human to have ever existed. Fighting against human nature is futile effort. We must strive to construct a society that provides lasting peace for future generations within the context of human nature.

Absolute truth is fundamentally a Christian invention. Do you really think anyone intelligent bothered stressing about whether or not Zeus was going to jump out of a corner 2,500 years ago?

The major issue of modern society is nihilism, and the hedonistic and utilitarian standards of liberalism are entirely insufficient to maintaining social order and the continuity of civilization. Religion serves two essential functions 1) it establishes arbitrary values that unify a community and 2) provides a shortcut to the riddle of life for people who don't have the intelligence or drive to study philosophy.

The religious impulse is a fixed component of your nature and cannot be changed. But little thought is given as to the profound philosophical questions, i.e. what is the meaning of life? Most religions seem ridiculous because the arbitrary, unifying values evolved over time and eventually became taboos. But they worked.

We have smashed all of those values from the past, but something new and better must come in its place. In particular, the Christian imperative of the truth can never be put back into Pandora's box. Therefore, the future religion must not involve any claims to absolute truth.

[c1ue]

Re: Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

I encourage you to look into the matter, there was more going on here than state constitutions.

I have, and don't see anything like what you assert. Hence my inquiry to you.

You're also focusing excessively on Christianity, and also seem to be an ardent believer in the tabula rasa theory of human nature that was so dear to the founding fathers.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and you have no idea what I believe.

The subject was historical separation (or lack thereof) between the United States state and one or more Churches.