Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo

[Moonglow]

What if God sprang from the minds of humans? I would rather live in a society people don't kill each other because they know it's wrong rather than one where they are just afraid they will burn in hell. If your goodness is motivated from fear then how good are you? What about when no one is looking?

People who don't believe in God aren't the ones running around killing people generally. It's the believers that you have to worry about. I have a set of morals and I am bound to them because I believe in them. I didn't get them from God, I came by them through thought and reflection on what it means to be a member of society and the responsibilities inherent in that. I can do the right thing and know what the right thing is without God making me.

Tell that shit to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc....

The Christian religion in the USSR was allowed to survive under Stalin, and he in fact used it to his advantage during WWII.

 

[Dot Com]

Anyone remember this clusterfuck at the academy?

The swirl of allegations has pushed the Air Force Academy back into the limelight of controversy. In 2003, an investigation of the academy’s general treatment of women, as well as allegations of sexual assault, led to the dismissal of four top officers in the Air Force. The current charges, insiders say, show an institutional pattern of religious intolerance and a breach of the First Amendment’s prohibition of state-sponsored religion.
“We did find a poisoned atmosphere of discrimination,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Whether they were non-believers, Jews or mainstream Christians, there seemed to be a pervasive sense at the academy that there was only one way to heaven and, by extension, one way for you to advance your career, and that was to get with Jesus.”

Read more: Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force

any con address my above post yet? It deals DIRECTLY w/ the OP:

Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo

 

[G.T.]

Your reasoning is flawed.

You appear to be agreeing with it ;-)

The only "faith" involved in arriving at the conclusion that "rights are deduced by thinking men," is
(1) "faith" that said reason is sound, but the reason itself is not based on faith but based on
(2) tangible World History, tangible Intelligence, Logical deduction and tangible trial and error.

(1) Thats enough to make your Secularist position on human "rights" a FAITH position.

(2) No, the reason itself is based on faith because some human beings must decide what is is not "tangible" and what is or is not legitimate "logical deductions." Men do not agree on what is or is not logical and reasonable and there is no such thing on this planet as an International Authority On What Is Or Is Not Logical with regards to human "rights."

I feel certain that you Secularists are NOT going to let we Christians decide what is or is not logical. I doubt we are going to let you Secularist decide.

You can decide it for yourself of course, but its always going to be a FAITH position because you MUST appeal to one or more of the following in that list down there and not a single one of the items on that list can prove/demonstrate that there is even any such thing as legitimate human "rights" much less can they prove/demonstrate what those rights actually are

- Majority Vote (proves nothing as being actually right or wrong)
- Personal Opinions (ditto ..same thing)
- Might Makes Right (ditto)
- Traditions and Precidents (ditto)
- Government Proclamations about "rights" (ditto)
- Your Personal Opinions And Personal Claims About What Is Or Is Not Logical And Reasonable
with respect to what you claim are your "rights." (ditto)

(1) In my opinion, the "self evident" part of the rights we've arrived at, is through the critical thinking process of "how best to survive as a species."

The answer is to co-habitate.

These rights are the most logical way to successfully co-habitate, as a species, i.e. reason was used to arrive at them, and the
(2)only "faith" involved is "faith" that said reason is sound.

(1) We're all going on opinions here ...opinions and FAITH...

(2) Again, thats enough to make your position a FAITH position.

Both Secularists and Christians hold FAITH positions on such as morals and human rights.

`

I disagree with the fact that "what is tangable" is debatable. It's not. That renders the rest of your post useless.

Also, legitimate logical deductions are not debatable either.

 

[G.T.]

So you would not object to placing the ten commandment back in courtrooms? nor do you have a problem with prayer in the capital?

I dont care about prayer in the capital, that's up to those being prayed with to object.

the ten commandments in the court room i'd have a problem with because it shows State favortism to a Religion, and the state is (as it's explicitly stated in amendment one) not supposed to make policy respecting the establishment of religion.

But that goes against the point that you were trying to make.

It's regarding public policy. No Public establishment of religion, and no infringing on it. Is that tough?

Displaying the ten commandments has nothing to do with policy.

Oh since it's a short video view it. Listen to the preacher invoking the name of Jesus to guide the nation he even says Jesus OUR lord and savior

You're wrong.

Look up "Commandment."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A congressman or a group of congressmen can be religious and pray. I have no problem with that. They could even do it on public property and I wouldn't care as long as everyone is given the same opportunity. When the word God is put in the motto of any government institution then I have an issue with it for the simple fact that it is descriminatory against pantheistic belief systems and to atheists/agnostics. I respect your freedom to believe, why can't you respect my freedom not to?

I'm still confused what is the concept of separation of church and state? Looks like prayer and calling on Jesus to guide this nation while inside the capital it would be a problem with you?

 

[G.T.]

A congressman or a group of congressmen can be religious and pray. I have no problem with that. They could even do it on public property and I wouldn't care as long as everyone is given the same opportunity. When the word God is put in the motto of any government institution then I have an issue with it for the simple fact that it is descriminatory against pantheistic belief systems and to atheists/agnostics. I respect your freedom to believe, why can't you respect my freedom not to?

I'm still confused what is the concept of separation of church and state? Looks like prayer and calling on Jesus to guide this nation while inside the capital you would be a problem with you?

He answered that in his post you quoted him with, ass hole. stop being such an arrogant ass hole all of the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I dont care about prayer in the capital, that's up to those being prayed with to object.

the ten commandments in the court room i'd have a problem with because it shows State favortism to a Religion, and the state is (as it's explicitly stated in amendment one) not supposed to make policy respecting the establishment of religion.

But that goes against the point that you were trying to make.

It's regarding public policy. No Public establishment of religion, and no infringing on it. Is that tough?

Displaying the ten commandments has nothing to do with policy.

Oh since it's a short video view it. Listen to the preacher invoking the name of Jesus to guide the nation he even says Jesus OUR lord and savior

You're wrong.

Look up "Commandment."

It's still not a policy or do you want to rewrite laws against murder, perjury and stealing?

 

[J.H.Brightman]

A Few More Thoughts On The Christian Faith Position: Human Rights Come From God.

Human rights and the moral code they spring out of originated in the mind of God as objective moral realities prior to the existence of humans. The institution of slavery and Dred Scott, as concepts ugly and immoral, existed in the mind of God as ugly and immoral, say, 999 trillion years prior to human existence and therefore prior to slavery and Dred Scott.

If you can get 51% or 100% of an electorate to agree that the murderous human rights violations of Stalin and Mao were morally justified in order for them to achieve their vision of "the greater good" for their nations, and then get that electorate to elect politicians that will codify their agreement into law, that does not make what the electorate codified morally right and does not establish a legitimate moral right for Stalin and Mao to do what they did to other human beings. Why not? Because human rights, and the moral code they spring out of, originated in the mind and nature of God prior to the existence of Stalin, Mao, your atheistic self, and human kind.

If rights and morality did not originate and does not exist, objective, absolute, and unchangeable, in the mind of God, but rather has originated in the minds of humans who have for 6000 years demonstrated fluxuating and contradictory opinions, laws, whims, preferences, prejudices, intellectual contradictions, moral contradictions, and large laughable amounts of ridiculous political, economic, and social self-contradicting nonsense, then we are forced to conclude that our human moral code and human rights code is at any moment subject to the whims of human Absurdity, in that Human-Majority-Voting and Huge-Powerful-Militaries could, if they wanted to, morally legitimate Dred Scott in January, morally de-legitimate Dred Scot in Feburary, morally legitimate Dred Scot in March, morally de-legitimate Dred Scot in April.

Moreover, if human rights originated and are created by humans as you claim, then human electorial majorities via official proclamation could, anytime they wanted to, morally legitimate the murderous human rights violations of Stalin and Mao in January, de-legitimate them in Feburary, legitimate them in March, and de-legitimate them in April, etc.

I didn't get them from God, I came by them through thought and reflection on what it means to be a member of society and the responsibilities inherent in that. I can do the right thing and know what the right thing is without God making me.

The only argument I have made so far is that both Secularists and Christians hold FAITH positions on morals and human rights. Nothing you have said so far has contradicted my claim.

`

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A congressman or a group of congressmen can be religious and pray. I have no problem with that. They could even do it on public property and I wouldn't care as long as everyone is given the same opportunity. When the word God is put in the motto of any government institution then I have an issue with it for the simple fact that it is descriminatory against pantheistic belief systems and to atheists/agnostics. I respect your freedom to believe, why can't you respect my freedom not to?

I'm still confused what is the concept of separation of church and state? Looks like prayer and calling on Jesus to guide this nation while inside the capital you would be a problem with you?

He answered that in his post you quoted him with, ass hole. stop being such an arrogant ass hole all of the time.

I realize he answered it but it's hypocritical to be against one thing and not the other. Since both are dealing with the same thing. I think you are just a fucking whiny ass bunch of attention whores.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Says who and which god?

Says our national motto.

"In God We Trust"

"'In God We Trust' was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956."

So? Your point is?

 

[Political Junky]

Why are atheist so afraid of God?

I thought Christians feared God.

 

[paulitician]

'God & Country.' Something all Socialist/Progressive assholes and NWO Globalist Elite bastards cannot tolerate.

 

[J.H.Brightman]

Your reasoning is flawed.

You appear to be agreeing with it ;-)



(1) Thats enough to make your Secularist position on human "rights" a FAITH position.

(2) No, the reason itself is based on faith because some human beings must decide what is is not "tangible" and what is or is not legitimate "logical deductions." Men do not agree on what is or is not logical and reasonable and there is no such thing on this planet as an International Authority On What Is Or Is Not Logical with regards to human "rights."

I feel certain that you Secularists are NOT going to let we Christians decide what is or is not logical. I doubt we are going to let you Secularist decide.

You can decide it for yourself of course, but its always going to be a FAITH position because you MUST appeal to one or more of the following in that list down there and not a single one of the items on that list can prove/demonstrate that there is even any such thing as legitimate human "rights" much less can they prove/demonstrate what those rights actually are

- Majority Vote (proves nothing as being actually right or wrong)
- Personal Opinions ..you and the people you can find to agree with you ..(same thing..proves nothing)
- Might Makes Right (ditto ..proves nothing)
- Traditions and Precidents (ditto)
- Government Issued Proclamations about "rights" (ditto)
- Your Personal Opinions And Personal Claims About What Is Or Is Not Logical And Reasonable
with respect to what you claim are your "rights." (ditto)

(1) In my opinion, the "self evident" part of the rights we've arrived at, is through the critical thinking process of "how best to survive as a species."

The answer is to co-habitate.

These rights are the most logical way to successfully co-habitate, as a species, i.e. reason was used to arrive at them, and the
(2)only "faith" involved is "faith" that said reason is sound.

(1) We're all going on opinions here ...opinions and FAITH...

(2) Again, thats enough to make your position a FAITH position.

Both Secularists and Christians hold FAITH positions on such as morals and human rights.

`

I disagree with the fact that "what is tangable" is debatable. It's not. That renders the rest of your post useless.

Also, legitimate logical deductions are not debatable either.

Many people on this board and throughout America are not going to agree with what YOU claim is logical and reasonable.

You don't get to decide what is or is not logical for other people. You can decide what is or is not logical and reasonable for youself, but you don't have the power and authority to decide what is or is not logical and reasonable for me or for the dozens of political groups that disagree with your interpretations and applications of the principles of Logic and Reason

Neither you, or me, owns Logic and Reason, and neither you or me has the power and authority to decide what is or is not logical and reasonable for other people. Moreover, there is no such thing as the International Authority On What Is Or Is Not Logical And Reasonable here on this planet, so that leaves you with that list I gave you up-thread, you remember:

- Majority Vote (proves nothing)
- Personal Opinions ..you and the people you can get to agree with you on "rights" ..(same thing..proves nothing)
- Traditions and Precidents (proves nothing)
- Might Makes Right ..the strongest Military (proves nothing)
- Your Personal Opinions About What Is Or Is Not Logical And Reasonable (proves nothing)

Which ones on that list are you going to appeal to in order to "prove" that your interpretation and application of the laws of Logic and Reason are the correct ones with respect to your Secularist position on human rights ?

The rest of my post is not useless just because you issue a Proclamation that it is useless. It is merely your opinion that the rest of my post is useless, you have not demonstrated it.

So far you have not refuted a single argument in my posts anywhere, you have instead proclaimed your opinions and your FAITH positions. I have no problem with that at all. As a Christian, I am a man of faith on morals and human rights. And so are you as a Secularist.

My proposition, yet unrefuted, is that both Secularists and Christians hold FAITH positions on morals and human rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why are atheist so afraid of God?

I thought Christians feared God.

Evidently so does atheist.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why are atheist so afraid of God?

I thought Christians feared God.

Evidently so does atheist.

What's the evidence to back this statement up? That the Air Force changed their logo?



I have as much fear for your god or any other god as I do the boogeyman.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I thought Christians feared God.

Evidently so does atheist.

What's the evidence to back this statement up? That the Air Force changed their logo?



I have as much fear for your god or any other god as I do the boogeyman.

The evidence is in the history of atheist tryng to take "God" out of damn near everything.

Have you been living under a rock?

Tell me, why does the the reference to God bother you (assuming you're an atheist) so much?

 

[LibertyForAll]

I'm still confused what is the concept of separation of church and state? Looks like prayer and calling on Jesus to guide this nation while inside the capital you would be a problem with you?

He answered that in his post you quoted him with, ass hole. stop being such an arrogant ass hole all of the time.

I realize he answered it but it's hypocritical to be against one thing and not the other. Since both are dealing with the same thing. I think you are just a fucking whiny ass bunch of attention whores.

How is it hypocritical to say that I respect the right of people to practice their religion as long as everyone has the same right? It's one thing to allow a prayer and quite another to post the doctrine of a particular branch of faith on the wall.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He answered that in his post you quoted him with, ass hole. stop being such an arrogant ass hole all of the time.

I realize he answered it but it's hypocritical to be against one thing and not the other. Since both are dealing with the same thing. I think you are just a fucking whiny ass bunch of attention whores.

How is it hypocritical to say that I respect the right of people to practice their religion as long as everyone has the same right? It's one thing to allow a prayer and quite another to post the doctrine of a particular branch of faith on the wall.

Here is what you said

A congressman or a group of congressmen can be religious and pray. I have no problem with that. They could even do it on public property and I wouldn't care as long as everyone is given the same opportunity. When the word God is put in the motto of any government institution then I have an issue with it for the simple fact that it is descriminatory against pantheistic belief systems and to atheists/agnostics. I respect your freedom to believe, why can't you respect my freedom not to?

A congressman or a group of congressmen can be religious and pray. I have no problem with that.

This is what so puzzling about your comment.
You see in the video and how it's always been since the founding of this nation Congress while is session starts the day off in prayer. it is not a group of congressmen it's the whole body of Congress in their official duty as elected Representative's.

That's why I say it's hypocritical to be fore one and against the other.

So I ask again what is the concept of separation of church and state?

 

[bodecea]

I'm not going to teach you history of our national motto. I'm sure you may be bright enough to google it yourself.

This country has managed quite well under Judeo-Christian philosphy before the motto was introduced.

Yeah...those Puritans were doing a bang-up job. As were those Baptists who split off in the South.

History is your friend. Tell me, when did this country become a country?

After that Judeo-Christian philosophy you referred to had stopped being the law of the land.

 

[bodecea]

The more "God" is removed from our government the stronger and freer our great nation becomes. You want God? Go to church.

Absolute religious liberty mandates the strict separation of church and state.





Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

A Virginia lawmaker is calling on the Air Force to reverse a decision to remove a Latin reference to “God” from a logo after an atheist group complained.

Rep. Randy Forbes, (R-VA), said the Air Force removed the logo several weeks ago from the Rapid Capabilities Office. The patch included a line written in Latin that read, “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”

But after the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers complained, Forbes said the line was rewritten in Latin to read, “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”

Forbes, along with a bi-partisan group of 35 lawmakers, sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz expressing concern over the decision to remove a non-religious reference to God.

“It is most egregious,” Forbes told Fox News. “The Air Force is taking the tone that you can’t even use the word ‘God.’”

Forbes said his office contacted the Air Force and officials there confirmed that the logo had been changed after the atheist group complained.

A spokesman for the Air Force told Fox News they had received the letter and would investigate the claims.

Forbes said the removal of “God” is a “bridge too far in terms of the rights of men and women who serve in our services and their ability to express their faith.”

“But the significance of this is what the Air Force is saying with this move – that the word ‘God’ – whether it has any reference to faith or not, can’t be used in the Air Force,” Forbes said.

He said the incident is one of several in recent months that have caused him to wonder if the military is cleansing itself of religious references.

“It’s a very dangerous course to take,” he said.

“I am concerned that the RCO capitulated to pressure from an outside group that consistently seeks to remove references to God and faith in our military,” he said. ‘The RCO’s action to modify the logo sets a dangerous precedent that all references to God, regardless of context, must be removed from the military.”

Seperation of Church and State is not in the constitution.

Neither is the right to have guns.