Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo

[AtheismFTW]

I don't understand why conservatives don't understand the separation of church and state.

 

[Synthaholic]

Atheism is the official religion of every dictatorship and fascist government on the planet

Atheism isn't a religion, moron.

 

[bodecea]

If it's a basic form of reasoning why haven't chimps evolved to the level of man? All things being equal and there is no God and everything evolved chimps should be at the same level of intelligence of man. That is if they have a basic level of reasoning.

Because they're no as intelligent as man. How hard was that

But if they evolved and man evolved why aren't man and chimp at the same level?

Because then we would both be in the same nitch and competing against each other.


We have more in the way of intellectual power, they have more in the way of physical power. Different nitches.

 

[Synthaholic]

Atheism is the official religion of every dictatorship and fascist government on the planet

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

I like Bill Maher's, from this past Friday:

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position." ~ Bill Maher

 

[GuyPinestra]

It may be true that you don't believe in God, but the ETERNAL TRUTH is that God still believes in you...

 

[G.T.]

What does their existence have to do with the Founders, if they came from "our creator?" Did they not exist before the Founders?

That makes no sense.

The rights are from Reason. You can't "prove" otherwise, but we can prove that they were deduced using reason very simply.

You can prove nothing. Both the Secularist and the Christian positions on human "rights" are solid FAITH positions.

Here Is The Christian FAITH position:

"All human rights, for example the right to life, come from God" and those rights existed in the mind of God as objective facts prior to the existence of any humans, human governments, water, and dirt.

Here Is A Very Important Statement In World History:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What I just said is true had the above Important Statement In World History never been written and is true regardless of what the author of the Important Statement In World History meant by his use of the word "Creator" within his statement.

God originated human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property and these rights existed as objective facts in His mind prior to the existence of the thoughts of the men who lived in 1776 A.D., 1276 A.D., and 4000 B.C.

In my view, the following are the only choices with respect to the origins of human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property:

1) - Ground the authority in the mind of God as an objective unchangeable fact

Here are the Secularist FAITH positions:

2) - Ground the authority in the ever changing and reversable moral traditions and precidents set by men .. traditions and precidents that shift and change like the wind

3) - Ground the authority in the historically ever changing strongest military IE "might makes right" .. the most powerful military gets to tell you what your "rights" are

4) - Ground the authority in the changing and reversable and ever conflictual "Majority Votes" of conflicting worldwide cultures, nations, groups, sub-groups, tribes

5) - Ground the authority in your own possiblly changing and reversable personal moral opinions and in the moral opinions of all the people you can get to say you are right at any given moment in time ... I say "at any given moment in time" because human beings change their minds like the shifting winds change directions

6) - Ground the authority in the historically changing and certainly reversable moral opinions of the King, or the Aristocracy, or some Parliament Of Whores

7) - Ground the authority in the certain historically changing and certainly reversable laws written by governments via the outcome of democratic elections keeping in mind a history of government reversals on their previous moral proclamations about various rights and wrongs, including what is or is not human rights

8) - Ground the authority in a Worldwide Human Majority Vote Via The Internet taken every 90 days *hysterical laughter* maybe China will apologize for Tiananmen Square if 51% of the world asks it to on, say, March 1, 2012 ....ah but later China retracts it's apology on June 1, 2012 because the new Worldwide Human Majority Vote dropped to 49% *more hysterical laughter* ... but then apologizing again on Sept 1, 2012 when the vote hit 53%..ah but retracting it again later on December 1, 2012 when the vote dropped to 46% .. *even more hysterical laughter*

You might be thinking, "But...but...but... what about we who do not believe in God, where do we ground our human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property ?

Answer: You ground 'em somewhere up there in 2-8 and you do that by religious FAITH too seeing as how you cannot demonstrate/prove with compelling logic that your choices in 2-8 are any more certain and true than is longterm predictions about weather conditions worldwide.

We Christians and theists place our FAITH in # 1, and you Atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, humanists, and secularists, place your FAITH in one or more of items 2-8 up there because you, for certain, cannot prove with compelling logic that your so-called human" rights" are established by any of your choices found in 2-8 up there, for example Majority Vote, Personal Opinions, Might Makes Right, Government Proclamations about "rights", and your Personal Opinions And Personal Claims About What Is Or Is Not Logical And Reasonable with respect to what you claim are your "rights."

Conclusion: Secularists hold FAITH positions on human "rights" exactly like Christians hold FAITH positions on human "rights."

`

Your reasoning is flawed.

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

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 only "faith" involved is "faith" that said reason is sound.

^All tangible. God is not tangible, he is not proven.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't understand why conservatives don't understand the separation of church and state.

Like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]
Is this the type of separation you are talking about? I am confused please address this issue.

 

[Synthaholic]

The more "God" is removed from our government the stronger and freer our great nation becomes.

On the other hand, you remove God and who then becomes the grantor of your liberties?

The same as for the past 230+ years: the Constitution.

Funny how so-called 'conservatives' love the Constitution...except when they don't.

 

[G.T.]

It may be true that you don't believe in God, but the ETERNAL TRUTH is that God still believes in you...

That means nothing to the non Religious, and takes pure faith to conclude.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here are a few words from our founding fathers and former Presidents:

• George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
• Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. . . . Students’ perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”
• Andrew Jackson: “That Book [the Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.”
• Ulysses S. Grant: “Hold fast to the Bible. . . . To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future.”

The Christian heritage of this nation, as well as the influence of the truths of Christ and His Word in our nation’s government, is evidenced not only in the words of our founders, but in the government buildings themselves.

For example:

• The Ten Commandments hang over the head of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
• In the House and Senate chambers appear the words, “In God We Trust.”
• On the walls of the Capitol dome appear the words, “The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
• Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words “Praise be to God,” and numerous Bible verses line the walls of the stairwell.
• The Eighty-third Congress set aside a room in the Capitol Building exclusively for the private prayer and meditation of members of Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding documents of this nation will one find the phrase so often used today, “separation of church and state.”

Significantly, the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even mentioned in the Congressional Record from June 7 to September 25, 1789, the period that documents the months of discussions and debates of the 90 men who framed the First Amendment. Had separation been the intent of the First Amendment, it seems logical that the phrase would have been mentioned at least once.

In fact, the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” was not even penned until 1802, 13 years after passage of the First Amendment.

Despite the claims of many, Jefferson’s “wall of separation” does not mean, and was not meant to mean, the exclusion of people of faith from impacting, participating in, or shaping government. Rather, it referred to the limit of the federal government from exercising any authority in matters of religion.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not used to the detriment of people of faith until the Supreme Court picked it up in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. But even the Supreme Court acknowledges the significant role Christianity played in the founding of our country, as well as the influence of Christian teaching on our nation.

Consider the following statements from various Supreme Court opinions.

• 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
• 1952 Zoarach v. Clauson: “The First Amendment does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of church and state. . . . We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”
• 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman: “Separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.”
• 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree: “The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

 

[Synthaholic]

This is actually a very good explanation why Atheism is NOT a religion.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU]Bill Maher - Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The more "God" is removed from our government the stronger and freer our great nation becomes.

On the other hand, you remove God and who then becomes the grantor of your liberties?

The same as for the past 230+ years: the Constitution.

Funny how so-called 'conservatives' love the Constitution...except when they don't.

It was state government that gave us the Constitution. So if government can give it they can take it away.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Still no answer eh Tex? And by "God", which one are you referring to? Know what a Deist is?

Why answer a question that you already know the answer to?

There is but one God.

And yes I l know what a deist is. And they believe in an all-powerful Creator, which Christians refer to as God.

So, in your opinion, screw all Hinduists, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. in our country.

They are free to believe whatever they wish and it wouldn't offend me in the slightest.

 

[G.T.]

On the other hand, you remove God and who then becomes the grantor of your liberties?

The same as for the past 230+ years: the Constitution.

Funny how so-called 'conservatives' love the Constitution...except when they don't.

It was state government that gave us the Constitution. So if government can give it they can take it away.

Thats what Revolutions are for.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Separation of church and state isn't to keep God out of "state", it's to keep "state" out of God.
The more we kick God out, the more Satan strolls in to fill the void.

 

[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, 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.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Separation of church and state isn't to keep God out of "state", it's to keep "state" out of God.
The more we kick God out, the more Satan strolls in to fill the void.

People have a right to worship Satan too.

 

[G.T.]

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.

No, that's why we have a Balance of powers, so that the Civil rights of others are not decided by a simple majority vote.

Also - none of this post I quoted of yours should or would lead any thinking man to conclude one way or the other where the idea of rights came from. And that's important.

 

[AtheismFTW]

Where our government does not endorse religion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't understand why conservatives don't understand the separation of church and state.

Like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]
Is this the type of separation you are talking about? I am confused please address this issue.

Why do people talk about separation of church and state they never address post like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]