"god" gets an exception because it's a nondescriptive title, not a name. it could be ANY god really.i don't feel that logic is right, but it's the logic that stands right now. the tendency to call god by a title instead of a name is a judeoschristian one, so "god" clearly refers to yahweh, not allah, not vishnu, and not the emporer of japan. personally, i think any reference, even a vague one, vioaltes the establishment clause.and people are starting to agree -- that's why the pledge is coming under fire.

---

אָרַח

yes. the idea was to fight the godless communists. which is outdated now. it was wrong then. but now it's wrong AND outdated.

---

אָרַח

why did the founding fathers hold the truths that all men are created equal, and have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident, yet keep slaves?

---

אָרַח

q. know how to tell a politician is lying?
a. his lips are moving.

---

אָרַח

because clearly bare assertion outweighs evidence. -- if he was a deist. his statements make total sense if he was a deist. for instance, deists liked to refer to "the almighty" and "the creator" instead of "the lord god" and "jehovah." deist mentions of god can sound christian if you're looking for confirmation of religion, but i assure they are different.

---

אָרַח

"god bless you"
"god rest his soul"
"god only knows"must a person be christian to invoke the word "god?" especially in a time were religious patterns of behaviour and speak were so thoroughly ingrained in society and the language? jefferson was quite anti-christian at times, yet still went to church.you want to impose a kind of modern dichotomy on this. nowadays, we have church so separated from the mainstream if we were to look back on our past and judge based solely on that, everyone would have been christian. now, only christians go to church, and we have athiests. back then, they had deists and agnostics, but atheism wasn't so popular -- and everyone went to church.and people used ideas of the divine alot, too, because it was generally assumed. this is well before darwin, so our very existance implied a creator. it's this implied creator that deism largely deals with -- and it's the implied creator mentioned in the declaration.but make no mistakes, talking about a creator does not make one a christian. it makes one a deist. now if he had talked about, i dunno, christ somewhere, maybe you'd have a cased. but as it stands, you're simply misrepresenting the state of religion 230 years ago. that doesn't make him a christian either. and frankly, most christians of the day, and today, tend to believe the opposite. they did vote on this back then, you know.but even if the statement were true, that's like saying "all apples are red. this firetruck is red. therefor it's an apple."

---

אָרַח

it does when the argument is that washington was a christian, in some regard: you even close with: yes, randman, it DOES sound like a deist to me. from his words, not your arguments.and deism v. christianity is VERY relevant. they are two different kinds of beliefs. deism tends to be quite personal, private, and withdrawn -- claiming washington's faith as "not oppressive" is kind of a no-brainer when you understand that very simple difference. christians like to talk about their faith, deists don't. christians insist they are the one true faith, deists admit they don't know and are thus much more tolerant of other faiths.

---

אָרַח

"almighty being," "great author,' and "invisible hand" are pretty good indications of deism. maybe washington likes an active deist god, who knows. but his words sound like expressions of providence, not miracle. it's 1789 in post-colonial america. EVERYONE had a fairly christian concept of god. i think you fill todays deism a little different from 1700's deism. same goes for christianity. does he? let's look.

quote:

---

His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes

---

quote:

---

Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency;

---

what did i say about providence?

quote:

---

not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views

---

the close personal and involved god that give "opportunities?" he's saying "we formed the government, and god's happy about it." that's not the same as saying god should be creditted with the formation of the old u.s. of a.

---

אָרַח

because it's not a very religious speech. i see about four sentances that relate to god at all. he talks abotu god -- in a very deist manner -- for half of the second paragraph, and a bit in the conclusion. see above.

---

אָרַח

good. that's the nature of deism. why not read the quote box right above it that i was referring to.

quote:

---

not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views

---

what he's saying is that god gave us opportunity and disposition -- with which WE (not god) created our government. no, he doesn't.

quote:

---

His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good,

---

his speech, and maybe the government, is an homage to the author of good. but god is not the author of the government -- THE PEOPLE ARE. providentially. as in providence, which is a loosely religious concept at best. he said the god gave us the situation and mindset, but that's it. even you agree this is pretty clear

quote:

---

I admit the words he used to describe God such as Creator and Invisible Hand were more Deist sounding and broader sounding

---

.

---

אָרַח

3 paragraphs contain religious references, yes. half of paragraph two is religious, sure. here's the second half:

quote:

---

Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tran quil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anti cipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under t he influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

---

where's the talk about god?

quote:

---

..since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained

---

heaven ≠ god. getting vaguer. vaguery on religion is a sure sign of deism. considerin how most of the speech isn;t religious at all, and the parts that are are pretty vague as to WHICH religion, i'd say that's a strange exception.{added by edit} just for the heck of it, here's some political speech that IS christian, from 20 years later or so:

quote:

---

The authorities show that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, (which are equally treated as blasphemy,) are offences punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings

---

little more specific, hm?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-17-2005 03:04 AM

---

אָרַח

no, i'm concerned with this one, singular misrepresentation.you called washington's speech "a prayer." why?

---

אָרַח

no, not anyway you look at it. one more time in big letters:

United States a Government instituted by themselves

how do you figure that "instituted by themselves" means "god is the author of our government?" why don't you? christian prayer, right. it doesn't read like christian turns of phrase. it just doesn't. there's no use of the word "God" or the name "Jesus" or the title "LORD." and yes, i think a christian then WOULD have said it differently.

---

אָרַח

ok, so when jay-z or someone wins a grammy, and gets up and thanks god, that's prayer?

---

אָרַח

which questions are those?and why should i? you never do. why should i bother to engage in an honest discussion with someone who simply ignores the opposition whenever their position is in danger?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-17-2005 03:18 AM

---

אָרַח