One nation under God. America. Founded on an idea that there’s freedom for all the people. And if these ideas aren’t being implemented as designed, then likely “we the people” aren’t working together for, or with, these ideas of freedom from us having individual ambitions.

We may believe that we’re fighting for righteous causes, but it’s the outcomes and results that should be evident to us. With good intentions, if our actions divide us from one another, then when we disagree in emotional offense or self-righteous judgments it makes us all vulnerable.

The idea behind “one nation under God” was that we had escaped oppression and persecution of religious freedom to build a nation founded on this principle. And for 245 years we’ve trusted in God to guide us. This ideological belief in faith and hope has made America the most free, strongest and prosperous country in the world.

Millions of people, still today, are running to America and not from it. For those who choose to live as Americans, but oppose the idea, may not see the blessings from the distractions of the unjust. The idea pertains to the future, not the wrongs of our past.

Although, in comparison, when a person complains about every meal that they eat while feeding themselves until their plate is empty without a thought for having any food at all to eat, then no food will ever be good enough.

Another comparison pertaining to myself as an addict in my past, all of my negative emotions were created and controlled by my numerous insecurities. My anger, worry, depression, confusion and my uncertainty were all rooted in fear. We can see this right now happening in our communities.

I had only my personal expectations. I wanted things to be different. I wanted things to be my way, even though I was doing the same things repeatedly that were always the same results that I claimed I didn’t want.

I had to do things differently — instead of expecting things to change. It was through a spiritual awakening that I had realized that it was I who had to change, as a single American, before I could change with 333,463,677 other Americans.

My life got better when I was willing to listen to that which I didn’t want to hear. The irony of suppressing fear is that it keeps you always in fear. Emotional freedom is faith, without doubt. For the two cannot coexist simultaneously.

The idea of God? To be guided in trust. But now there’s so much effort in removing God from our society in the name of equity. To be fair to all is the idea by eliminating the very thing that made America one nation under God.

Have we the people, instead, as of late, become one nation divided over God?

It isn’t the debate over God’s existence. It’s the belief, faith and hope that’s the idea of what America is, under God. Or that which is occurring all around us in the absence of God.

Clay Burton lives in Hitchcock.

Locations

Recommended for you

(65) comments

Ellen Morrison

“Under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. It does not appear in the constitution. In fact, there are Thomas Jefferson’s seeds of separation of church and state to be found in the First Amendment.

Carlos Ponce

Clay Burton never wrote "under God" was in the Constitution.

However, the addition of "Under God" to the Pledge was a joint resolution of Congress, signed by President Eisenhower on June 14, 1954.

"Introducing his resolution in the Senate, Senator Homer Ferguson, Republican of Michigan, declared, 'I believe this modification of the pledge is important because it highlights one of the real fundamental differences between the free world and the Communist world, namely belief in God.'

No one in the Senate or the House spoke in opposition.

While Congress was considering the resolution, lawmakers were flooded with letters of support from churches, veterans groups, civic and fraternal clubs and labor unions. Many newspapers backed it editorially, and so did radio commentators."

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/us/with-little-ado-congress-put-god-in-pledge-in-1954.html

The phrase is found in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

So Ellen, while "under God" is not in the Constitution, it was added by an Act of Congress, signed by a president. It resides in the Statutes of the United States. It is law.

Carlos Ponce

Ellen, it looks like you've never read Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists nor the letter from the Baptists of Danbury, Connected which preceded it.

https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/JeffersonDanburyBaptists.pdf

At the time (1801), while the United States could not impose a national religion, individual states could institute a state mandated religion. The state of Connecticut recognized only Congregationalists until 1818. The letters from and to the Baptists of Danbury concerned religious liberty.

Charlotte O'rourke

“One nation under God. America. Founded on an idea that there’s freedom for all the people.” While the author of the editorial did not explicitly write that it was in the constitution, I thought Ellen made a relevant historical point that the phrase was added in 1954.

Charlotte O'rourke

.... To the pledge of allegiance.

David Hardee

"It is the belief", the author says. That "belief" that there is something above an individual's irrational human psyche to use as their model to be a better person is the value of the characteristics of deity. Those characteristics of the man Jesus - Messiah - Son of God - Christ as scribed in the New Testament are embodied in the Christian teaching - that we should strive to emulate - the life of Christ.

That enticement - "striving" to emulate Christ the man's life - is what makes unique the separation of Christianity from all other religions.

The New Testament is a chronicle of examples for a good life and conduct.

Those religions claiming to be Christian are irrational man's creation(s) and naturally flawed.

Atrocities and other calamities by religions claiming to be Christian are irrational mans acts.

The founding of the USA - It's Constitution - It's original culture - were all done by using the tenets from Christian scribed chronicles - Irrational man is having the expected difficulty following the model of being good.

Saying, God bless America, is okay.

Charlotte O'rourke

References God = Texas Constitution, Declaration, money, pledge

Does not reference God directly = US Constitution

The reasons are no doubt debatable.

God bless America.

Thomas Carpenter

Praise Allah that we can discuss this topic.

David Hardee

Yahweh and Allah and the manuscripts that produced religious tenets and lifestyles for their believers to use, were prophetic (relating to or characteristic of a prophet or prophecy.) renditions created by irrational humans. Vengeances underlined all the scriptures in the words "so saithe" that made atrocities acceptable. The separation from the old testament, new testament, koran and bible is the the pure chronicle of the life of Jesus. Vengeance or call to arms in a deities name never are spoken by Jesus. Ergo a Christian (pure follower) is NOT influenced by the editorial privileges of the irrational humans that were authors of the new testament.

The last proclamation of Jesus scribed as "forgive them" resonates succinctly the entire meaning of being a true Christian. "They Know not what they do" is the caveat that acknowledges the irrationality of humans to be always struggled with.

Unbridled liberalism is surrender to the irrationality of the human psyche.

Ed Buckner

The great American religious freedom principle is not that we are "under God"--it is that every individual gets to control his own belief without the government (at any level) endorsing his view or the opposite. Baptist leaders of the revolutionary era--men like John Leland and Isaac Backus--were quite careful to insist not on government support of or even toleration of their beliefs, but on liberty. An individual atheist like me is free to think and say that there is no god of any sort AND Carlos Ponce and Clay Burton are free to think and say that the God they claim to understand should be trusted. But none of us has the power to enlist the power of government to back us up. This is a secular nation, where Christians and atheists alike are free to believe as they wish--not a Christian nation, not a theocracy. In freedom we trust.

Carlos Ponce

Atheists are just Satan's pawns.

Ed Buckner

Religious liberty and freedom of speech mean that utterly illogical and unreasonable ideas can be--and are--expressed without consequence except for looking mighty silly.

Carlos Ponce

Holy Trinity v United States (1892) - the United States “… is a Christian nation.”

Vidal v. Girard's Executors, (1844) -Christianity...is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public...It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of...Deism, or any other form of infidelity.

Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country...Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics...

And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such [lay] men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the [school] -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?...

Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of

Pennsylvania.

U.S. v. MacIntosh (1931) - We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity

Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.

Ed Buckner

Ah, so Carlos Ponce accepts what the US Supreme Court says as true (even if a later court reverses the opinion. And therefore now we know that Mr. Ponce supports abortion rights.

Carlos Ponce

We await the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Texas' abortion laws. Much has been learned since 1973 in relation to baby.

As Justice Blackmun wrote in his opinion:

"The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. ...The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce logic: when the USSupCt or anyone else changes its/her/his mind, it only counts if it/she/he agrees with me.

Carlos Ponce

Apparently you did not understand that part of Justice Blackmun's opinion. While he found fought with the Texas law leading to Roe v Wade, he said it was up to the states to correct it.

Ed Buckner

To repeat: Carlos Ponce logic: when the USSupCt or anyone else changes its/her/his mind, it only counts if it/she/he agrees with me.

Carlos Ponce

My LOGIC is that I agree with a SCOTUS decision only if it is based on Constitutional grounds. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had problems of the basis of Roe v Wade decision.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Ponce again demonstrates precisely the truth of my conclusion and the absence of any logical basis for his assertions: he wrote "My LOGIC is that I agree with a SCOTUS decision only if it is based on Constitutional grounds. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had problems of the basis of Roe v Wade decision." But in this thread he disproved his contention clearly. He claimed that he agreed with SCOTUS when, in one long ago case--now repudiated, of course--it said that this is a Christian nation when there is not a single word in the body of Constitution regarding Christianity or Jesus. The court did not even cite the bow to convention the Constitution made by not counting Sunday as a workday or by including, in the date of the document the reference to the then standard style of dating. Mr. Ponce agrees with US SupCt decisions (and anyone else) if and only if they suit his conclusions--not based on the US Constitution. In fact, if they don't accept his religious belief, he flings out illogical nonsense about one of the gods he believes in--Satan--that rational atheists like me don't accept.

Carlos Ponce

"there is not a single word in the body of Constitution regarding Christianity or Jesus."

Not a single word?

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names," - Last line in the United States Constitution before signatures.

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

"Lord" refers to whom, Ed Buckner?

Watch as he tries to ignore the FACT "Lord" refers to the LORD JESUS CHRIST:

Ed Buckner

It is almost embarrassing to set an intellectual trap for Carlos Ponce, simply because he is so utterly predictable. I knew--not just "thought"--knew--that he would not read what I actually wrote, would not be willing or able to read that I said "in the body" of the Constitution nor that I alluded to the standard dating style of the time. Now we know that Mr. Ponce worships the moon, prays to the god Týr , fears and glorifies Woden, worships the Sun, bows down to Thor, adores the god Saturn, and stands in awe of the goddess Frigg, AND supports abortion rights. He insists that dating conventions like "in the year of our lord" makes up for no phrase or word in a document establishing a religion or any of its ideas or rules or dogma. Therefore we can discern that Ponce's use of the names of the days of the week shows he worships pagan and Germanic gods. The Trinity case comment did not refer to the dating of the Constitution and there is--repeating here since Ponce thinks repetition strengthens a point-- "there is not a single word in the body of Constitution regarding Christianity or Jesus." Let's see if Ponce has learned how to read. (Bet he hasn't)

Ed Buckner

Also, BTW: Body of a document

document.body is the element that contains the content for the document. In documents with contents, returns the element, and in frameset documents, this returns the outermost element.

developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/body

Carlos Ponce

Ed Buckner is trying to weasel out of being wrong. The phrase "in the year of our Lord" is in the body of the Constitution called the RATIFICATION CLAUSE by scholars.

Let me refer to the Liberal's favorite dictionary: Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20the%20year%20of%20our%20Lord

"Definition of in the year of our Lord —used before a year to say that it is after the birth of Jesus Christ"

I've read the unscholarly, nonintellectual attempts by Atheists to discredit this phrase found in the US Constitution. They all FAIL. I wonder if Ed Buckner wrote some of them.....these do seem to follow his illogical attempts.

As stated before, Atheists are Satan's pawns. It's a shame Ed Buckner who was brought up in a Christian home has wandered away from truth.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Yeshua (Jesus)

On the day of his judgement, will Ed Buckner stick to his Atheist ways or will he beg for mercy when he realizes GOD IS REAL? You can start today, Ed. Jesus and his followers are praying for you.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce: a man who can pass his eyes over words and type words, even though he often lacks the power to actually grasp meaning. A document which cites, as the exclusive source of its authority, "We the People" and that nowhere cites the Christian religion as the preferred or established one, and that does not mention in the actionable contents (the body) Jesus or God or Christ, but does use the standard conventions used for dating formal documents ("the year of our lord") counts as evidence for Mr. Ponce because he needs no actual evidence to conclude whatever he wants to conclude. Mr. Ponce is unaware--or ignores--the fact that a mere decade or so after the Constitution was written, the US Senate *unanimously* agreed that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." (See https://www.rationalresponders.com/treaty_of_tripoli_speech_by_ed_buckner if you've never heard of this).

Carlos Ponce will either ignore or unsuccessfully try to weasel out of this next point: Ponce is a cafeteria Christian. He cites the Bible as if everyone MUST accept it as authoritative, yet he presumably does not accept slavery as moral, despite the Bible nowhere condemning slavery as immoral. And does Ponce dispute the clear words of the Bible that declare that women must be subservient to men? He's never said. Carlos Ponce claims I'll have to answer to some divine judgement, yet he bears false witness with abandon. Another biblical truth he rejects? Who knows--he won't engage--or can't.

I challenge Carlos Ponce to a Zoom debate on the topic, "Is the United States a Christian nation? should it be?" I can set up the Zoom for this if Mr. Ponce agrees--and we'll need rules that give us both equal time. He can speak first or I will (his choice) and we can allow anyone to attend and to ask either of us questions. What do you say, Mr. Ponce? If you agree, who would you choose to be the moderator (time-keeper). Mr. Hardee?

Carlos Ponce

Give it up, Ed, YOU LOST THIS ONE!

As for the ZOOM, I don't answer to challenges from mentally incapable individuals who resort to bullying to get their point across.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce is quite wisely afraid to debate me on this question, and it's wise not because I'm more experienced as a debater and more effective as a speaker (though I probably am). It is wise for Mr. Ponce to bluff and bluster and avoid debate, because the facts and logic are on my side, not his. He could not win.

Carlos Ponce

Wise - yes. Afraid -no.

I don't answer to challenges from mentally incapable individuals who resort to bullying to get their point across.

Posting I'm "afraid" is another one of your bullying antics.

Ed Buckner

It is instructive that someone can admit I'm right--that it's wise not to debate on this--and declare simultaneously that he is not "afraid." I don't think he's personally fearful nor did I say he is. I think he's smart not to debate me on this topic, since I have facts and logic and he has only bluster. It's also pointless to insult and pretend that the wisdom part is based on anything except Mr. Ponce's lacking facts or logic. He is intelligent enough, and I've never heard him speak--maybe he's a brilliant orator. But the facts and logic are not fake-able.

If Mr. Ponce can point out anywhere where I suggested that he is personally fearful--and not just that he is correctly afraid to debate me *on this topic*--I'll apologize.

Just to be clear: I might be willing to debate Ponce on other topics and I have no reason to think he'd be afraid to debate me on other topics. If he challenged me to a debate on his family history, say, I'd be wise to refuse and would--I'd be afraid, of course, that he'd know far more about it than I do. He refuses to debate me on the challenge I issued--see below--for just that reason, and he's wise to refuse.

I challenge Carlos Ponce to a Zoom debate on the topic, "Is the United States a Christian nation? should it be?" I can set up the Zoom for this if Mr. Ponce agrees--and we'll need rules that give us both equal time. He can speak first or I will (his choice) and we can allow anyone to attend and to ask either of us questions. What do you say, Mr. Ponce? If you agree, who would you choose to be the moderator (time-keeper).

Carlos Ponce

Ho hum....[yawn][yawn][yawn][sleeping]

Ed Buckner

I challenge Carlos Ponce to a Zoom debate on the topic, "Is the United States a Christian nation? should it be?" I can set up the Zoom for this if Mr. Ponce agrees--and we'll need rules that give us both equal time. He can speak first or I will (his choice) and we can allow anyone to attend and to ask either of us questions. What do you say, Mr. Ponce? If you agree, who would you choose to be the moderator (time-keeper). It certainly is boring that Carlos Ponce won't do the intellectually honest thing and admit, that on this topic, he cannot engage in debate, because the facts and logic are all against him. If he did that, I'd quit challenging him. But I can repeat this as often as he can deflect. (If someone wants to stand in for Ponce, let me know--I can debate anyone on this topic.)

Gary Scoggin

Carlos, how do you know God isn’t through? If you could give me a specific Bible verse, even out of context, it would be helpful. Or, if it was a personal revelation, is that sufficient reason for not paying a debt? If, so, I’ll try that on the good folks at MasterCard and Visa.

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggin, If you are a Christian, how do you not know?

Gary Scoggin

Carlos -- Although we have much different views on what it means to be a Christian, out of respect, I don't question your faith and I would appreciate it if you don't question mine.

If your position on the reinstatement of Donald Trump is backed by the Bible, I don' t understand why you are reluctant to quote the verses. If it is due to a particular, unique revealation then I think you have an obligation to share it. Not doing so doesn't comport with Matthew 5:15 where Jesus tells us "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house." Share your light. Not doing so tells us that you don't have the confidence in your revelation to proclaim it to others. Are you afraid or embarassed?

Carlos Ponce

Talk to God.

Carlos Ponce

Daniel 9:10 "To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, even though we have rebelled against Him and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God to walk in His laws, which He set before us through His servants the prophets."

If you do not hear His voice, listen to His prophets.

Gary Scoggin

Carlos. I did. He told me to tell you he was disappointed in you.

Carlos Ponce

If God is disappointed it is not because of what I posted here in this forum.

David Hardee

NOT A CHRISTAIN NATION, Buckner Says: “A civilized society or country has a well developed system of government, culture, and way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly: A fair justice system is a fundamental part of a civilized society.

What is the Culture of the USA

As the progressive liberals formulate scenarios to destroy the CULTURE that made this USA the best “hope of humanity” we are titrating on a DAY of RECKONING. Malcontents gathered in the Democratic Big Tent attacking all the tenets that are in the mix of the USA’s traditional culture's foundation.

The tenets of a Culture defined:

"Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups."

"Beliefs" is the primary tenet that made the founders strive to codify a dogma (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.) called the Constitution. Underlying desire to create a governance that would sustain for the ages a people unified and protected under the motto of E Pluribus Unum. They repetitively relied on the preponderance of society being "men of goodwill" would rise as leaders and hold the nation to the assimilation of culture and the Constitutions spirit.

Mr. Buckner says, "This is a secular nation, where Christians and atheists alike are free to believe as they wish--not a Christian nation, not a theocracy." Mr. Buckner and his ilk want to replace that portion of the traditional culture's tenet "belief" with a source other than the most popular source - Christian. Replace Christianity because the atheist conceives Christianity is a religion with belief in a Deity. Actually the collective of all Christians are only definable as believers in and followers of the life examples of Jesus of Nazareth. The immaculate conception and miracles are embraced by some of the sects but not all. Jefferson even wrote his rendition of the Bible excluding the miraculous events. What exactly the replacement belief the atheist wants to use is (let Mr. Buckner completes this sentence). But there is no question that the atheists are joining in the attack with the progressive liberals to destroy our culture.

Freedom by liberal’s terms

Buckner says, “Religious liberty and freedom of speech mean that utterly illogical and unreasonable ideas can be--and are--expressed without consequence except for looking mighty silly.” The platitude is harmless but the practice is corrosive. We are experiencing the result of being tolerant of “silly.” It was silly when the homosexual life style wa called GAY. And a fad of teasing with “that’s Gay” entered the vernacular, repetitively. Today it is that silly has become a element in the Constitution of “sexual preference” and across the schools and in the public venue there are promotions and enticement that have drawn impressionable minds to be confused about their biological genders, this is but one example of the collective thirst for freedom that is choking our society into a gagging reflex of vicious acts and segregation. It is SILLY to open the borders of the USA to unbridled invasion. Repetitive tolerance of silly freedoms have consequences. And CULTURE is the unifying element of a society and nation

Mr. Buckner then incredibly submitted this ending sentence " In freedom we trust." Freedom is NOT free. Borders, boundaries and discretion are indispensable to have the essential element of freedom, peace and tranquility. Buckner and the other disruptors are endeavoring to create/replace/reimagine all the traditional tenets of our culture and tranquility The methods these disruptors are utilizing are acts of belligerence and actual destruction. The unbridled openness to diversity without requirement to assimilate has diluted society to a state where the cabal of all the malcontents is large enough to acquire voting power. A reckoning is necessary. Let hope the reckoning is a peaceful movement by the defeat of the progressive liberal cabal, at the ballot box.

God bless America!

Notes for clarification.

Thomas Jefferson is classified as a theist and many consider that a theist is synonymous with atheist. Jefferson and Christianity

While Jefferson was a firm theist, the God in which he believed was not the traditional Christian divinity. Jefferson rejected the notion of the Trinity and Jesus' divinity.

Ed Buckner

Not for the first time, Mr. Hardee is a bit confused. He's right, of course, that many Americans identify their cultural values as "Christian" when in fact those values are not especially reflective of Christianity or a specific religion (and in fact, many American Christians hold values they think are "Christian" when in fact the values are anti-Christian, assuming the Bible accurately describes values [keeping women submissive to men or accepting enslaving other human beings, for but two examples]). And Hardee is right that Thomas Jefferson would be better called a deist or humanist or Unitarian by our current understandings--but he called himself a "Christian" even though he denied any belief in atonement or even the divinity of Jesus.

The point--and it's an important one--is that the US is not a Christian nation if by that one means the Christian religion. It is a nation governed by a strictly secular (neutral in re religion) Constitution and (quite importantly) by a culture that owes its values to many religions, the Enlightenment, etc. Which means that atheists like me don't have to ascribe to any God blessing America, even while the most orthodox religious citizens can agree to it.

David Hardee

Now, Buckner submits, “The Enlightenment,” is what shows that Hardee is confused; yet Buckner seems to accept the bulk of Hardee’s recitation. Following is response to Buckner's new tangent "Locke's The Entitlement and also the unverifiable claim that the USA’s “culture that owes its values to many religions,”

Here is Buckner’s departure sentence with the tangent to insert The Enlightenment; Buckner says, It (the USA) is a nation governed by a strictly secular (neutral in religion) Constitution and (quite importantly) by a culture that owes its values to many religions, the Enlightenment, etc. - Note that the words "(quite importantly)” illustrates that CULTURE deserves an elevated status over management/governance (our Constitution), to which a psychological evaluation would agree. Which is also a basis for Locke's philosophy that the individuals bestows their power to the governance.

Dwell for a moment on the words Constitution and Culture in their relationship to a nation and society's unity. What is the objective of each? One, the Constitution, is management of society i.e. codified laws to instruct and to control the daily acts of the individuals in effort to maintain tranquility and punish offenders, i.e., Koran, Old Testament, Constitution, etc. The other, Culture, is a built instructive mind-set of the individual's appropriate conduct, mores, which becomes tradition, innate and instinctive, i.e. Culture sets the, belief, and acceptable acts in that society. The quality of the society (good or bad) is not an argument for this time. The intention here is to ponder what is most essential to unify people in a society - governance or culture? Is there data to be pondered in the history of nations and societies? Japan, Israel, Germany all were put asunder and conquered yet rose and prevailed under their traditional persistent culture. The Roman Empire was culturally corrupted from within yet their method of governance is the model used today in democracies.

The USA fought a civil war because of southern and northern cultural (lifestyle) collisions yet the nation prevailed. But the culture has never homogenized as the struggle of assimilation of the newly freed slaves segmented society. This delima was prophesized by Jefferson and came to fruition and is still haunting social tranquility. The fight to preserve and promote their culture and refusal to assimilate is being joined as new cultures invade and refuse to assimilate. And every decade finds more diversity with more cultures being introduced and failing to assimilate. Consequently the traditional USA of culture and the codified laws are in manipulation constantly and the democracy is in tattered condition and tranquility disrupted constantly with struggles for power.

To Buckner's, claiming “the USA’s “culture that owes its values to many religions,”

Because the U.S. Census Bureau has been forbidden by law since 1976 from including any mandatory questions about a person’s “religious beliefs or membership in a religious body.” Mr. Buckner has refuge from a census report facts. But it is undeniable that the original population of Pilgrims were escaping the Church of England’s English inquisition so they could practice Christianity. Also sufficient data proves that the USA has predominantly been Christian and the culture (belief) is embedded with the tenets of Christianity. Diversity from the importation of other cultures (beliefs) is contributing to the social unrest.

Source of growing vicious belligerent malcontents.

FREEDOMS have proven to be the bane of preserving the republic as was prophesied by the founders that when the federal government is allowed to grow too powerfully the freedoms of state and individuals will be usurped.

The Democratic Party progressive liberal big tent is a political clique or faction (cabal) filled with morose entities demanding cultural reimagination/inclusion which is the corruption within and path to a footnote the USA in history, like Rome. Permissiveness ((untethered freedom) is the USA destroyer.

Hope that God will bless the USA with a messiah,..

NOTE FOR CLARIFICATIONS

NOTE ON SECULAR

Definition of secular: “Secularity, also the secular or secularness, is the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion and irreligion. Anything that does not have an explicit reference to religion, either negatively or positively, may be considered secular.”

Comment - The embracing of secularism by atheists is a conundrum for logical resolution. Much the same a religion’s Deity is a conundrum, the difference is in the ability to resolve on an entity of and for obedience to, supernatural verses a human psyche.

Obedience to an Imagery of a supernatural being, altho mysterious, is conclusive and possible at any age of development through guardian/mentor concrete direction. While the individual’s psyche is never static or totally rational and the guardian's psyche is also unstable. Consequently the obedience to a psyche is a circular (never ending possibilities) effort. Good or bad is not an issue since either the atheist or the Deity can be either good or bad perceivably.

It would be quite interesting and startling, to attend a group of atheists and have all of them from their perspective qualify an act as being good or bad with conscious agreement.

Notes on John Locke - his non-religion of the Deity of each man - the atheist belief.

The Enlightenment, in direct opposition to Christianity, introduced a completely new worldview based on rationality and the person, and it triumphed. ii) It ruined the concept of original sin by positing that man was intrinsically good and that his behavior could be changed and improved.

The Enlightenment produced the first modern secularized theories of psychology and ethics. ... The notion of humans as neither good nor bad but interested principally in survival and the maximization of their own pleasure led to radical political theories. Aug 18, 2021In Locke's state of nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive power of natural law. Locke's theory includes many assumptions.

In Locke's state of nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive power of natural law. Locke's theory includes many assumptions.

Curtiss Brown

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!"

Ed Buckner

Always good to be able to quote the Nazi poet laureate, I guess.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Hardee holds forth at length but is still a bit confused. Of course I didn't say that the Enlightenment is the whole enchilada nor that the many religions or philosophies involved in creating our culture (not a singular thing, of course) were equal in their contributions. The key thing, really, is the authority to which the constitutional framers gave all power--We the People. If those people, in turn, relied on many ideas of god and of none, that was and is up to them. But the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, such as the 14th, made quite clear that mere majorities were insufficient to infringe on individual rights.

Ed Buckner

I should add: 'tis no more a conundrum for atheists to embrace secularism than for Buddhists or Baptists, etc.. All can and should agree that no government should support or oppose (promote or attack) our ideas or beliefs about matters allegedly divine.

Curtiss Brown

Okay, Banksy said: "Every time I hear the word culture I release the safety catch on my 9mm."

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/2070782-banksy-every-time-i-hear-the-word-culture-i-release-the-s/

Gary Scoggin

What I learned from following this discussion...

1. We screwed up by letting everybody have access to the Constitution. (Sorta like when the Church came out of the Dark Ages and let the vulgarians have access to the Bible, thus ruining things for everyone.)

2. Allowing freed slaves to hold on to aspects of their culture has created a mish mash which makes it uncomfortable for many snowflakes. Because traditional white culture akin to the late 1700's is the only acceptable one.

3. The concept of orginal sin is alive and well. Man's basic state is one of depravation and not of goodness. There is an apparent correlation between race and the inherent degree of depravation.

4. Carlos Ponce is intimidated by Mr. Buckner and therefore can only snipe at him and not provide meaningful analysis or rebuttal. His intimidation in this regard is not limited to Mr. Buckner as Mr. Ponce won't even pay off a simple wager with Mr. Jones.

It's for insights like these that I stick around here.

Gary Scoggin

Oh, and I forgot one: Too much freedom is bad for society.

Carlos Ponce

"Mr. Ponce won't even pay off a simple wager with Mr. Jones."

God says he's not through, Gary Scoggin.

Bailey Jones

Gary, I admit to not reading any of the above - I can't imagine anything enlightening coming out of it - but I always scan through the messages to see what the Garys are up to - one for insight, the other for freakish hindsight.

Your comment about white culture - I'll just point out for David's benefit that I, of course, don't believe there is such a thing as white American culture. Most culture of value in America comes from POC - food, entertainment, sports, music, literature, fashion, the Bible, etc. (Fine "European" art might be the exception.) Your comment reminded me of one I read in a recent book that noted that the most popular form of entertainment in 19th century America for decades was the minstrel show. I suppose they still teach the old Stephen Foster minstrel songs that we sang in our 5th-grade choir concert - given the frequency at which photos of white guys in 1980s blackface seem to pop up during elections.

"Dere was an old Nigga, dey call'd him Uncle Ned

He's dead long ago, long ago!

He had no wool on de top ob his head

De place whar de wool ought to grow.

chorus:

"Den lay down de shubble and de hoe

Hang up de fiddle and de bow:

No more work for poor Old Ned

He's gone where the good Niggas go.

"When Old Ned die Massa take it mighty bad,

De tears run down like de rain;

Old missus turn pale, and she gets berry sad

Cayse she nebber see Old Ned again.

"His fingers were long like de cane in de brake,

He had no eyes for to see;

He had no teeth for eat de corn cake

So had to let de corn cake be."

-Stephen Foster, 1848. When America was Great Again!

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, if you think America was great under slavery and Jim Crow, you are a racist.

Slavery is NOT, repeat NOT, what made America great.

Jim Crow is NOT, repeat NOT, what made America great.

Bailey Jones

Carlot - it's not strictly necessary that you read my comments and comment on them. But if you are going to read and comment on them, at least do the GCDN's readership the favor of not being an idiot.

Carlos Ponce

I am not being an idiot. But YOU wrote America was great under slavery. That DESERVES not only comment BUT condemnation.I have not seen your post where you rescind those words. You must believe them. Only Racist would.

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, if you are not a racist then post, "America was not great under slavery."

Or do you believe it was?????

David Hardee

Gary, you did a fairly good job of synopsis on the inferences of some of the subjects rendered in this thread. Albeit with the court jester approach makes some of your points silly. That, silly, is much better than snide.

In the happenstance you were referring to my comments I submit the following:

Your item 1. Is close to reality. But the problem was that the Constitution got particularized. When specific entities were entered into the document it created segregation. And each segregation created a struggle at the citizen level. The best illustration is the Prohibition Amendment. The best intent of Prohibition causes citizens to clash and drastic unforeseen circumstances. Certainly you understand the consequences attributed to Prohibition. Well the same citizen clashes can be associated with the Civil Rights Amendments that identified specific segments of citizens as being reserved for treatment. The inference that the document was universal (for all) was shattered. Correct?

Item 2

Gary, “snowflakes” was borderline snide, and the word “white” associated with culture was (never in any of my recitations) pejorative, unfortunately.

** Gary, your accusation that I used “white culture” needs to be either apologized for - or please direct me to that sentence and I will apologize.**

Anyway assimilation to the dominant culture is an essential element of unity in any society. The motto E Pluribus Unum ( found in the Journals of the Continental Congress, June 20, 1782) was the call for assimilation. And hallowed by all immigration till a 1956 referendum to use “in God we trust” which is under attack today by liberals and atheists. Assimilation did not require exclusion or abandonment of those ( silly items - Most culture of value in America comes from POC - food, entertainment, sports, music, literature, fashion, the Bible, etc. mentioned by Bailey) other cultures. Assimilation only required that the citizens maintain tranquility by not actively trying to impose or replace with hostility the existing culture. It is natural that a society's dominant culture is in evolution. But when one’s a guest in a person's house a conflict will occur when a hostility to the host's mores, morals or beliefs are abused, Tranquility is the objective of assimilation.

Item 3

We should avoid the good and bad discussion when trying to deliberate on the psyche’s of humans. The psyche is where “all” is consolidated, that is an individual (human being). Irrationality will at any time overwhelm the cognitive process and result in at least a confused act or reaction. Opposing “Belief” (god, and tenets of religion, psychosis, instincts) is not reconcilable to a mutual consensus. Here is the statement I made to Buckner on a human's Beliefs - “Consequently the obedience to a psyche is a circular (never ending possibilities) effort.”

Item 4

No comment.

Item not number

Gary said without a question mark “Too much freedom is bad for society.”

Well Gary since it was not a question let’s have you tell us what you meant. Is,- Too much freedom is bad for society. Or did you mean freedoms should be unbridled, without any boundaries.

Might this sentence I submitted in a comment “Freedom is NOT free. Borders, boundaries and discretion are indispensable to have the essential element of freedom, peace and tranquility.“ be a problem?

Gary Scoggin

David -- a thoughful response deserves a thoughful answer. A reply...

1. Not much to add but I think that comparing Prohibition to Civil Rights is a bit of a stretch. In extending Civil Rights we (as a nation) were attempting to extend freedom. In Prohibition (a spectacular mistake) we were seeking to limit it. There are many differences that flow from there. The Civil Rights Act and other similar legislation of the day was not intended to reserve special treatmenn for specific segments of citizens. Just the opposite. It was to eliminate that. It was just that white folks were getting the special treatment.

2. What else am I to gather from the following passage?, " But the culture has never homogenized as the struggle of assimilation of the newly freed slaves segmented society. This delima was prophesized by Jefferson and came to fruition and is still haunting social tranquility. The fight to preserve and promote their culture and refusal to assimilate is being joined as new cultures invade and refuse to assimilate."

It seems to me a direct statement (not a mere inference) that the ony acceptable culture was the prevailing white one. And I will admit to a mistake. I should have said 1860's instead of 1790's. As far as apologies go, there is no need to you to do so. If we all had apologize around her, Carlos Ponce would have twice as many posts.

3. Let's go back to "The Enlightenment, in direct opposition to Christianity, introduced a completely new worldview based on rationality and the person, and it triumphed. ii) It ruined the concept of original sin by positing that man was intrinsically good and that his behavior could be changed and improved." I disagree that original sin is an essential part of Christianity. Some, but not all Christians ascribe to it. Its roots come from Augustine; the same guy that tried to ruin sex for everybody.

4. I think we are all in agreement here.

5. My comment on freedom was based upon this, "FREEDOMS have proven to be the bane of preserving the republic as was prophesied by the founders that when the federal government is allowed to grow too powerfully the freedoms of state and individuals will be usurped." So you ask, should freedom be unbridled without boundaries? The answer is a qualified yes. The qualifications are actions that harm others ("The freedom of your fist ends at my nose.") and, me not being an anarchist, some collective actions that are required of all citizens (Pay reasonable taxes for the common good.) Looking back, perhaps we are separated here more by sematics than philosophy.

I appreciate the opportunity to reply.

David Hardee

Sorry Gary that I can not be permissive to your attempt to rationalize that your being right, Because too much freedom (the power to determine action without restraint.) in this society has been cause and effect of too much permissiveness ( habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.). Don’t you agree, Gary, that there is a symbiotic relationship of too much of one can foster too much of the other. Now don’t interpret that to PRESUME that free speech is to be tethered and rationalize unconstitutional is being projected. But when doing/presenting an offensive and or criminal act is considered as free speech the symbiotic relationship becomes a direct relationship. Destroying a statue because it represents an offensive something compared to displaying Jesus in a jar of urine are both offensive in the same psychological manner. Yet DISPLAYING Jesus is artistic free speech and the destruction of the displayed statue is an ACT of destruction. Don’t give us a dichotomy to ponder as you did with my comparison of two (2) Constitutional Amendments saying “is a bit of a stretch”.

Remember this - we are debating with the intention to make either a mind expanding or possibly a mutual agreement. That is not what happens in a society where the temperament is already volatile. Volatile to the point both sides are considering themselves victims. And federals are acting with not prudence but with aggerating partiality. The congress is also acting as deceitful mongers for power. And in society are lurking the dastardly antagonists that actually want the instantaneous gratification of reimaging through destruction of all that which has sustained us for centuries. Even the NATURAL order of majority rule is gone because the population is diverse to the point that a majority, as illustrated by the fact the last 4 presidential elections have been so close and considered filled with irregularities. So whatever you and I and others on this venue of discussion cn project here and nto society is not coincidental. Best wishes and carry on, David,

Now on to our debate:

First - I did not use the words “white Culture” as you charged I did! Do you omit the fact that you produced those words and wrongly assigned them to me?

Second - to my statement / question “Freedom is NOT free. Borders, boundaries and discretion are indispensable to have the essential element of freedom, peace and tranquility.“ be a problem? Which you, Gary, condensed to “So you ask, should freedom be unbridled without boundaries? Gary, your answer i quote, “The answer is a QUALIFIED yes” is inadequate since any stipulation is a bridling and a boundary!

These suppositions of the meanings along with composing a deviant/idiomatic answer/replies illustrate the chaos of communications that is creating the animosity with claims of misinformation, fake news and lying. When linguistics (our language and the words) are unable to transmit precise thought patterns and the receiver is applying inferences to make the transmission what they want (to hear) it to be, no debate or negotiations will be conclusive. Today frustration of inconclusiveness creates irrational animosity. Reflect on how many investigation, claims of unconstitutional, conflict between State and Feds over the border, vaccines, lockdown

This linguistic chaos is both the fodder of and the consequence from our pseudo-lawyer community. In the world of jurisprudence linguistics chaos is financial mana and the ability to prolong with obfuscation, prevarication till exhaustion is the ultimate goal.

Gary, your comments on the Enlightenment, we are basically insink. But the atheist among us need to affirm that the element of obedience to a belief is a psyche phenomenon no matter the Image and it’s attributes.

Respectfully, David.

Ed Buckner

Sounds a lot better than Hanns Johst's version.

David Hardee

uckner, appears you have adopted the quip with snide innuendo response that is popular in these threads. Probably because your marcisim is failing to be gratified as even your constituents are failing to respond as illustrated by the fact your latest article “Guest commentary: Not all heroes wear badges or bunker gear” stimulated only 1 response and that 1 was yours. Probably time for you to dedicate your efforts only in Georgia (where you reside) and stop annoying the GDN/TEXAS heretics to atheism. We will gladly suffer the loss of your appearance. Certainly your covey of atheism in Georgia will not abandon massaging your ego.

Gary Scoggin

Ed, just because you live in Georgia doesn't mean you can't be one of the gang. After all, we accept people from Texas City, so we ought to accept anyone.

Carlos Ponce

Note to Gary Scoggin, Texas City IS in Galveston County.

Gary Scoggin

Reply above. Put in wrong spot.

Ed Buckner

I also qualify as someone able to write letters or columns for the Daily News for at least two reasons:

1. I'm a 1964 grad of a Galveston County h.s.--CCHS, League City and, ore important,

2. I have things to say and, like anyone else anywhere, I can string words together to express my ideas

Ed Buckner

Gee, I'm so glad to know snide won't fly on GDN. No more David Hardee.

Ed Buckner

Also, what matters most, IMNHO, about my writing is not how many people comment, but how many people read it. This is as unknown for me as for all the other guest columnists with 0 or near-0 comments.

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.