Man Fired for "God" Button

[Rohirrim]

Good thing they nipped this in the bud. This kind of crap has no place in the workplace.

A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33505354/ns/business-local_business/

[Garcia Bronco]

LMAO.

God still loves Blank, but he just screwed the Falcons.

[Doggcow]

I guarantee they have been telling him to take it off for the year too.

[Dukes]

Who cares if he wears the button. If an athiest wears a button that says "there is no god" I could care less. He's free to express his beliefs that their is no god.

[Doggcow]

Who cares if he wears the button. If an athiest wears a button that says "there is no god" I could care less. He's free to express his beliefs that their is no god.

You really think that there would be no controversy from an atheist wearing a "there is no god" button? ROFL, the **** would fly so fast.

[ant1999e]

Good thing they nipped this in the bud. This kind of crap has no place in the workplace.

A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33505354/ns/business-local_business/

I hope your joking.

[Dukes]

You really think that there would be no controversy from an atheist wearing a "there is no god" button? ROFL, the **** would fly so fast.

I said I wouldn't care.

[BroncoInferno]

Who cares if he wears the button. If an athiest wears a button that says "there is no god" I could care less. He's free to express his beliefs that their is no god.

There is no place for that type of thing in that sort of work environment. You are trying to appeal to a vast array of customers, and employees wearing politally or religiously motivated attire is simply not acceptable. Whether it be pro-theist, pro-atheist or otherwise.

[ant1999e]

There is no place for that type of thing in that sort of work environment. You are trying to appeal to a vast array of customers, and employees wearing politally or religiously motivated attire is simply not acceptable. Whether it be pro-theist, pro-atheist or otherwise.

You're damn right. And Home Depot shouldn't accept the US currency because it says "In God We Trust". That **** has no place in a business environment.

[BroncoInferno]

You're damn right. And Home Depot shouldn't accept the US currency because it says "In God We Trust". That **** has no place in a business environment.

So, you think it is acceptable for employees involved in customer service to wear politically or religiously motivated attire?

[JJJ]

So, you think it is acceptable for employees involved in customer service to wear politically or religiously motivated attire?

So are you including headscarves in your question? I am pretty sure that religious attire is ok with you.

I think customers respect an employee's right to reasonably respresent their religion in a tasteful manner. A cross or star of David neckless, a head scarf, are all forms of acceptable attire. A simple button is not much different in my view.

[BroncoInferno]

So are you including headscarves in your question? I am pretty sure that religious attire is ok with you.

I think customers respect an employee's right to reasonably respresent their religion in a tasteful manner. A cross or star of David neckless, a head scarf, are all forms of acceptable attire. A simple button is not much different in my view.

No, I am not OK with headscarves worn or any other religiously or politically motivated attire. At least not regarding employees who work in customer service environment like Home Depot. The goal at such places is to provide a comfortable atmosphere for ALL customers, which means an a-political, a-religious environment. And I am including forms of expression that I agree with in this, so don't try to imply that this is some sort of religion bashing.

[JJJ]

No, I am not OK with headscarves worn or any other religiously or politically motivated attire. At least not regarding employees who work in customer service environment like Home Depot. The goal at such places is to provide a comfortable atmosphere for ALL customers, which means an a-political, a-religious environment. And I am including forms of expression that I agree with in this, so don't try to imply that this is some sort of religion bashing.

So you would ask your jewish employees not to wear their yarmulke?

I think you need to lighten up. This is not France. People actually have beliefs in America. Employees and their customers are people not robots and both can rationalize reasonable tasteful behaviour pretty easily.

[ant1999e]

No, I am not OK with headscarves worn or any other religiously or politically motivated attire. At least not regarding employees who work in customer service environment like Home Depot. The goal at such places is to provide a comfortable atmosphere for ALL customers, which means an a-political, a-religious environment. And I am including forms of expression that I agree with in this, so don't try to imply that this is some sort of religion bashing.

So a button that says "one nation under god" makes you feel uncomfortable? I bet if they did this to a muslim for wearing a headscarve, the ACLU would be all over them. That **** would become part of the uniform at home depot.

[ant1999e]

So you would ask your jewish employees not to wear their yarmulke?

I think you need to lighten up. This is not France. People actually have beliefs in America. Employees and their customers are people not robots and both can rationalize reasonable tasteful behaviour pretty easily.

I'm with you. not really a big deal. I'm not offended by a persons religion or lack of one.

[barryr]

Yeah, right. If he wore something in support of atheism and was fired for it, the ACLU would be filing any and every lawsuit they could.

[DenverBrit]

So a button that says "one nation under god" makes you feel uncomfortable? I bet if they did this to a muslim for wearing a headscarve, the ACLU would be all over them. That **** would become part of the uniform at home depot.

Maybe a better example might be if the Muslim wore a button that said: "Allah is great."

Wearing a piece of apparel such as a headscarf would identify the wearer's religious beliefs, wearing a button with a religious slogan is promoting that belief.

Don't you think that's the issue?

[ant1999e]

Maybe a better example might be if the Muslim wore a button that said: "Allah is great."

Wearing a piece of apparel such as a headscarf would identify the wearer's religious beliefs, wearing a button with a religious slogan is promoting that belief.

Don't you think that's the issue?

It is a little different of an issue but still don't think it's a big deal.

[DenverBrit]

It is a little different of an issue but still don't think it's a big deal.

I agree.

[BroncoInferno]

It is a little different of an issue but still don't think it's a big deal.

What if an atheist wore a button that said "God is dead"? Is he entitled to express his religious view, too? Or might you find that offensive?

[ant1999e]

What if an atheist wore a button that said "God is dead"? Is he entitled to express his religious view, too? Or might you find that offensive?

I would think he was an idiot. Belief that "God is dead" is part of what religion?

Bottom line is this guy was wrong because Home Depot dress code states employees can only wear buttons provided by the company. He was not wrong for showing patriotism and pride in his country.

[BroncoInferno]

I would think he was an idiot. Belief that "God is dead" is part of what religion?

Bottom line is this guy was wrong because Home Depot dress code states employees can only wear buttons provided by the company. He was not wrong for showing patriotism and pride in his country.

God is dead is a religious expression in the sense that it is an opinion on religion...that they are false. Obviously, you find that offensive. And it obviiously never occured to you (or else you just don't care) that "one nation under god" might offend people who shop at Home Depot who don't believe in god. That's the point. That's why places like Home Depot have rules like that in place.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is no place for that type of thing in that sort of work environment. You are trying to appeal to a vast array of customers, and employees wearing politally or religiously motivated attire is simply not acceptable. Whether it be pro-theist, pro-atheist or otherwise.

Yep.

He's acting as a rep for Home Depot and doesn't have the right to represent the company when it comes to any political or religious message.

[Garcia Bronco]

What if an atheist wore a button that said "God is dead"? Is he entitled to express his religious view, too? Or might you find that offensive?

No one has a right to be un-offended.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So a button that says "one nation under god" makes you feel uncomfortable? I bet if they did this to a muslim for wearing a headscarve, the ACLU would be all over them. That **** would become part of the uniform at home depot.

Bad anology.

A headscarf is an article of (traditional) clothing.

A button like this guy was wearing is like a miniature signboard, protest sign, etc.

[Doggcow]

You're damn right. And Home Depot shouldn't accept the US currency because it says "In God We Trust". That **** has no place in a business environment.

My credit card says "In debt we trust"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, right. If he wore something in support of atheism and was fired for it, the ACLU would be filing any and every lawsuit they could.

Can't help but note how ironic this sort of "protest" sounds coming from a guy who had no problem with Americans getting dragged out of political rallies by Secret Service agents for simply wearing t-shirts with certain slogans on them.

[Tombstone RJ]

Good thing they nipped this in the bud. This kind of crap has no place in the workplace.

A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33505354/ns/business-local_business/

As long as Home Depot is consistent in this policy, then I have no problem with the guy being fired for breaking company policy.

If Home Depot has a Human Resources department, and I'm sure they do, then they probably documented the times he was asked to remove the button. He should have been given fair warning before termination, and those warning should be documented, in writing with his signature.

If all that happened, and the guy still broke the rules, then goodbye.

Also, Home Depot has be consistent in doing this for all employees who wear buttons on their work clothes. If they do this then the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on if he wants to fight Home Depot.

[ant1999e]

God is dead is a religious expression in the sense that it is an opinion on religion...that they are false. Obviously, you find that offensive. And it obviiously never occured to you (or else you just don't care) that "one nation under god" might offend people who shop at Home Depot who don't believe in god. That's the point. That's why places like Home Depot have rules like that in place.

It's an opinion not part of a religion or an expression based off the beliefs of a religion. Why would "one nation under god offend you". I could understand if it said "athiest will rot in hell". The guys brother is serving in Iraq. The pin was an American flaf with the excert from the pledge of alligence. If that offends you, I think you are just looking for an excuse to bitch.

[ant1999e]

Bad anology.

A headscarf is an article of (traditional) clothing.

A button like this guy was wearing is like a miniature signboard, protest sign, etc.

I agree and stated that in a previous post. However, I don't think this guy was pushing an ajenda. I believe he was showing support for his brother and his country.

[ant1999e]

My credit card says "In debt we trust"

In China We Trust.

[BroncoInferno]

It's an opinion not part of a religion or an expression based off the beliefs of a religion. Why would "one nation under god offend you"

I don't particularly care personally. However, I could see where it might offend an atheist or agnostic. "One nation under God" implies that belief in God is an important component of Patriotism. In other words, the atheist is not a good Patriot. You may not agree with that, but the point is that Home Depot and other corps have rules like this in place because they want to put out a vibe of neutrality on any potentially controversial issues so that all-comers feel welcome. I don't get why you can't understand that? No one is telling this guy not to wear his pin in public. Home Depot just doesn't want him wearing it while on their time and while represnting their company.

[ant1999e]

I don't particularly care personally. However, I could see where it might offend an atheist or agnostic. "One nation under God" implies that belief in God is an important component of Patriotism. In other words, the atheist is not a good Patriot. You may not agree with that, but the point is that Home Depot and other corps have rules like this in place because they want to put out a vibe of neutrality on any potentially controversial issues so that all-comers feel welcome. I don't get why you can't understand that? No one is telling this guy not to wear his pin in public. Home Depot just doesn't want him wearing it while on their time and while represnting their company.

I disagree that this pin is saying anything but what this guy believes. It isn't saying "in god we trust unless you hate America".

Please see post 21.

[BroncoInferno]

I disagree that this pin is saying anything but what this guy believes. It isn't saying "in god we trust unless you hate America".

Please see post 21.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Others may interpret it differently. Which is precisely why Home Depot does not want its employees wearing (to use LABF's term) "miniature cardboard signs" while on duty. It eliminates the possibllity of any customer getting the wrong impression or taking offense, which could hurt Home Depot's image as a store where anyone with any view or belief is welcome.

[ant1999e]

That's fine. That's your opinion. Others may interpret it differently. Which is precisely why Home Depot does not want its employees wearing (to use LABF's term) "miniature cardboard signs" while on duty. It eliminates the possibllity of any customer getting the wrong impression or taking offense, which could hurt Home Depot's image as a store where anyone with any view or belief is welcome.

Did you see post 21?

[BroncoInferno]

Did you see post 21?

OK, then what were you arguing with me about? We agree that Home Depot has this policy for good reason and this employee deserved to be fired for failing to adhere to that policy.

[ant1999e]

OK, then what were you arguing with me about? We agree that Home Depot has this policy for good reason and this employee deserved to be fired for failing to adhere to that policy.

I agree it's against policy. We disagree on it being offensive. You said:

"What if an atheist wore a button that said "God is dead"? Is he entitled to express his religious view, too? Or might you find that offensive?"

[BroncoInferno]

I agree it's against policy. We disagree on it being offensive. You said:

"What if an atheist wore a button that said "God is dead"? Is he entitled to express his religious view, too? Or might you find that offensive?"

I meant that someone could conceivably interpret it as offensive.

[Garcia Bronco]

I meant that someone could conceivably interpret it as offensive.

So what. You don't have a right to NOT be offended.

[Rohirrim]

If they're going to allow him to wear his "God is great" button, then I get to wear my "God stole my bicycle" button.

[ant1999e]

If they're going to allow him to wear his "God is great" button, then I get to wear my "God stole my bicycle" button.

Ha!

[JJJ]

If they're going to allow him to wear his "God is great" button, then I get to wear my "God stole my bicycle" button.

Whenever a Dutch person talks to a German they always ask them "Can I have my bike back?" in reference to when the war was over all the Germans stole the bikes and rode them back to Germany. A little cloggy humor.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

I personally would not have fired the guy, but that is the company's right to do so if they don't like what he wears. If you wore a pin that said, "**** you" on it and your boss told you to take it off but you refuse, then he has the right to fire you.

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

[Doggcow]

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

Don't tell the "God is Super Duper" crowd that :P

[Mr.Meanie]

People are making this a bigger deal than it should be.

A company has a right to allow or deny any sort of religious expression as it wishes. If it begins losing customers because of it's rules, then they will most likely change.

It's not about whether this kind of stuff "belongs" in the workplace... it's about whether the company allows it. In some workplaces it belongs (it's allowed)...and if it offends you you are free to seek another job or stop patronizing that business. In some workplaces it does not belong (not allowed), and in that scenario again if you are offended you are free to seek other employment or stop patronizing that business.

IMO, too many people are caught up in trying to tell other people what to do or not do.

[BroncoInferno]

So what. You don't have a right to NOT be offended.

True. However, and I know you will find this shocking, most businesses prefer that their employees not offend the customers. Crazy concept, I know.

[orangeatheist]

True. However, and I know you will find this shocking, most businesses prefer that their employees not offend the customers. Crazy concept, I know.

This is the bottom line. Period.

I, however, like it when people wear their god buttons or god shirts. It's like a dunce cap and lets me know whom to avoid. (Runs backstage now to avoid the upcoming flying rotten fruit and vegetables!) :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I believe he was showing support for his brother and his country.

The statement "one nation under God" isn't a statement of support for another person - it's an advertisement of one's religious and/or political beliefs.

[Bronco Bob]

I said I wouldn't care.

You also asked "who cares?"

[Bronco Bob]

You're damn right. And Home Depot shouldn't accept the US currency because it says "In God We Trust". That **** has no place in a business environment.

That's why most people use credit or debit cards to pay for things now.
No religious symbolism on them.

[JJJ]

I personally would not have fired the guy, but that is the company's right to do so if they don't like what he wears. If you wore a pin that said, "**** you" on it and your boss told you to take it off but you refuse, then he has the right to fire you.

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.


Fact check. Haven't checked them all but I call BS after a quick 30 second search on your 1950 dates.

1936 Winged Liberty Head (Mercury) dime.

25406

[SleepingTiger]

Fact check. Haven't checked them all but I call BS after a quick 30 second search on your 1950 dates.

1936 Winged Liberty Head (Mercury) dime.

25406

lol 1909 penny. you're so full of shiat abilene.
so how is your quest to patrol our borders from the comfort of your dorm room?

http://rarecoingallery.com/published/publicdata/MARCGSHOP/attachments/SC/products_pictures/1909s_1c_vdb_ngc-ms64rb_obv_enl.jpg

[SleepingTiger]

I personally would not have fired the guy, but that is the company's right to do so if they don't like what he wears. If you wore a pin that said, "**** you" on it and your boss told you to take it off but you refuse, then he has the right to fire you.

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

how u like these apples? 1871 nickle go back far enough for you?

http://rarecoingallery.com/published/publicdata/MARCGSHOP/attachments/SC/products_pictures/1871_5c_ms65_obvyt_enl.jpg

[ant1999e]

how u like these apples? 1871 nickle go back far enough for you?

http://rarecoingallery.com/published/publicdata/marcgshop/attachments/sc/products_pictures/1871_5c_ms65_obvyt_enl.jpg

rofl!

[Arkie]

A loan officer at my bank has a "Bush Cheated" coffee mug on his desk. It's his right, but it's bad for business. That's why politics and religion have no place in business. I know it's a shock to some people that business owners make decisions based on what's good for business. By giving a cashier the freedom of expression, you take away some of the business's freedom.

[Arkie]

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.

[ant1999e]

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
:~ohyah!:

[TailgateNut]

Who cares if he wears the button. If an athiest wears a button that says "there is no god" I could care less. He's free to express his beliefs that their is no god.

Sorry charlie. If it's against workplace policy, it doesn't fly.

[Rohirrim]

I'm surprised that nobody wants to know how I know that God stole my bicycle.

[Fedaykin]

Sounds like the proper title for this thread is:

Man Fired for Insubordination: Film at 11

If your employer lawfully instructs you to do something and you refuse, don't cry when he cans your ass.

[ant1999e]

I'm surprised that nobody wants to know how I know that God stole my bicycle.

O.K., how do you know God stole your bicycle?

[Rohirrim]

O.K., how do you know God stole your bicycle?

One minute it was there. The next minute it was gone.

Who else could it be?

[ak1971]

One minute it was there. The next minute it was gone.

Who else could it be?

thats racist.

[Rohirrim]

thats racist.

Or theist?

[AbileneBroncoFan]

how u like these apples? 1871 nickle go back far enough for you?

http://rarecoingallery.com/published/publicdata/MARCGSHOP/attachments/SC/products_pictures/1871_5c_ms65_obvyt_enl.jpg

I'm sorry, I was not aware that Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln were alive in 1871. Thank you to all of you brilliant scholars for clarifying this issue for me.

[Garcia Bronco]

True. However, and I know you will find this shocking, most businesses prefer that their employees not offend the customers. Crazy concept, I know.

It will likely comfort customers rather than offend them. You know...because more people believe in a God than don't if you want to look at it from a marketing perspective. Without God things get worse. and despite how you talk, God stills loves you. You just need to accept him in your heart. He will deliver you from evil.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

It will likely comfort customers rather than offend them. You know...because more people believe in a God than don't if you want to look at it from a marketing perspective. Without God things get worse. and despite how you talk, God stills loves you. You just need to accept him in your heart. He will deliver you from evil.

Guess God's not interested in Sudan then. Must've not been interested in Germany in the early 1940s. Or Rwanda in 1994. Or the 30 Years War in Europe, which coincidentally was a religious war where the opposing armies literally went back and forth raping, pillaging, and burning civilian towns and cities from 1618-1648. One third of the population of the German territories were killed, most of that being from starvation and the elements, since the good Christian soldiers took their money, food, and clothes and then burnt their homes down. One of the great atrocities in Western history.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm surprised that nobody wants to know how I know that God stole my bicycle.

"'Cause the Bible tells you so?" ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm sorry, I was not aware that Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln were alive in 1871. Thank you to all of you brilliant scholars for clarifying this issue for me.

:rofl: ^5

[ant1999e]

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

Yeah, 1864 is real recent. I guess since you know Washington and Jefferson pretty well since you are speaking for them. Lincoln was the president in 1864when this phrase first appeared on U.S. currency. Try again

[JJJ]

:rofl: ^5

What the hell are you laughing at? First the dude was off by a mere 80 years on his money "fact" that he stated with such authority.

Now he is making claims on the lack of religious zeal of the 3 presidents.

Again let us check the facts.

Lets start with Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address. It is very short, it has to be, to fit on the marble wall at the Lincoln memorial.

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the enerergies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissole the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.


Sources for his speech.

The words "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces" are an allusion to the Fall of Man in the book of Genesis. As a result of Adam's sin, God tells Adam that henceforth "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19, King James Version).

Lincoln's phrase, "but let us judge not, that we be not judged," is an allusion to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1, which in the King James Version reads, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Lincoln quotes another of the sayings of Jesus: "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." Lincoln's quoted language comes from Matthew 18:7; a similar discourse by Jesus appears in Luke 17:1.

The quotation 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether' is from Psalm 19:9 in the King James Bible.

Lincoln's points, that God's purposes are not directly knowable to humans, represent a theme that Lincoln had expressed earlier. After Lincoln's death, his secretaries found among his papers an undated manuscript now generally known as the "Meditations on the Divine Will". In that manuscript, Lincoln wrote:

The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this.[3]
Lincoln's sense that the divine will was unknowable stood in marked contrast to sentiments popular at the time. In the popular mind, both sides of the Civil War assumed that they could read God's will and assumed his favor in their opposing causes. Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic expressed sentiments common among the supporters of the Union cause, that the Union was waging a righteous war that served God's purposes. Similarly, the Confederacy chose Deo vindice as its motto, often translated as "God will vindicate us."[4] Lincoln, responding to compliments from Thurlow Weed on the speech, said that "... I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them."[5]



Yep, sounds like a man who keeps a clear distinction between his work as president and who he believes is his creator.

[Rohirrim]

And somewhere God is sitting, saying to himself, "The will of human beings is unknowable and the purpose of their actions impossible to divine."

[ant1999e]

And somewhere God is sitting, saying to himself, "The will of human beings is unknowable and the purpose of their actions impossible to divine."

He is saying this while riding your bike.

[JJJ]

And Mr. Washington's first inaugural address.

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

AMONG the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years—a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated. 1

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that 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, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. 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 tranquil 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 anticipation 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 the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

Me thinks old George felt the big guy upstairs had a little hand in events that befell him. No?

[Rohirrim]

He is saying this while riding your bike.

He can't hide forever.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Yeah, 1864 is real recent. I guess since you know Washington and Jefferson pretty well since you are speaking for them. Lincoln was the president in 1864when this phrase first appeared on U.S. currency. Try again

I never said that the money thing was recent. I said that it becoming our national motto was recent. Which is true. I was not aware that 1864 was the first time it was on money, but I knew it was before 1900. I have a coin from the late 1800s that has it on there. However, I am correct in saying Washington and Jefferson would not have spent money with the phrase on there. Lincoln also would did not spend money with it on there during his adult life, but he would have seen it in the final year of his life.

What the hell are you laughing at? First the dude was off by a mere 80 years on his money "fact" that he stated with such authority.

I did not state what year money began to have the slogan "In God We Trust" printed on it. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Now he is making claims on the lack of religious zeal of the 3 presidents.

Again let us check the facts.

Yes, let's.

Lets start with Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address. It is very short, it has to be, to fit on the marble wall at the Lincoln memorial.

Making sure it could fit on a memorial built long after his death was precisely what Mr. Lincoln was going for in this speech.

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the enerergies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissole the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

To be clear, Lincoln was the most religious of the three presidents I listed. He was without a doubt a Christian. However, he was not a Christian in the terms of what we believe today. In fact, he was not very religious at all until the death of his son. Either way, it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is I was correct in saying that he never said the pledge "one nation, under God..." seeing as how that didn't come about for almost another century. But yes, if it makes you feel better, Mr. Lincoln was a Christian. Even though that has absolutely nothing to do with being the President of the United States or the United States Government.


Sources for his speech.

The words "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces" are an allusion to the Fall of Man in the book of Genesis. As a result of Adam's sin, God tells Adam that henceforth "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19, King James Version).

Lincoln's phrase, "but let us judge not, that we be not judged," is an allusion to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1, which in the King James Version reads, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Lincoln quotes another of the sayings of Jesus: "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." Lincoln's quoted language comes from Matthew 18:7; a similar discourse by Jesus appears in Luke 17:1.

The quotation 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether' is from Psalm 19:9 in the King James Bible.

Quoting a famous literary reference is a good rhetorical tactic. But it does not mean you believe everything it says applies. We are getting very off topic with this, and this has little to do with Lincoln's personal beliefs, but for the sake of being thorough I will continue. Jefferson derives "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from John Locke's "life, liberty, and property" in his Treatises on Government. In this treatise Locke's outline for government includes a monarch. Just because Jefferson quotes it does not mean that he agrees with all of it or wants to enact all of it. Again, little to do with Lincoln, who was a Christian, but just because he quotes the Bible in a speech does not prove he is a Christian. Also, an interesting tidbit, Lincoln never was a member of a church.

Lincoln's points, that God's purposes are not directly knowable to humans, represent a theme that Lincoln had expressed earlier. After Lincoln's death, his secretaries found among his papers an undated manuscript now generally known as the "Meditations on the Divine Will". In that manuscript, Lincoln wrote:

The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this.[3]
Lincoln's sense that the divine will was unknowable stood in marked contrast to sentiments popular at the time. In the popular mind, both sides of the Civil War assumed that they could read God's will and assumed his favor in their opposing causes. Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic expressed sentiments common among the supporters of the Union cause, that the Union was waging a righteous war that served God's purposes. Similarly, the Confederacy chose Deo vindice as its motto, often translated as "God will vindicate us."[4] Lincoln, responding to compliments from Thurlow Weed on the speech, said that "... I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them."[5]

Yep, sounds like a man who keeps a clear distinction between his work as president and who he believes is his creator.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I never said that he was not a Christian. Throwing all of this out there does not refute the fact that the national motto was not "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance did not include "under God" until long after his death. If the only thing you can argue is that he indeed could have spent money with "In God We Trust" on it during the last year of his life (most of the money in circulation would not have had that on it), go for it. You can have your one year. I'll take my century on the other two points.

And Mr. Washington's first inaugural address.

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

AMONG the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years—a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated. 1

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that 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, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. 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 tranquil 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 anticipation 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 the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

Me thinks old George felt the big guy upstairs had a little hand in events that befell him. No?

Note: He mentions Jesus 0 times. The Bible 0 times. Christianity 0 times. Look up the portrait of Washington on his deathbed and you will find that a clergyman is not present. Let me quote you a biography (His Excellency) by Joseph Ellis, who has won the Pulitzer Prize for History as well as a National Book Award:

"Never a deeply religious man, at least in the traditional Christian sense of the term, Washington thought of God as a distant, impersonal force, the presumed wellspring for what he called destiny or providence. Whether or not there was a hereafter, or a heaven where one's soul lived on, struck him as one of those unfathomable mysteries that Christian theologians wasted much ink and energy trying to resolve."

And

"[On his instructions not to be put into the vault until no sooner than 2 days after his death] Washington believed that several apparently dead people, perhaps including Jesus, had really been buried alive, a fate he wished to avoid...there were no ministers in the room, no prayers uttered, no Christian rituals offering the solace of everlasting life. The historical evidence suggests that Washington did not think much about heaven or angels; the only place he knew his body was going was into the ground, and as for his soul, its ultimate location was unknowable. He died as a Roman stoic rather than a Christian saint."

So he was a deist who believed in a very impersonal god, if anything. Also, more in the topic of this thread, it was during his presidency that the Treaty of Tripoli was signed by the US and Tripoli (although it was not ratified by Congress until Adams had taken over, so Adams' signature is on the official document). It states: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This was ratified unanimously by the United States Senate.

As for Jefferson, I don't think I even need to say anything on that.

[watermock]

http://www.osfa.org.uk/owl_on_the_dollar.jpg,

[ant1999e]

And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

This is what you said. The rest of your post is nothing but babbling and bull****. Just admit that you were wrong.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

This is what you said. The rest of your post is nothing but babbling and bull****. Just admit that you were wrong.

Only someone who can't win the argument tries to harp on a minute detail that is not even the point at hand. My work is done here.

[ant1999e]

Only someone who can't win the argument tries to harp on a minute detail that is not even the point at hand. My work is done here.

There you go. Attempt to bow out gracefully while tripping over your feet.Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only someone who can't win the argument tries to harp on a minute detail that is not even the point at hand. My work is done here.

:yep:

These right-wing ninnies never tire of the old "if you can't debate, then obfuscate" tactic, do they?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I never said that the money thing was recent. I said that it becoming our national motto was recent.

Distinctions: They are a b*tch, eh? Ha!

[ant1999e]

Distinctions: They are a b*tch, eh? Ha!

Are you stuck on stupid? I love how you read only the posts you want and then make ignorant comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbileneBroncoFan
And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

[ant1999e]

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93142?fp=1

Changing names at work
Here goes one of the buzziest and most bizarre stories in some time. Larry Whitten, a hotel owner in New Mexico, ordered his staff of primarily Latino workers to change their names while working. For example, a worker who pronounced his name "Mahr-teen," would have to go by "Martin." The point, Mr. Whitten asserted, was to help the hotel become more profitable and draw more customers. But instead of customers, Whitten was met with protestors—and plenty of 'em. Additionally, the story's Search profile shot through the roof. In just 24 hours, Web lookups on "Paragon Inn," the hotel in question, surged into the thousands. In an article that scored a slew of votes, Whitten explains that he's helped turn around over 20 hotels, and this isn't racism. His guests, he contends, can't understand Spanish. Still, he later said that he was "sorry for the misunderstanding and insisted he has never been against any culture."

I guess if it's company policy, they have no choice. I'm sure some customers were offended or felt uncomfortable being helped by people named Jose, Julio and Consuela.

[Tombstone RJ]

Sounds like the proper title for this thread is:

Man Fired for Insubordination: Film at 11

If your employer lawfully instructs you to do something and you refuse, don't cry when he cans your ass.

Listen people (I'm getting preachy here): company policy is company policy. Some companies are pro Christian and clearly state it so, Chick-a-Fila comes to mind. Cool, I'm down with that.

Some companies like Home Depot are not going to tolerate religious expression because it could offend someone. Groovy.

Both companies need to cya on clearly spelling this out to said employee. Make them read and sign off on a company manual that addresses everything from clothing to sick leave to managment rights.

Said employee should know going in what is acceptable and what is not. The company should be fair in it's enforcement and be rigid in it's enforcement. Document, document, document preferrably with a witness. A male manager should never dicipline a female employee without a witness in the room (preferrably a female witness). All parties sign off on meeting and said employee has a right to also write down his/her opinion or side of the story on the documentation.

As long as Home Depot has done all or some of the above, and can show a pattern, termination is totally within their rights.

[Tombstone RJ]

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93142?fp=1

Changing names at work
Here goes one of the buzziest and most bizarre stories in some time. Larry Whitten, a hotel owner in New Mexico, ordered his staff of primarily Latino workers to change their names while working. For example, a worker who pronounced his name "Mahr-teen," would have to go by "Martin." The point, Mr. Whitten asserted, was to help the hotel become more profitable and draw more customers. But instead of customers, Whitten was met with protestors—and plenty of 'em. Additionally, the story's Search profile shot through the roof. In just 24 hours, Web lookups on "Paragon Inn," the hotel in question, surged into the thousands. In an article that scored a slew of votes, Whitten explains that he's helped turn around over 20 hotels, and this isn't racism. His guests, he contends, can't understand Spanish. Still, he later said that he was "sorry for the misunderstanding and insisted he has never been against any culture."

I guess if it's company policy, they have no choice. I'm sure some customers were offended or felt uncomfortable being helped by people named Jose, Julio and Consuela.

I did not read the article but I bet you anything, this hotel had no clearly defined work place boundaries and policies and Whitten acted on his own, also I'm willing to bet this hotel was privately owned and was not part of a chain with an HR department. Complete guess on my part. Even if this hotel does/did have all this Whitten violated basic workplace rights protected by anti-descrimation EOE rights.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

:yep:

These right-wing ninnies never tire of the old "if you can't debate, then obfuscate" tactic, do they?

It's what they do best. It's all they've done lately.

[ant1999e]

It's what they do best. It's all they've done lately.
And lefties resort to childish name calling when they are backed into a corner.
I guess liberals are best at ignoring the fact that they were wrong. :bs:

[AbileneBroncoFan]

And lefties resort to childish name calling when they are backed into a corner.
I guess liberals are best at ignoring the fact that they were wrong. :bs:

Still haven't offered any refutation of my main points. Keep harping on a sarcastic comment that was technically incorrect by one year if it makes you feel better.

[ant1999e]

Still haven't offered any refutation of my main points. Keep harping on a sarcastic comment that was technically incorrect by one year if it makes you feel better.

Pay attention and I'll explain it to you.

I said this:
"You're damn right. And Home Depot shouldn't accept the US currency because it says "In God We Trust". That **** has no place in a business environment."

You said this:
"And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history."

I said this:
"http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...we-trust.shtml

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."
And then this:
"Yeah, 1864 is real recent. I guess since you know Washington and Jefferson pretty well since you are speaking for them. Lincoln was the president in 1864when this phrase first appeared on U.S. currency. Try again"

You were arguing with yourself in regards to the national motto and Pledge of Allegiance facts. Nobody ever disputed or even discussed those facts with you. You brought them up when you said this about Lincoln and the phrase "In God We Trust";

"they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history".

I prove that you were flat out wrong on the one area I disagreed with you in. What more can I say? Just be a man and admit you were wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Are you stuck on stupid?

Oh, the irony. :laugh:


I love how you read only the posts you want and then make ignorant comments.


Actually, I've been following the discussion from the beginning, and I was just waiting for someone to point out the comprehension error (or was it deliberate?) by you and your fellow rightards. :welcome:

[ant1999e]

Oh, the irony. :laugh:



Actually, I've been following the discussion from the beginning, and I was just waiting for someone to point out the comprehension error (or was it deliberate?) by you and your fellow rightards. :welcome:

Typical response from your dumb ass.

[Arkie]

I'm sorry, I was not aware that Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln were alive in 1871. Thank you to all of you brilliant scholars for clarifying this issue for me.

They weren't. That coin would surprise them.

[JJJ]

Still haven't offered any refutation of my main points. Keep harping on a sarcastic comment that was technically incorrect by one year if it makes you feel better.

Your first main point was that In God we Trust was a fairly recent development coming about in the 50's. We showed it was in common use by the federal government, if not a national motto, nearly a hundred years earlier. Not such a recent development.

Your second main point was that Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln wouldn't have used such language due to their militant stand on the separation of church and state. Perhaps In God We Trust or One Nation Under God were not used in those exact forms specifically by these men but there is little doubt, and this was clearly shown, that they infused much more fervant religious language and attitudes in their speeches than these simple mottos.

You may take away a few small technical wins from this discussion but the main underlying weaknesses of your argument were fully exposed.

We were a nation founded at its inception by very religious men who fully believed in God but were smart enough to separate out religion from government. They made this separation not to eliminate religion but to preserve it so that each citizen had the right to worship their God as they see fit and to prevent the government from selecting a God of choice.

I think they understood very well the generic nature of the word God, much better it seems than modern Americans seem to, and had no intention of striking it out in every and all forms. They all believed God had a hand in forming this country.

I am sure Mr. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have been alarmed and would have been quite pleased to see In God We Trust on the currency of their country.

Above all these were smart pragmatic men, who would have seen the folly of the efforts to take the separation of church and state to far beyond logical rational levels as is being done over the last 20 years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Typical response from your dumb ass.

Typical deflection from your dishonest ass.

Either you're one dumb sumb*tch or you're just pretending not to understand the distinction between a statement about markings on coins vs. a statement about when a national motto was first adopted.

[ant1999e]

Typical deflection from your dishonest ass.

Either you're one dumb sumb*tch or you're just pretending not to understand the distinction between a statement about markings on coins vs. a statement about when a national motto was first adopted.

I never spoke about a national motto asshole. My argument was only about the currency. I never spoke on a national motto. Read the ****ing thread.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I never spoke about a national motto a-hole. My argument was only about the currency. I never spoke on a national motto. Read the ****ing thread.

:stupid:

But jerkoff: If you weren't confused about his original comments, then why were you busting his chops? :mullet1:

[ant1999e]

I don't know why I even try with you LABF.

The first two sentences are fact. Nobody was arguing that. Abilene was the first to bring up the national motto.

The underlined info is speculation on Abilene's part because we can't know what our previous presidents would or wouldn't have said or done. The bolded info was proven wrong in regards to Abraham Lincoln. I'm sure you will have an ignorant comment so to whatever it is I say 4321~.


And please do not bring up "In God We Trust" or "one nation under God." If you check your facts you will find that "In God We Trust" was not the national motto until 1956. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would not have said the pledge with the words "under God," and they would not have exchanged currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. It is not a part of our roots, it is a part of our recent history.

[epicSocialism4tw]

A button like this guy was wearing is like a miniature signboard, protest sign, etc.

Umm...no.

"One Nation under God..." is a direct quote from the United States pledge of allegiance.

Home Depot are a private company. They have the right to include in their code of conduct a set or parameters that disallow jewelry or decorative wear. If this employee was violating the code of conduct as specifically stated in a document that he put his signature to upon hiring, then he is legally bound to the observation of that code.

However, if Home Depot went outside of their own documents to reprimand this employee because of a customer or employee complaint, then he has a case that could violate the US constitution and the free expression of religion. If that is the situation, then he should sue the pants off of Home Depot for religious discrimination.

After hearing this, I'll make sure that I communicate to Home Depot that I will no longer consider them an option in the marketplace for my dollars.

All in all, this is a very short-sighted management mistake for Home Depot because a huge portion of their customer base come from the same demographic that are religious, traditionalist Americans.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't know why I even try with you LABF.

The first two sentences are fact. Nobody was arguing that. Abilene was the first to bring up the national motto.

The underlined info is speculation on Abilene's part because we can't know what our previous presidents would or wouldn't have said or done. The bolded info was proven wrong in regards to Abraham Lincoln. I'm sure you will have an ignorant comment so to whatever it is I say 4321~.

Damn! You just seem to get thicker with each passing day.

If you go back and review this thread, you'll see that your fellow ditto spanks thought they had refuted Abilene's initial point when they dug up some photos of coins inscribed with "in God we trust" that pre-dated 1954.

In reality, all they (and you) did was make it clear that you missed the point.

But you've provided us with some great comedy along the way, so carry on.

:wave:Ha!

Oh, and BTW, the assertion about Jefferson, et al, isn't simply "speculation" when we consider the sum total of these founders' words and actions in life.

More like a safe bet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Umm...no.

"One Nation under God..." is a direct quote from the United States pledge of allegiance.

More like a select excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance.

But yours is just another typical appeal to authority.

You'd be attempting the same argument if the quote was from The Bible, no doubt.