Thread:CreddieCupcake/@comment-4542190-20120603190849/@comment-4542190-20120606112240

Well, a true, honest politician shouldn't express, support and vote for his/hers thesis without taking into account the consequences that this would bring for his future career (i.e. care only about himself/herself and his/her fate in politics)?

Whenever there are people who use matters of faith and religion for goals far opposite of their meaning (for example, taking advantage of people's faith to rise, etc) then, it's bad for them, not for the religion. Because they will bring upon them the repercussions, in the long run (God is omni-present and omni-scient)- even if that's the case on the specific matter.

If before the Civil War there was Oligarchy and not Democracy (even if it appeared differently on paper, theoretically) and those who took the "decisions" didn't represent all people of the nation (which is the purpose of the Parliament/Congress) then, this doesn't change what I said-remember, true Democracy. It may be thought mostly as a utopia, but it can exist and apply). T

About the Founding Fathers of the US, I'll say one last thing and won't insist further. Check out the first reply here (which was voted as best answer) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718092923AAcG9fH (this wasn't the only thing I saw and started talking and staff but I believe it's the most concise). About the Declaration, I was saying that it has great importance and significance for Americans, not just historical, it's objectively a national treasure for the United States because it's all about their freedom as a nation (by that meaning, "sacred"). And if it is not necessary for a witness to vow on the Bible, why bother include it in the first place? Sure, not all witnesses who come believe. Not even all the lawyers, jurors and judges etc

To talk about the main point (the others are secondary I think).

In my first first comment, I said about I really appreciate the American people for this (confessing and defending their faith). From your first reply, what I understood was that you were saying, "this happened just for political play and manuevering, it has no purpose whatsoever (possibly doesn't truly express the American people either?)"

Since it clearly doesn't force anything, I don't see any violation of each individual's free will. About the prohibition of the morning prayer at schools, this is totally unfair if you ask me. When there was morning prayer, those who didn't want to participate, just didn't, they were free to do everything the wanted (at least that's how it was in my school in Greece). By banning it, you deprive the opportunity to pray for those who want to, by force, for good. It's not a matter of majority, it's about respecting both (or all) sides-which, with the ban, doesn't apply.

The Congress voted and approved the motto with democratic decisions (this happened first-the people didn't use the government for that and the government passed it on like any other decision, democratically, didn't force it). And according to the poll, the overwhelming majority of American people agree with it inscripted on currency, they're expressed by it, accept it as the official moto of the nation (and 90% for a nation like United States of America, one realizes that we're talking about many millions of people). In a few words, Americans truly and honestly trust in God.

So, I don't see what's wrong with my original comment (to Cupcake) and why should we drag this on.