Laus Deo

[Hook Dem]

LAUS DEO


This is quite interesting - Enjoy!


One detail that is not mentioned about government and religion is that in the District of Columbia there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington Monument. With all the uproar about removing the Ten Commandments, etc., this is worth a moment or two of your time.

On the aluminum cap, atop the Washington Monument in Washington DC, are displayed two words: Laus Deo. No one can see these words. In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn't care less.

Once you know Laus Deo's history, you will want to share this with everyone you know. But these words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5. 125 inches high perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles, which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United States of
America.

Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, un-noticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.

So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean? Very simply, they say "Praise be to God!"

Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States, it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It took twenty five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, Laus Deo...."Praise be to God!"



From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant...a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.

A cross you ask? Why a cross? What about separation of church and state? Yes a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution. So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice.

Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore; on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Praise be to God!



When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy...."One Nation, Under God."

I am awed by Washington's prayer for America. Have you never read it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!



"Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United states at large." And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."



Laus Deo! As you probably guessed, over 92 percent of Americans like the idea that our Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase "under God." It is clear when one studies the history of our great nation, that Washington's America was one of the few countries in all the world established under the guidance, direction and banner of Almighty God, to whom was given all praise honor and worship by the great men who formed and fashioned her pivotal foundations.



When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look.



Though many try to disprove and reason, their arguments are weak and easily proven without basis. Their efforts will forever be in vain; God assures us of that. Have you noticed as of late, how many more people are coming together, affirming the fact that this nation was, from the beginning, built on God? Any nation that is not built upon God will fail. Do you wonder why, when other nations fall into an abyss, does the United States continually prosper? Now you know, but do not let the arrogance of some instill doubt within you. The truth is... We have always been one nation under God! Laus Deo! Praise be to God!



You may forget the width and height of "Laus Deo", it's location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget it's meaning, or these words:

"Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain.

Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." (Psalm 127:1)

[sbsquared]

This was really good - thank you for posting it! I love it when we are faced with proof that our country was truly founded on Judeo-Christian principles, regardless of what the secularists want to say or think!! Praise be to God!!

[Clandestino]

i'm not mr religous.. in fact, i'm closer to the opposite end..i'm a bad boy, but i do think it is wrong when all of the sudden the secularist groups try to remove all traces of "under God" and any references to Christianity in government. It really doesn't affect anything in my opinion. $1 still buys $1 worth of stuff whether it says under God or not. The only thing that sucks is the all the money spent fighting these things in court!

[JoeChalupa]

Good read. I thought it was going to mention how the monument was build with 2 types of stone. I think I read that somewhere and if you look you can see the two different shades of stone.

I still think the founders did not want an official government religion.

There are places of worship for religion.

But that is just me. I'm a Christian but I don't need to have a Cross on every government building to remind me.

[Guru of Nothing]

This was really good - thank you for posting it! I love it when we are faced with proof that our country was truly founded on Judeo-Christian principles, regardless of what the secularists want to say or think!! Praise be to God!!

Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian, or a Deist?

[Yonivore]

Praise be to God!

So, when does the ACLU begin proceedings to have Washington, D.C. destroyed?

[boutons]

"Judeo"? The US Founders, late 18th century, also contained practicing Jews, as does US founding documents?

I love these red-staters, simplistic Bible thumpers, and ignorant rabble rousers, always twisting "separation of Church and State" into "anti Church".

[sbsquared]

It's called Judeo-Christian because the Christian doctrine came from the teachings of Jesus - a JEW!!! The Christian beliefs and doctrine are the fulfillment of the Jewish teachings!

[Hook Dem]

"Judeo"? The US Founders, late 18th century, also contained practicing Jews, as does US founding documents?

I love these red-staters, simplistic Bible thumpers, and ignorant rabble rousers, always twisting "separation of Church and State" into "anti Church".
Your hatred for the "red staters" and labeling them as "bible thumpers" and calling them "rabble rousers" does nothing more than expose your ignorance and arrogance. Call your doctor and take off your Democratic ACLU glasses!

[CommanderMcBragg]

I've seen quite a bit of hatred towards "liberals" as "blue staters" as religion haters and anti-Americans. Ignorance goes both ways!!!
Just read some of Yonivore and NeoCons posts.

[Yonivore]

I've seen quite a bit of hatred towards "liberals" as "blue staters" as religion haters and anti-Americans. Ignorance goes both ways!!!
Just read some of Yonivore and NeoCons posts.
Examples please...don't be a Michael Moore.

[Opinionater]

By Yonivore:
He's not just any nutjob...he runs with the elite nutjobs of Demoncrat administrations past.


Examples?..IMHO, your recent post calling liberals "nut-jobs" is enough of an example.

[Yonivore]

Examples?..IMHO, your recent post calling liberals "nut-jobs" is enough of an example.
Really, when did I call liberals nutjobs?

Not to say modern liberalism isn't some form of mental disorder, but, I don't believe I used the words "liberal" and "nutjob" in the same sentence.

[GoldToe]

No, but you used "nutjob" and "demoncrat" in the same sentence.

And some would say that conservative is a mental disorder which doesn't allow the use of an open mind.

[Yonivore]

No, but you used "nutjob" and "demoncrat" in the same sentence.
But, I've never used "demoncrat" and "democrat" in the same sentence except ot explain the difference.

And some would say that conservative is a mental disorder which doesn't allow the use of an open mind.
Yeah, but, they'd be crazy.

[Extra Stout]

Back in the time of the Founding Fathers, there was a strong positive consensus about public displays of reverence towards God. It seems that persevered more or less until the 1960's. I don't know what that means about "Judeo-Christian" principles or whatever, since Revolutionary politics came straight out of the humanistic Enlightenment, but they didn't have this insatiable urge to expunge all traces of religion from public life that modern-day liberals seem to have.

But then again, in those days, the Founding Fathers were eager to differentiate themselves from European society, while modern liberals look to Europe as the ideal.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has that liberals don't want to exclude any religion they just don't want Christianity plastered everywhere either.

Would conservatives ever vote for Jew for president?

[Yonivore]

Rumor has that liberals don't want to exclude any religion they just don't want Christianity plastered everywhere either.

Would conservatives ever vote for Jew for president?
Why is "under God," a Christian phrase that should be un-"plastered" from our pledge and our money? Do we not worship the same God as Moses and Abraham?

We do. It's not about Christianity...it's about understanding the founding principles of this country.

[NameDropper]

Why is "under God," a Christian phrase that should be un-"plastered" from our pledge and our money? Do we not worship the same God as Moses and Abraham?

We do. It's not about Christianity...it's about understanding the founding principles of this country.

And my understanding is that the founding fathers did NOT WANT a national religion.

Do liberals not worship the same God as Moses and Abraham?

[Yonivore]

And my understanding is that the founding fathers did NOT WANT a national religion.
They did not want a state religion, you are correct. But, no where did they infer agnostic, atheistic, or non-theistic citizens had the right to be free from influence religion has had on this country or the importance a vast majority of its population place on this influence.

Do liberals not worship the same God as Moses and Abraham?
I would argue many don't. But, that's irrelevant...whether they do or not should have no bearing on respecting the Judeo-Christian principles upon which their very religious liberty is based.

[exstatic]

The Christian beliefs and doctrine are the fulfillment of the Jewish teachings!
The Jews might take exception to that statement. They are still waiting for their messiah.

[Yonivore]

The Jews might take exception to that statement. They are still waiting for their messiah.
I don't know, ask these guys...

www.jewsforjesus.org or www.jewsforjesus.com

[JohnnyMarzetti]

They did not want a state religion, you are correct. But, no where did they infer agnostic, atheistic, or non-theistic citizens had the right to be free from influence religion has had on this country or the importance a vast majority of its population place on this influence.

I would argue many don't. But, that's irrelevant...whether they do or not should have no bearing on respecting the Judeo-Christian principles upon which their very religious liberty is based.

Respecting the Judeo-Christian principles does not mean we have to have Christian symbols on Government property.

And I'm a Christian and I pray to the same God that you do and to make that statement shows you are not much of a Christian.
And since you believe and support war doesn't make you much of a Christian either and I argue that Jesus doesn't think so either.

[Yonivore]

Respecting the Judeo-Christian principles does not mean we have to have Christian symbols on Government property.
It doesn't mean we have to not have Christian symbols on Government property either.

Please bear with me, there's an important point to be made about government and religion here; but, first, I've got to explain my perspective on the character of God and how we derive our individual rights.

The main point in this argument is the unique character of the Jewish and Christian God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus is unlike any other God known to the ancient religions of Greece, Rome or the Middle East, or any other religion known to our Founders at the birth of this nation.

Uniquely, this God wishes to be worshiped in spirit and truth, in whatsoever manner conscience directs, without coercion of any sort. This God reads hearts, and is satisfied only with purity of conscience and conviction. Those who belong to any other religion or tradition, or who count themselves among agnostics or atheists, are thereby given by this God equal freedom. They, too, must follow their individual consciences. This God wishes to be worshiped by men and women who are free, not under duress. Arising from His sovereignty, the rights He endows cannot be abrogated by a tyrannical majority among the people, or by the actions of the state in any of its branches.

This conception of religious liberty is spelled out directly in our founding-era documents. For example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights affirms that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

This summarizes the classic American definition of religion and the foundation for religious liberty.

To this definition, some make one or more objections. For instance, some point out that Christians (and Jews) have not always respected this principle, and thus try to discredit its Jewish and Christian origins. But human failure is no argument against the principle; human weakness is measured by it.

Second, one can say that among Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others there have been examples of generations of “tolerance.” But tolerance is a different (and less profound) concept than the right to religious liberty. Tolerance may arise merely from a temporary lack of power to enforce conformity; it does not by itself invoke a natural right. The concept of religious liberty, on the other hand, depends upon a particular conception of God, a particular conception of the human person, and a particular conception of liberty. Reaching these conceptions took Jews and Christians many centuries. They had to be learned through failure and sin and error, and at great cost. But they were eventually learned.

Scholars today can easily point to texts in the American tradition for definitions of these concepts, but they would find it difficult to locate analogous texts in other traditions. Rightly did the authors of Federalist 14 call attention to their own originality, even as they exerted themselves to pay due respect to the opinions of past ages. For this reason, calling the attention of the public to the Jewish and Christian conception of God’s sovereignty, which grounds the principle of religious liberty, is not necessarily the same as “establishing” the Jewish or Christian religions.

In the first place, this conception is by its very nature public, not private, and has historically been invoked in the practice of existing public institutions in countless forms. The public life of our nation has been and is still remarkably religious, as is visible on public occasions such as the inaugural speeches of presidents, the swearing-in of judges, Thanksgiving Day, Independence Day and Memorial Day. The notion that the foundation of our rights lies in God’s work has been officially deployed in many congressional and presidential decrees and proclamations, which recommend religious observances such as fasting, prayers, thanksgiving and imploring pardon for the nation’s sins.

In the second place, the principle of religious liberty (as witnessed to in countless founding documents and in the public practices of the founding era) requires two courses of action: First, one must enunciate the principle clearly, understand it fully, and express it publicly for public guidance. Second, one must not coerce the conscience nor obstruct the free exercise of religion of any.

The specifically American principle of religious liberty, in and of itself, demands that each person’s decision about how (if at all) to worship God is inalienable, for it belongs to each alone in his or her own conscience. Everyone must be free in conscience and in public exercise to accept, or to reject, the Judeo-Christian God. Even if unbelievers choose not to recognize this conception of God, conscience and liberty, but rather to concentrate upon abuses of the principle committed by Christians or others, this particular conception guarantees their freedom of conscience. It is also precious for believers, who are obliged by it to grant to all others exactly the same right to religious liberty that they claim for themselves.

This was exactly the point made by Chief Justice Moore in his oral testimony at last year’s trial over the Ten Commandments issue in Alabama. He said again and again that he stood for two things, both of them derived from America’s founding principles. First, human rights are guaranteed by the sovereignty of God, with the result that any abuse of them will have to be answered for before God in Judgment (as Madison had pointed out). Second, he neither intended to nor could demand that others share these beliefs, since that would violate the principle of religious liberty itself. He wished only “to recur to fundamental principles” (a phrase from the Virginia Declaration of Rights) by calling attention again to the Founders’ beliefs about the grounding of our rights.

It is the special virtue of the Jewish and Christian conception of God that it allows us to make a twofold claim: to recognize in public the beliefs on which our rights are founded, and to refuse to mandate for others that they must hold the same beliefs. Thus we should be counted free to call public attention to the moral foundation of our rights, without by the same deed trying to force Jewish or Christian belief upon Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, or anyone else.

The beauty of our forebears’ conception of religious liberty is that it can be held as a truth by most Americans, respected by all, commended to newcomers as a model, yet never forced upon the conscience of anyone. That is precisely what the principle of religious liberty demands: Cherish it, teach it, but do not force it upon anyone.

"And I'm a Christian and I pray to the same God that you do and to make that statement shows you are not much of a Christian."
How so?

"And since you believe and support war doesn't make you much of a Christian either..."
First of all, I think there's a distinction to be made between supporting and believing in war, generally and supporting and believing in a cause that requires the use of military force -- after 12 years of failing to resolve a legitimate and worsening issue by more peaceful means.

"...and I argue that Jesus doesn't think so either."
Instead of argue, let's look to the Bible...

War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Rom 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm is by going to war with them.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Num 31:2). See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Exodus 17:16 proclaims, “He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation." Also, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” So, obviously God is not against all war.

Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Jesus’ Second Coming also is exceedingly violent . Revelation 19:11-21 proclaims, “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.”

So, you may be in opposition to this particular war, and we should take all possible measures to avoid war in general. It is an error to say that God never supports a war. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions of Jews would have been killed? If the Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African Americans have had to suffer as slaves? We must all remember to base our beliefs on the Bible, not on our emotions (2Tim 3:16-17).

Johnny, I don't believe you understand your own religion or beliefs...That's what I think.

[Hook Dem]

"Johnny, I don't believe you understand your own religion or beliefs...That's what I think." http://tinypic.com/14y59x

[Guru of Nothing]

Please bear with me, there's an important point to be made about government and religion here; but, first, I've got to explain my perspective on the character of God and how we derive our individual rights.

The main point in this argument is the unique character of the Jewish and Christian God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus is unlike any other God known to the ancient religions of Greece, Rome or the Middle East, or any other religion known to our Founders at the birth of this nation.

Uniquely, this God wishes to be worshiped in spirit and truth, in whatsoever manner conscience directs, without coercion of any sort. This God reads hearts, and is satisfied only with purity of conscience and conviction. Those who belong to any other religion or tradition, or who count themselves among agnostics or atheists, are thereby given by this God equal freedom. They, too, must follow their individual consciences. This God wishes to be worshiped by men and women who are free, not under duress.

Nice, meaty post, but it's full of holes (Kind of like "Swiss steak", eh?). I will not address all the holes right here and now, but I will touch upon a couple, and when time permits, I'll try to respond with more thoughtful ... thoughts.

Firstly though, could you kindly state for the record that you are in fact a Christian; and further, if you are a Christian, to which specific sect you subscribe. It's only for my convenience that I ask this - I aim not to make false assumptions about you. If you are uncomfortable about revealing specific details about your religious beliefs, I'll leave it at that.

You say that God wishes to be worshipped by people "without coercion of any sort" and, who are "not under duress." I would say that ETERNAL salvation and ETERNAL damnation are as coercive and threatening as anything - to a Christian. In fact, I believe that Christianity would cease to exist, except for the promise of "Heaven" and the threat of "Hell."

Hey, is the game back on?

Adios.