Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/6/10 01:14 AM, peanutfoot932 wrote: What negative impact could possibly come from the government encouraging interfaith prayer services? Isn't that kind of a good thing? I mean, sure, it's the same kind of wishful thinking that started National Brotherhood Week, but still, there's nothing wrong with the idea.

What if the government had an official "We can make do without God" day? Don't worry, it's solely aimed at atheist and other non-religious. The religious people don't have to do anything, they can just go on like it's any other day.

We both know that would never fly. There would be a complete outrage.

And why would recall or re-mint the existing money? You just do the change on the new ones being made.

Have I mentioned that this is totally unnecessary and there's no reason to do it? Some people believe in God. Those people are in charge. Deal.

No, YOU deal with the fact that the US has an established barrier between the church and state. No government, despite it's own religions convictions, should do anything to respect the establishment of a religion.

I'm an atheist, by the way, and I just gotta say... If you're going to lead a Crusade against organized religion, pick worthy causes. Focus on the Family, for example, is an extreme fundamentalist group, the head of which encourages theocracy, domestic abuse, and "cures" for homosexuality. To me, the fact that Focus on the Family has an enormous sphere of influence is much more concerning than the fact that God is mentioned on our money. You gotta pick your battles, man.

Focus on the family is a private organization. There isn't much one can do because of that. YOU need to realize that you can't just "pick your battles" freely. If the government makes a proclamation that favors some religions over others, it's against the law. If a private group claims to be able to cure homosexuality, it's not against the law. You need to learn the difference and get a grip of how the whole situation works.

At 5/5/10 10:19 PM, MrHero17 wrote:
No it's not, there's absolutely no reason to have any mention of god on our currency.

There may not be a fine reason, but should we bother? If anything, there is some sort of cultural/historic feel about it. Similarly one might wonder if we can't just order tearing down churches and replacing them by buildings that would benefit everyone, like community centers and some sort. Christians can then still have private ceremonies at home.
The big downside is that you lose 'cultural' heritage. From a logic point of view culture is a waste of space for things that are more practical. From a subjective point of view, you can't just throw away the achievements of the past, it's a matter of respect.

At 5/6/10 07:22 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: There may not be a fine reason, but should we bother? If anything, there is some sort of cultural/historic feel about it. Similarly one might wonder if we can't just order tearing down churches and replacing them by buildings that would benefit everyone, like community centers and some sort. Christians can then still have private ceremonies at home.

That would have made sense if the whole God-on-currency deal wasn't specifically added to paper currency during the cold war to show that the US wasn't like those godless communist. It's something specifically made JUST to attack non-belief.

The big downside is that you lose 'cultural' heritage. From a logic point of view culture is a waste of space for things that are more practical. From a subjective point of view, you can't just throw away the achievements of the past, it's a matter of respect.

Although it has existed on some coins for a long time, it was added to paper currency in 1957. It's barely 50 years old. Is something really cultural heritage when it's that recent?

Also, from a logical point of view culture isn't a waste of anything. It brings people together and creates a community. You know, except when it's something made to exclude people, like "In God we trust", which obviously does not apply to everybody.

At 5/6/10 08:42 AM, Drakim wrote:
Also, from a logical point of view culture isn't a waste of anything. It brings people together and creates a community. You know, except when it's something made to exclude people, like "In God we trust", which obviously does not apply to everybody.

Isn't a church also intended for just the select group of Christians? Or all art related to religion?

At 5/6/10 10:44 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Isn't a church also intended for just the select group of Christians? Or all art related to religion?

Is money intended for just the use of Christians and the religious? You see why your argument is flawed, right? Church & art are private property. Public holidays sponsored by the government & money are part of the public domain and therefor their exclusionary nature are not ok.

Honestly, how would you feel about a National God Doesn't Exist day?

At 5/6/10 11:12 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Is money intended for just the use of Christians and the religious? You see why your argument is flawed, right? Church & art are private property. Public holidays sponsored by the government & money are part of the public domain and therefor their exclusionary nature are not ok.

The thing aboutchurches was about the fact that coins can have 'In god we trust' printed on them.
As for government funds going to day of the prayer, I wouldn't know what the money is going in to cause it is still not claimed to be Catholic-only. If events are organised by religion, which can benefit everyone (as in everyone can participate) then the money is actually spent for everyone, not religion exclusive.

Honestly, how would you feel about a National God Doesn't Exist day?

It would be only fair. Though I grant, that I hope it isn't just a day aimed to troll religious people. But a day celebrating evolution theory or Darwin funded by the government or an abortion/gay awareness should is all fine to me.

At 5/6/10 12:07 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: The thing aboutchurches was about the fact that coins can have 'In god we trust' printed on them.
As for government funds going to day of the prayer, I wouldn't know what the money is going in to cause it is still not claimed to be Catholic-only. If events are organised by religion, which can benefit everyone (as in everyone can participate) then the money is actually spent for everyone, not religion exclusive.

Even thought it's not Catholic only, it's still restricted to religious people who believe in one single God who listens to prayer. That excludes several religions, and everybody non-religious. Why have an exclusionary day like that? Why not alter it slightlyso that everybody are included?

We all know why most conservative Christians don't want the day changed, because they wantit to be exclusionary. They wantit to promote Judeo-Christian religions over the alternatives.

You might have good intentions personally, but I think a big proportion of those arguing on the same side as you don't. It's simple plain old religious bigotry. "I want my religion elevated above the other religions".

It would be only fair. Though I grant, that I hope it isn't just a day aimed to troll religious people. But a day celebrating evolution theory or Darwin funded by the government or an abortion/gay awareness should is all fine to me.

The problem with celebrating a religions viewpoint is that just about all religions have a "only we are right" policy. Jesus is the only way. Jews are God's only chosen people. Muhammad was God's last prophet. etc. If you promote one religion, you are also vindicating it's claim of exclusiveness.

On the other hand, evolution is just another scientific theory like gravity. Gay awareness is a little more edgy, but from what I see, when it's celebrated, it's celebrations are about how gay people should be allowed to live and be free and co-exist in society with everybody else, not to make everybody gay.

At 5/4/10 10:10 PM, amaterasu wrote: *cough* bullshit *cough*

And don't dismiss the information just because it is from a religious website - he uses legitimate sources for the information.

It's actually a creationist website that believes the same old clap trap horse shit that's been debunked and redebunked for years.

You can't get a worse citation than that.

At 5/6/10 12:38 PM, Drakim wrote:
Even thought it's not Catholic only, it's still restricted to religious people who believe in one single God who listens to prayer. That excludes several religions, and everybody non-religious. Why have an exclusionary day like that? Why not alter it slightlyso that everybody are included?

At that point it's just blowing a fuss over the name, really.

"I want my religion elevated above the other religions".
The problem with celebrating a religions viewpoint is that just about all religions have a "only we are right" policy. Jesus is the only way. Jews are God's only chosen people. Muhammad was God's last prophet. etc. If you promote one religion, you are also vindicating it's claim of exclusiveness.

Hmm, actually I've been in an inter-religious mass a while ago (Jews, Muslims and Christians) and I've witnessed priests promoting oriental Buddha sayings.
Though religious 'only us' is still a philosophy a lot of people hang on to, these days of progression openness is also in fashion.
I think if a day of prayer is active, it should focus around openness and inter-religiosity and not on narrow-mindedness and resisting dialogue.

On the other hand, evolution is just another scientific theory like gravity.

But it may offend people still. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but when an atheist is outraged because some religion gets in the spotlight, it is not less acceptable that a religious person gets upset that an 'offensive' theme is advocated.

Gay awareness is a little more edgy, but from what I see, when it's celebrated, it's celebrations are about how gay people should be allowed to live and be free and co-exist in society with everybody else, not to make everybody gay.

Judging from images of a pride parade, I would say otherwise.
No, of course it's a plea for acceptance, but they sometimes do put the pressure too much on flamboyance.

At 5/6/10 02:02 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/6/10 12:38 PM, Drakim wrote:
Even thought it's not Catholic only, it's still restricted to religious people who believe in one single God who listens to prayer. That excludes several religions, and everybody non-religious. Why have an exclusionary day like that? Why not alter it slightlyso that everybody are included?

At that point it's just blowing a fuss over the name, really.

Did you read the law as I posted it in the first post?

Here:
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

Does that really seem neutral, or does it seem specially tailored to fit Christianity?

"I want my religion elevated above the other religions".
The problem with celebrating a religions viewpoint is that just about all religions have a "only we are right" policy. Jesus is the only way. Jews are God's only chosen people. Muhammad was God's last prophet. etc. If you promote one religion, you are also vindicating it's claim of exclusiveness.

Hmm, actually I've been in an inter-religious mass a while ago (Jews, Muslims and Christians) and I've witnessed priests promoting oriental Buddha sayings.

That's great, but it's a minority. The majority of any big religion in the west are not like this. In fact, I daresay that a large part of Christians would call such priests "fake Christians".

Though religious 'only us' is still a philosophy a lot of people hang on to, these days of progression openness is also in fashion.

Which is why having a day of reflection would be so much better than a day of prayer. It includes all groups, not some.

I think if a day of prayer is active, it should focus around openness and inter-religiosity and not on narrow-mindedness and resisting dialogue.

Then why not have it a day of openness? Why make a day of prayer and say that it's really about being open? Why not just make it a day of clubbing seals but say it's really about racial equality. Why not just cut to the chase and stop being so vague?

To me, the answer is simple. Calling it the day of prayer makes a certain large conservative Christian voting base happy, as they want to have an official day that reaffirms that Christianity is more privileged than other religions.

If that law had said gods rather than God, you bet ya that the tea party movement would be all over it in every possible way. Despite that the day would really hold the exact same meaning.

On the other hand, evolution is just another scientific theory like gravity.

But it may offend people still. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but when an atheist is outraged because some religion gets in the spotlight, it is not less acceptable that a religious person gets upset that an 'offensive' theme is advocated.

What if some religion gets offended whenever the president uses the letter O? Obviously, as some point we have to stop being respectful because it would lock down our every action and word. Evolution is supported by the evidence. If you want to do good honest science within biology you cannot avoid evolution. Should we burn the evidence in fear that somebody might be offended?

Some things you can be more sensible about, like opinions. There is no need to have governmental officials sprout opinions left and right using their authority that might offend religions or non-religions people alike. But things like evolution is not an opinion issue.

Gay awareness is a little more edgy, but from what I see, when it's celebrated, it's celebrations are about how gay people should be allowed to live and be free and co-exist in society with everybody else, not to make everybody gay.

Judging from images of a pride parade, I would say otherwise.

Are you saying that the images in a pride parade are made to convert people to being gay?

Perhaps it's to raise awareness? You know, turn on the TV, and within a couple of hours you will find a sex scene in a movie between a man and a woman. Are those designed to make you straight?

No, of course it's a plea for acceptance, but they sometimes do put the pressure too much on flamboyance.

Again, I think it's to raise awareness. It's perfectly okay for a woman to wear lipstick and show her cleavage, but if a gay person shows himself in such a sexual manner, it's talked down upon as if he is a socially rejected pervert.

At 5/6/10 03:40 PM, Drakim wrote:
Here:
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

If anything, that day is rather useless then (shouldn't require funds or anything). I mean, it's not like on any other day people can't pray.

That's great, but it's a minority. The majority of any big religion in the west are not like this. In fact, I daresay that a large part of Christians would call such priests "fake Christians".

Actually, all the masses I've been in were that way. Though it were only 2 or 3 or so. But I'm figuring it's quite standard.

What if some religion gets offended whenever the president uses the letter O? Obviously, as some point we have to stop being respectful because it would lock down our every action and word. Evolution is supported by the evidence. If you want to do good honest science within biology you cannot avoid evolution. Should we burn the evidence in fear that somebody might be offended?

That's why I wouldn't support people getting offended anyhow.

Again, I think it's to raise awareness. It's perfectly okay for a woman to wear lipstick and show her cleavage, but if a gay person shows himself in such a sexual manner, it's talked down upon as if he is a socially rejected pervert.

Flamboyance is like women dressing like hookers. I wouldn't feel comfortable with women in lingery walking a big parade. My penis would, morally I wouldn't.

At 5/6/10 03:56 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: If anything, that day is rather useless then (shouldn't require funds or anything). I mean, it's not like on any other day people can't pray.

Agree, although that deviates from my point <<

Actually, all the masses I've been in were that way. Though it were only 2 or 3 or so. But I'm figuring it's quite standard.

I have to disagree with you on that. Christians are BIG on the whole Jesus is the only way to heaven thing.

Flamboyance is like women dressing like hookers. I wouldn't feel comfortable with women in lingery walking a big parade. My penis would, morally I wouldn't.

But women dressing like hookers is actually socially acceptable. It might sound weird, but if a woman does so, there are no people waiting in a back alley to beat her up to show her their disapproval. Can't say the same for the gay guy though.

At 5/6/10 04:01 PM, Drakim wrote:
I have to disagree with you on that. Christians are BIG on the whole Jesus is the only way to heaven thing.

I blame Norvegian Christians then.

But women dressing like hookers is actually socially acceptable. It might sound weird, but if a woman does so, there are no people waiting in a back alley to beat her up to show her their disapproval.

They do get raped in a back alley and thus shown approval I guess.
Though not really fearing violent prosecution, women dressing like hookers are far from praised. Being considered a 'slut' is not really a sign of appreciation.

Can't say the same for the gay guy though.

It still happens, I can admit. But I dare say it is by far not as common anymore. And those who beat gays up probably wouldn't limit themselves to the flamboyant kind, I figure.

At 5/6/10 07:19 AM, Drakim wrote: What if the government had an official "We can make do without God" day? Don't worry, it's solely aimed at atheist and other non-religious. The religious people don't have to do anything, they can just go on like it's any other day.

We both know that would never fly. There would be a complete outrage.

Yes, because a National Day of There Is No God does nothing to promote interfaith relations or general goodwill. It would just be a day for atheists to feel more smug than usual.

No, YOU deal with the fact that the US has an established barrier between the church and state. No government, despite it's own religions convictions, should do anything to respect the establishment of a religion.

The US has an established barrier between legislation and religion; having "In God We Trust" on the money does not fall under First Amendment violation.

Focus on the family is a private organization. There isn't much one can do because of that. YOU need to realize that you can't just "pick your battles" freely. If the government makes a proclamation that favors some religions over others, it's against the law. If a private group claims to be able to cure homosexuality, it's not against the law. You need to learn the difference and get a grip of how the whole situation works.

Uh-huh, okay. You totally misinterpreted my point. I'm not taking issue with the practices of a private institution; I'm taking issue with the fact that said extreme institution has significant influence on the legislative branch and is pushing for much more extreme and much more unconstitutional measures than a Day of Prayer or having "In God We Trust" on currency.

My point is, there are far more worthwhile things to be crusading against. Atheism is a rational position; that's all it has going for it. When atheists get their panties in a twist over petty bullshit like this, it weakens the foundation of the entire philosophy.

"In God We Trust" is not just something that's put on money, its officially the motto of the United States.

Its also the state motto of Florida too BTW.

At 5/6/10 06:39 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: "In God We Trust" is not just something that's put on money, its officially the motto of the United States.

Its also the state motto of Florida too BTW.

If I remember right it was also something that was changed during the cold war to combat those evil communist. The motto that the founding fathers gave the united states was different.

At 5/6/10 06:45 PM, Drakim wrote: If I remember right it was also something that was changed during the cold war to combat those evil communist. The motto that the founding fathers gave the united states was different.

Yep. E Pluribus Unum was the motto before, which means Out of many, one, in reference to the blending of colors into one. It was officially changed in 1956, which I think probably had the most reasonable congress of ALL TIME. Good thing we don't punish people and send them away indefinitely without trial on the assumption that they might be a member of certain political groups anymore. In God We Trust.

At 5/6/10 06:39 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: "In God We Trust" is not just something that's put on money, its officially the motto of the United States.

Which was passed by congress and Eisenhower in 1956, one year after all currencies officially had the motto on currency.

The original was "Out of many, one" which was written in Latin and used from 1782 until it was changed.

Isn't it awesome getting history lessons about your own country from a foreigner?

At 5/7/10 12:56 PM, The-universe wrote: Which was passed by congress and Eisenhower in 1956, one year after all currencies officially had the motto.

Fixed because I love edit buttons.

At 5/6/10 06:12 PM, peanutfoot932 wrote: Yes, because a National Day of There Is No God does nothing to promote interfaith relations or general goodwill. It would just be a day for atheists to feel more smug than usual.

If you want to promote interfaith relations you have a National Pagan Day. Or National RELIGION Day. Not a National specific-to-Judeo-Christians-only Day.

This promotes nothing more than the Judeo-Christian concept of God. Innerfatith relations are being promoted here, the only diversity in this day is between different CHRISTIAN denominations, not between faiths.

The US has an established barrier between legislation and religion; having "In God We Trust" on the money does not fall under First Amendment violation.

Yeah, freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. Otherwise, Jehova's Witnesses would be FUCKED.

My point is, there are far more worthwhile things to be crusading against. Atheism is a rational position; that's all it has going for it.

Yes, all I have going for me is my MASSIVE BRAIN.

You know, that's not nearly as insulting as you thought it was......

At 5/6/10 02:02 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Judging from images of a pride parade, I would say otherwise.
No, of course it's a plea for acceptance, but they sometimes do put the pressure too much on flamboyance.

Wait-- how is a gay parade (or images, since it implies you've never been to a gay parade) suppose to persuade people to life of being a homosexual?

How often does a leather clad muscle man pass by with a cats-and-claws pussy whip walk past by a straight guy, and the straight guy says, "My... gonna need to hit up on dat."

Gay parade celebrates several things, and it also stresses amicable relationship with the straight community too.

At 5/8/10 02:03 AM, fli wrote:
Wait-- how is a gay parade (or images, since it implies you've never been to a gay parade) suppose to persuade people to life of being a homosexual?

Officially, I wouldn't say it makes other people gay. But anyway, it kind of feels like saying that if you are gay, you have to walk around in women's clothes or in tight leather or...

But at any rate, I would not say the parade pushes their lifestyle onto you. It's just very... provocative.

I was surprised to find out that this was an actual holiday. I have done my research on Snopes and found out that George W. Bush went so far as to declare a "Jesus Day" in Texas, so it just seemed like some stupid holiday made up by him. It is nice that it has considerably better roots in how it was formed and how it works.