Concerning Religion in America

[ProBo]

People are constantly trying to push Christian views and symbols out of society and government, claiming that they think that someone else's views shouldent be pushed upon them. But, if all traces of religion are taken out of these thing, because people are offended by it, is that not pushing someone else's views and beliefs upon the Christians? People are offended by "One nation, under God" because it supposedly implies Christian beliefs, and want it removed. But if it is removed, that would under mind the beliefs of Christians. I believe, that since the Constitution allows freedom of Religion, no religion, no matter how dominant and evident in the media, Society, or Government, should be suppressed in any way. Since America was founded on Christian values, and since America allows people to choose to have a religion or not, that the mentions of religion, such as One Nation Under God, have the right by the Constitution, to be a dominant as allowed by law.

People are offended by religion being "forced" upon them, yet the pledge of aligence says God, not which god, just God. Is it not Freedom of Religion to say In God We Trust on US currency?

People keep trying to suppress the rights set forth by the Constitution. Some people come from other country's and are offended because Christianity is so dominant. If rights are suppressed, then America will become less and less free. It is perfectly in some ones rights to say"God bless you, and perfectly in someone else's right to say "There is no God". I dont mind an Atheist trying to convince me that there is no God, so why do some Atheists care so much about Christian telling them about God?

Please express yourt views, please no all-caps-cursing-hate full-posts. I want to see other people opinions, as it is your right to express them.

[AapoJoki]

I don't think the biggest problem in America is the religious symbolism written on the money and the pledge of allegiance, but rather the religious fundamentalist groups that are larger and more powerful than in probably any other western or mainly Christian nation. Atheists and other secular humanists are foolish to be worried about these symbols, when there are young earth creationists and organizations like the Westborough Baptist Church at large. People like those are dangerously religious, and it's them that are pushing the religion on others, not words written on money.

Regarding the Pledge of Allegiance though, it's not just the word "God" that can be considered offensive. I don't know if kids are actually forced, or pressured, to speak the pledge, but it seems like a powerful indoctrination and a zealously patriotic feature to make children vow their allegiance to their home country. Oh, and by the way, it's not the alright if it's just "a god" or "any god", there should be an option to have "no god" too, as well as not saying the pledge at all. As I said, though, I don't know what is the case - whether it's allowed and acceptable not to say it. Oh, well, it's no biggie; it's just a few meaningless sentences kids have to memorize.

[LiveBreatheTom]

Well in the laying down of our good old government there's also something mentioned stating: seperation of church and state.

But that would offened the Christians wouldn't it? These kind of arguments and threads are all over, and most of them tend to become insulting flame wars.

And if "the people" aren't offended by religion being pushed on them, why are there lawsuits, protests and activists against religion being pushed onto people. Or don't you regard athiests as people?

[Tancrisism]

At 7/5/07 06:25 PM, ProBo wrote: People are constantly trying to push Christian views and symbols out of society and government, claiming that they think that someone else's views shouldent be pushed upon them. But, if all traces of religion are taken out of these thing, because people are offended by it, is that not pushing someone else's views and beliefs upon the Christians? People are offended by "One nation, under God" because it supposedly implies Christian beliefs, and want it removed. But if it is removed, that would under mind the beliefs of Christians.

How does it undermine the beliefs of the Christians? You can still believe what you want to believe, and worship what you want to worship. I just want no part in it.

I believe, that since the Constitution allows freedom of Religion, no religion, no matter how dominant and evident in the media, Society, or Government, should be suppressed in any way.

Agreed, unless its ideals tend to cause people to be oppressed, that is (something I am not implying Christianity does, or any other major religion for that matter). The act of not favoring any religion does not suppress them though.

Since America was founded on Christian values, and since America allows people to choose to have a religion or not, that the mentions of religion, such as One Nation Under God, have the right by the Constitution, to be a dominant as allowed by law.

Look, our national currency can have all the "George Washington Rocks" messages all they want, since the US was reasonably improved by him.

People are offended by religion being "forced" upon them, yet the pledge of aligence says God, not which god, just God. Is it not Freedom of Religion to say In God We Trust on US currency?

How is this a further argument? The pledge of allegiance's "God" presence is just as bad as the one on our dollar bills.

People keep trying to suppress the rights set forth by the Constitution.

Look, having your specific god removed from the dollar is not going to suppress anyone's right. You can go to church, you can love your god, you can praise your god, you can even refrain from eating pork if that's your way. But just keep it to yourself, that's all I'm saying. And I'll keep my lack of religion to myself.

Fair?

Some people come from other country's and are offended because Christianity is so dominant. If rights are suppressed, then America will become less and less free. It is perfectly in some ones rights to say"God bless you, and perfectly in someone else's right to say "There is no God". I dont mind an Atheist trying to convince me that there is no God, so why do some Atheists care so much about Christian telling them about God?

This was a rather bizarre statement. You are saying that because Christianity is so dominant, if it was to become less dominant and everything was equal in terms of religion, freedom will be decreased? This is completely false.

And I personally don't like people telling me about God because I've heard it all before. I've even read some of the Bible.

[Memorize]

At 7/5/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Look, our national currency can have all the "George Washington Rocks" messages all they want, since the US was reasonably improved by him.

George Washington also started the tradition of swearing on the Bible.

How is this a further argument? The pledge of allegiance's "God" presence is just as bad as the one on our dollar bills.

And yet, no one forces anyone to say it. Not even forces anyone to stand.

People keep trying to suppress the rights set forth by the Constitution.

Look, having your specific god removed from the dollar is not going to suppress anyone's right.

Nor is having it on there.

You can go to church, you can love your god, you can praise your god, you can even refrain from eating pork if that's your way. But just keep it to yourself, that's all I'm saying. And I'll keep my lack of religion to myself.

You could also still do your daily things with the words on there.

Adultery is legal because you're not physically harming someone. Words on the dollar aren't harming you.

Fair?

Fair? Yes.
Whiny? Yes.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/5/07 08:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/5/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Look, our national currency can have all the "George Washington Rocks" messages all they want, since the US was reasonably improved by him.

George Washington also started the tradition of swearing on the Bible.

How is this a further argument? The pledge of allegiance's "God" presence is just as bad as the one on our dollar bills.

And yet, no one forces anyone to say it. Not even forces anyone to stand.

This is true, although they did when I was younger.

Nor is having it on there.

You don't notice a sense of favoritism though?

You can go to church, you can love your god, you can praise your god, you can even refrain from eating pork if that's your way. But just keep it to yourself, that's all I'm saying. And I'll keep my lack of religion to myself.

You could also still do your daily things with the words on there.

Adultery is legal because you're not physically harming someone. Words on the dollar aren't harming you.

Fair?

Fair? Yes.
Whiny? Yes.

Well, at least you agree that it's fair.

I forgot to mention the fact that I honestly don't care about it, and I'd be upset if our legislators wasted their time and our tax money on changing such an idiotic thing. I'm just debating the principle of the matter.

[Memorize]

At 7/5/07 09:11 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

This is true, although they did when I was younger.

Boo hoo.

You don't notice a sense of favoritism though?

Whoop dee do.

I always considered it more of a historical thing.

[Bolo]

This country was NOT founded on Christian principles, despite what the evangelicals proclaim.

To quote myself from an earlier topic:

In the Treaty of Tripoli, circa 1797, John Adams and the entierety of Congress approved the following words, and proclaimed them to the nation at large:

"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 tranquillity, 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."

The Founding Fathers were insistent that the States remain neutral in the debate over religious convictions—that is, not taking sides, playing favorites, or trying to establish teh United States as anything but a secularized nation outside of our churches.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on Man"
-Thomas Jefferson.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- James Madison, 1785

All of these people present at the first fledgling steps of our nation seem more critical of Christianity and its influence than particularly devout, and they seem less in favor of establishing Christian ideals as the basis of our nation—rather, secularism, in order to not place a bias on one religion or the other, thus negating the right to free religious worship.

[UWDarDar17]

At 7/5/07 08:43 PM, Memorize wrote: George Washington also started the tradition of swearing on the Bible.

That was his personal choice, and I respect that. I don't mind if someone is religious, more power to them, but I don't need them getting in my face about my percieved lack of piety. What happens if an agnostic wins the presidency? Will he be forced to swear upon a document that he doesn't believe is pertinant to his existence? That's the real question at the heart of the matter.

George Washington was also vain, arrogant, a slaveowner, and not really that good of a general. But he was very intelligent, honorable, and dutiful. We can pick and choose what traits we wish to emulate of our heroes whenever we want. If I don't want to swear upon a bible, I should have the right to not have to.

And yet, no one forces anyone to say it. Not even forces anyone to stand.

Yes, that's true, and I believe that may be taking the "no religion in gov't" idea a little too far. But I've never been a big believer in the Pledge of Allegiance anyway. I say it once in a while, when it seems appropriate, but to say it every day is meaningless and hollows the pledge. I believe that we show our loyalty to the country better by action than by word. Unless your action is to write words and then print them. Then that's sort of both.

Look, having your specific god removed from the dollar is not going to suppress anyone's right.

Nor is having it on there.

It's a fucking coin. You put it in a machine to buy condoms. Does it really matter whether or not it says "God" on it? Hell, most of the time it's in your pocket, or your piggy bank. You don't even think about it. Having "God" on your money is not that big of an issue, and if you think it is, you really need to get your priorities straight.

You could also still do your daily things with the words on there.

You could, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. Let's look at the case of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. Now, the argument is that, as an important point in the history of law, the Commandments should be shown in the courthouse.

I agree, they are important in terms of law, but they're not exactly the kind of law that we deal with in the US court system: of the ten, we deal with three: murder, stealing, and bearing false witness (perjury). The other seven really don't get any attention in our courts. To me, three out of seven isn't really good enough to warrent putting such a document in a courthouse. I mean, those three are on nearly every list of laws.

You could find a better example of the "history of law" by putting up the Code of Hammurabi, or the Twelve Tables. The 10 Commandments...eh, not really much of an arguement from a historical-legal persepctive.

[Memorize]

At 7/5/07 11:59 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

That was his personal choice, and I respect that.

You'd be bitching if he didn't start the trend.

I don't mind if someone is religious, more power to them, but I don't need them getting in my face about my percieved lack of piety.

Dollar Bill. "In God We Trust" not physically harming you. Since the office of the President is a government position and YOU guys are so into banning all religous connection in EVERY court and government building, then the president should be banned on swearing on the Bible, and atheists and other religions should have the right to sue the government because they had to SEE him swear on a text that they don't believe in.

Since even you guys seem to think that abortion decisions should not be based on religous beliefs, then the president should not be able to swear on a religous text as that would imply he would rule based on that religous text.

George Washington was also vain, arrogant, a slaveowner, and not really that good of a general.

...Not that good of a general?

Are you high?

If I don't want to swear upon a bible, I should have the right to not have to.

No. If we wanted to go in your people's direction and take the words off the currency based soley on "seperation of church and state", then no one should be able to swear on a religous text in a government position.

It's a fucking coin.

Exactly. And guess what? It's on there. QUIT FUCKING WHINING!

You don't even think about it.

Yes. Yes.

How much further are you going to dig yourself into a whole in this arguement?

You could, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. Let's look at the case of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. Now, the argument is that, as an important point in the history of law, the Commandments should be shown in the courthouse.

And there's that double standard.

I agree, they are important in terms of law, but they're not exactly the kind of law that we deal with in the US court system: of the ten, we deal with three: murder, stealing, and bearing false witness (perjury).

And if there was a quote from the Bible stating: Judge with righteous judgement?

You could find a better example of the "history of law" by putting up the Code of Hammurabi, or the Twelve Tables. The 10 Commandments...eh, not really much of an arguement from a historical-legal persepctive.

2 words: Double, Standard.

At 7/5/07 11:39 PM, Bolo wrote: This country was NOT founded on Christian principles, despite what the evangelicals proclaim.

Even though the word "christian" would also cover the Church that dominated Britain.

Honestly, when you say "crusades", you compare it to "Christianity".

There's:
Church of Christ
Baptist
Lutheran
Catholic
Roman Catholic
Orthodox
East Orthodox

And many more. They're different.

All of these people present at the first fledgling steps of our nation seem more critical of Christianity and its influence than particularly devout, and they seem less in favor of establishing Christian ideals as the basis of our nation—rather, secularism, in order to not place a bias on one religion or the other, thus negating the right to free religious worship.

That certainly explains prayer before meetings. Religous symbols on court buildings. And so many references to God.

Way to twist their words.

[ForkRobotik]

G. Washington became president because he was the wealthiest man in the colonies at the time, and had the largest militia.

Also, americans are so stupid. Christians are pretty ridiculous about how they have "god" on their dollar bills. Who cares? It changes nothing you dumb fucks. Why do you support it? Because your a stereotypical christian that thinks his religion is being pushed to the corner of society if it gets taken off. The reality is that you don't understand that your religion is personal. It shouldn't matter whether the word "god" is on anything. But you're so blind to the ridiculousness that is you that you can't bother to see your own insanity. You want some sort of theocratic government, but you are oblivious to what that means for you, your family, and your freedom.

If anything you should support the government having nothing to do with your religion. What the fuck business is it of theirs?!! Political parties use your religion to get your votes, and because your so blind to there gameplan you fall for it every time. The business of government is business. Why are you so stupid that you don't get that? Social issues don't matter when you're a multi-millionaire. Anything that's "illegal" or "immoral" can be bought. The ruling class doesn't have to obey your stupid "moral" laws, because they're above them. When's the last time economic policies have ever been up for debate in america? When's the last time your government asked you if they should keep subsidizing big oil or take that money and give it back to the people?

[afliXion]

At 7/5/07 07:43 PM, LiveBreatheTom wrote: Well in the laying down of our good old government there's also something mentioned stating: seperation of church and state.

Read your constitution. You will not find the words 'separation of church and state' anywhere.
That is just a phrase coined by some annoying liberals who really want it to mean 'separation of God from government,' which is NOT what the founders had in mind. Ever been to our nations capitol? God is written on almost every wall. They can not get it off!

And if "the people" aren't offended by religion being pushed on them, why are there lawsuits, protests and activists against religion being pushed onto people. Or don't you regard athiests as people?

Thats not much of an argument. People sue and protest for all kinds of reasons these days.

[MonkeyV]

At 7/5/07 06:25 PM, ProBo wrote: People are constantly trying to push Christian views and symbols out of society and government, claiming that they think that someone else's views shouldent be pushed upon them. But, if all traces of religion are taken out of these thing, because people are offended by it, is that not pushing someone else's views and beliefs upon the Christians?

i personally believe that no-one should be offended by something like this.

if it is removed, that would under mind the beliefs of Christians. I believe, that since the Constitution allows freedom of Religion, no religion, no matter how dominant and evident in the media, Society, or Government, should be suppressed in any way.

true. a very valid point you make.

Since America was founded on Christian values, and since America allows people to choose to have a religion or not, that the mentions of religion, such as One Nation Under God, have the right by the Constitution, to be a dominant as allowed by law.

true again.

Is it not Freedom of Religion to say In God We Trust on US currency?

it is freedom of religion, right again.

I dont mind an Atheist trying to convince me that there is no God, so why do some Atheists care so much about Christian telling them about God?

i have know idea why, but then again im not an Atheist. the reason for that is because i dont see haw someone could be so unwilling to believe that absolutely everything can be explained by science. but thats off-topic. i think you are correct about all the stuff you said. people shouldnt be offended by others religions because nobody is actually forcing religion on them. and getting rid of our christian dominance is a violation of the constitution. true.

[Memorize]

At 7/6/07 01:25 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

Also, americans are so stupid. Christians are pretty ridiculous about how they have "god" on their dollar bills. Who cares? It changes nothing you dumb fucks. Why do you support it?

Why are you against it?

After all. It changes nothing.

[Bolo]

At 7/6/07 01:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/5/07 11:39 PM, Bolo wrote: This country was NOT founded on Christian principles, despite what the evangelicals proclaim.

Even though the word "christian" would also cover the Church that dominated Britain.

I think you mean "Anglican", the specific denomination in England, as that particular Church was thought up by the monarchy as a protestant alternative to Catholicism.

Honestly, when you say "crusades", you compare it to "Christianity".

When did I say "Crusades", and what does that have to do with the founding fathers and religion?

There's:
Church of Christ
Baptist
Lutheran
Catholic
Roman Catholic
Orthodox
East Orthodox

Catholic and Roman Catholic are essentially the same thing. Just pointing that out.

And many more. They're different.

And when did I say they weren't?

All of these people present at the first fledgling steps of our nation seem more critical of Christianity and its influence than particularly devout, and they seem less in favor of establishing Christian ideals as the basis of our nation—rather, secularism, in order to not place a bias on one religion or the other, thus negating the right to free religious worship.

That certainly explains prayer before meetings. Religous symbols on court buildings. And so many references to God.

Prayer before meetings was created so the members of whatever (monotheistic) religion might be present could look to the guidance of their deity. Not just Christianity. This is an accommodation for everybody. Religion was much more rigorously enforced by the moral authorities of the time, too. But on the whole, the government was intended by the founding fathers to be secular, and removed from religion. Any aberrations / deviations from this path would certainly be met with skepticism from the ones who laid down the foundations of our country.

Way to twist their words.

Because direct quotes constitutes twisting words.

[Memorize]

At 7/6/07 02:32 AM, Bolo wrote:

I think you mean "Anglican", the specific denomination in England, as that particular Church was thought up by the monarchy as a protestant alternative to Catholicism.

Yippie kie-yay mother fucker.

When did I say "Crusades", and what does that have to do with the founding fathers and religion?

Point was that there are so many different religions under the name of "Christianity" that your selective quotes could be talking about how people can twist it, not that they were critical of it.

Catholic and Roman Catholic are essentially the same thing. Just pointing that out.

Well in that case, they're all "essentially the same thing". Just pointing that out.

Prayer before meetings was created so the members of whatever (monotheistic) religion might be present could look to the guidance of their deity.

I bet you can't prove that.

But if that were true. Then why is it that a state cannot have a state-run moment of silence or prayer at a sports game?

This is an accommodation for everybody.

Not for the atheist who whines that he/she "HAS to sit through it".

Because direct quotes constitutes twisting words.

You sound like Drakim, who cuts out 3 words from section of the Bible and compares it to 3 words from another book of the bible and calls it a contradiction.

[Bolo]

At 7/6/07 02:38 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/6/07 02:32 AM, Bolo wrote:

I think you mean "Anglican", the specific denomination in England, as that particular Church was thought up by the monarchy as a protestant alternative to Catholicism.

Yippie kie-yay mother fucker.

Well, aren't we in a pissy mood.

When did I say "Crusades", and what does that have to do with the founding fathers and religion?

Point was that there are so many different religions under the name of "Christianity" that your selective quotes could be talking about how people can twist it, not that they were critical of it.

They were critical of it. Not so much the religion itself, rather the establishment and the implementation of it.

Catholic and Roman Catholic are essentially the same thing. Just pointing that out.

Well in that case, they're all "essentially the same thing". Just pointing that out.

No, they're not. The differences—however petty—do constitute differences, and denominations. I pointed out the "Catholic / Roman Catholic" because they ARE the same religion. The two terms are just interchangeable.

Prayer before meetings was created so the members of whatever (monotheistic) religion might be present could look to the guidance of their deity.

I bet you can't prove that.

No, I can't. No one can. We can only speculate as to the intentions of people long dead. According to how things were laid out, and how the information we have has been interpreted over the years, this is simply the most plausible scenario.

But if that were true. Then why is it that a state cannot have a state-run moment of silence or prayer at a sports game?

They can have a moment of silence, I'm fairly certain, for extenuating circumstances. After 9/11, I'm almost sure that there were moments of silence in just about every major sporting event.

This is an accommodation for everybody.

Not for the atheist who whines that he/she "HAS to sit through it".

That's simply another denomination, whose needs must be dealt with accordingly. For a long time, it was a stigma to carry around if you were a known atheist, and now that the era of repression has subsided to a degree, these fringe denominations are coming out of the woodwork and letting people know what they find offensive, so we can all find a middle ground somewhere in between.

Because direct quotes constitutes twisting words.

You sound like Drakim, who cuts out 3 words from section of the Bible and compares it to 3 words from another book of the bible and calls it a contradiction.

Who the fuck is that, anyways? I'm not cutting anything out of what they said. Look it up for yourself and you'll see plainly.

[Dilapsor]

I don't necessarily have a problem with religious people and their mythologies, no matter how offensive or inane they may be. What I do have a problem with is when a nation (in this case, America) becomes so wrapped up with pleasing these people and entertaining their quaint little mythologies that it loses sight of the fact that not everyone necessarily agrees with their doctrine.

Christians, although they are the most numerous, are not the only ones at fault here. In the current struggle, the atheists and non-theists are every bit as guilty of being irrational fucktards as the Papists and the Prods. When atheists get all uppity about mentioning God on the currency or in the pledge of allegiance, they really aren't any better than the highly-imaginative and incredibly undereducated Christians who keep trying to insist Intelligent Design is both legitimate and scientific.

In a way though, having these radical atheists constantly squaring off against Christians and their relentless attempts at integrating their mythology into our government is a good sort of checks and balances system that our country requires. 95% of the battles will either stay the same due to concession or be in a constant state of gridlock, but the 5% that will change is what is really important and must be constantly supervised by rational thinking people. Nothing is more infuriating to me than when a perfectly useful or beneficial scientific advancement is stymied by politicians entertaining their religious benefactors simply because none of them can decide when life begins or ends. In an ideal world, I would love nothing more than to see every bit of religious persuasion removed from government. Not because I find the religion distasteful, but so that it doesn't constantly hold back our progress.

This is the point where afliXion or one of his ilk will step in and say something to the effect of, "But without the guidance of religion, science will certainly spiral out of control and it would just be a matter of time before the nation is filled with the atheist sodomite clones of liberal fanatics." Well, maybe not word for word, but certainly something like that.

The notion that religion needs to act like the nation's babysitter is absurd and offensive. Though religious folk of all faiths hate to admit it, they are neither the first nor will they be the last great faith to wander the face of the earth. Religions come and go, as do standards, morals, and mythologies. I think we can all agree that none of us needs a book composed by wandering illiterate tribals and medieval pederasts to tell us that murder is bad, adultery hurts the community, and lying only makes things worse. I know it may seem like I'm picking on the Judeo-Christian faiths, but like I said before no faith (or lack thereof) is without guilt.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that religion is all well and good in the privacy of ones own home, but I feel that as a species we've advanced beyond the need of invisible baby-sitters in the sky, under the sea, or the ether to write our laws for us.

[SadisticMonkey]

It mentions god on your money. Big fucking deal.

It's not "pushing views or beliefs on you".

[Dilapsor]

At 7/6/07 03:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It mentions god on your money. Big fucking deal.

It's not "pushing views or beliefs on you".

Deep down, I don't believe that radical atheists, non-theists, and non-Christians are really that worried about the G-word on currency. What they fear is more of a slippery slope into sticking not only God, but one single representation of God in the government.

Of course there are the occasional psychotics that the media picks up on who want nothing more than to instate a class in all public schools which teaches their children which book of the Bible is best for wiping their asses. These people are exceptions, not examples.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 7/6/07 03:32 AM, Dilapsor wrote:

At 7/6/07 03:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It mentions god on your money. Big fucking deal.

It's not "pushing views or beliefs on you".

Deep down, I don't believe that radical atheists, non-theists, and non-Christians are really that worried about the G-word on currency.

I only mentioned it because the OP made a big deal of it.

[Dilapsor]

That's the thing. It's NOT a big deal. The question of having the word "God" on our currency or in our oaths, at this point in the nation's history, is merely an issue of sentimentality and not morality. We will not become any more or less moral if the word is removed because in that context it is simply a blanket statement. Our currency doesn't say, "In Christ" or "By Allah" or anything like that, but the atheists and non-theists are afraid that at the current rate it soon will. This is an entirely rational fear, but it's not a battle that needs to be fought on this particular field. Religion retards the progress of society and government just as much today as it did in the middle ages.

Frankly, I would not want to live in a country in which laws were passed on account of their Biblical relevancy. We're big boys now, we can write our own laws without the help of our personal mythologies.

[Drakim]

At 7/6/07 03:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It mentions god on your money. Big fucking deal.

It's not "pushing views or beliefs on you".

Correct.

However, may Christians say that atheist are pushing their beliefs on Christians when they want it removed from the coin.

I don't live in America, so I don't really care, but, I can't understand it completely. The atheist aren't trying to have the coin say "THERE IS NO GOD". They simply want to support either. To be neutral. Why would anybody take offence of this?

I mean, there isn't any reference to God on streetlights or on driver-licenses. Does this mean they carry an pro-atheist and anti-christian message? To me, it would seem more like these things are neutral, and irrelevant, just like money. I can't possible see how anybody can argue that God has anything to do with money.

[CheGuevara72]

The Under god thing isn't really just Christian Jews CHristians and Muslims worship the same god so yeah... but because the majority of this country is christian we think of it as a Christian thing remember us Jews were around first damn it. Lol.

[UWDarDar17]

At 7/6/07 01:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/5/07 11:59 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

That was his personal choice, and I respect that.

You'd be bitching if he didn't start the trend.

Gee, you must really know all about me. I'm liberal, so of course I'll complain every time a person invokes God in government or swears on a bible. Your attempt to put words in my mouth simply implies that you have no real response for my arguement, and so you twist my statements to make it seem like I'm one of those wacko far-left-wing sorts that you love to gut so much.

The fact is, I wouldn't be bitching if he didn't start the trend. If someone else did, I'd not find it that big a deal. The idea behind swearing on a bible is not because the person believes we live in a nation based around Christianity. The idea is that the person believes that an oath upon a Bible not only makes him accountable to the people, but to God. The person is trying to make himself accountable in every possible way, and honor his oath (in his view) to the highest degree. Nothing wrong with that. I'd just be comfortable knowing an agnostic or deist would not be forced to place his hand on that book should he take an oath.

I don't mind if someone is religious, more power to them, but I don't need them getting in my face about my percieved lack of piety.

Dollar Bill. "In God We Trust" not physically harming you. Since the office of the President is a government position and YOU guys are so into banning all religous connection in EVERY court and government building, then the president should be banned on swearing on the Bible, and atheists and other religions should have the right to sue the government because they had to SEE him swear on a text that they don't believe in.

Clearly you're confusing me and they again. I have already agreed, the "In God We Trust" is not harmful, and is a moot point. And I frankly don't care if we put it in our Government buildings. The phrase is open to interpretation. Is God the Father, Yaweh, or Allah? Is it a statement of a divine being in general, covering all sorts of gods? Anyway, I have already stated that I have no issues with the president swearing on a Bible. I haven't really heard of a case where another religion is complaining and threatening the to sue the government because that occured. I really don't see the Hindu leaders of America getting their johnsons in a twist and yelling and screaming.

When I say "getting in my face about my percieved lack of piety", I refer to the idea that gay marrage and abortions should be banned. These arguements are deeply rooted in religion, and I don't want a politician to ever state that I am a bad "whatever" because I support gay rights or am pro-choice. That's not for him to decide. That's not even for my religious leader to decide. That's for God to decide.

Since even you guys seem to think that abortion decisions should not be based on religous beliefs, then the president should not be able to swear on a religous text as that would imply he would rule based on that religous text.

Again, read my previous statements in this post. You seem fixated on this one idea here.

George Washington was also vain, arrogant, a slaveowner, and not really that good of a general.

...Not that good of a general?
Are you high?

Uh, have you ever really read the military history of the Revolution? Washington was not the brilliant military mastermind that everyone makes him out to be. Let's look at the facts:

He won the siege of Boston, which was already in place by the time he arrived on the scene, and the odds were heavily stacked against the British, who had bottlenecked themselves into the city by not taking the Dorchester Heights. Any soldier of moderate ability would know that they had a good thing going, and should continue sieging and get artillery to bombard the enemy position.

The capture of artillery at Ticonderoga was not by Washington's ability, it was Maj. Knox. Knox won that battle, not Washington, and since Washington was not there, he had no role in that victory.

Then after the debacle in New York, the army constantly retreats. I will say this, Washington's best ability as a general is the art of retreat. It is an art. His tactical redeployments saved the army many times over, and he was able to pull back with minimal losses. But the fact is that he didn't win many battles.

Trenton is a gem, a high point in his career. He used unorthodox tactics and successfully won the battle. What I'm saying is that he was not a great battlefield general. He had great logistic talents, and a good knack for putting competant people in command. That makes him a great administrative general, and it certainly helps when you're president. But he had a losing record in this war, and he didn't so much win as the British lost.

If I don't want to swear upon a bible, I should have the right to not have to.

No. If we wanted to go in your people's direction and take the words off the currency based soley on "seperation of church and state", then no one should be able to swear on a religous text in a government position.

Again, we seem to be obsessed with this one little point. I already stated that I do not care that we have "In God We Trust" on the coin, or that the president swears on a Bible. You see the forest. Look at the individual trees.

It's a fucking coin.

Exactly. And guess what? It's on there. QUIT FUCKING WHINING!

Whining? I don't ever remember whining about it. It seems like you don't even pay attention to the words that others post. You live an a la-la land where everyone seems to write something that makes no sense to you and you get to respond however you want, regardless of the fact that your statements don't even make sense compared to what you respond to.

I'm not whining about the fact that the word "God" is on the coin. In fact, I'm telling people to get over it, because it doesn't really make a difference whether the item you use to buy a Snickers says God or not.

You don't even think about it.

Yes. Yes.
How much further are you going to dig yourself into a whole in this arguement?

What the fuck are you talking about??? I'm fucking agreeing with you that having "In God We Trust" on our money is not that big of a deal, and you're acting like I'm saying its the worst thing in America! What "hole"? I swear, you must never actually read other people's posts.

You could, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. Let's look at the case of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. Now, the argument is that, as an important point in the history of law, the Commandments should be shown in the courthouse.

And there's that double standard.

What double standard? What are you talking about? There's no double standard being discussed here. The decalogue is either in the courthouse or not.

I agree, they are important in terms of law, but they're not exactly the kind of law that we deal with in the US court system: of the ten, we deal with three: murder, stealing, and bearing false witness (perjury).

And if there was a quote from the Bible stating: Judge with righteous judgement?

Then I'd have no problem with it. Righteous means to be morally right or justifiable. I expect the court's decisions to be justifiable within our civil morals that we as a nation hold- no killing, no stealing, no lying, stuff like that.

You could find a better example of the "history of law" by putting up the Code of Hammurabi, or the Twelve Tables. The 10 Commandments...eh, not really much of an arguement from a historical-legal persepctive.

2 words: Double, Standard.

Three words: what double standard? What the hell are you rambling about Mem? I'm saying that the 10 Commandments, in terms of civil law, are not that big of a deal. They are for religious law, but we don't have that in America. The examples I gave are much better examples of civil law, is all I'm saying.

You seem to have this problem where you only see in black and white.

[Memorize]

At 7/6/07 02:59 AM, Bolo wrote:

Well, aren't we in a pissy mood.

You haven't seen Die Hard?

They were critical of it. Not so much the religion itself, rather the establishment and the implementation of it.

One of the many things were escaping from.

I pointed out the "Catholic / Roman Catholic" because they ARE the same religion. The two terms are just interchangeable.

Not two of my friends in California.

They argued quite a bit.

No, I can't. No one can. We can only speculate as to the intentions of people long dead. According to how things were laid out, and how the information we have has been interpreted over the years, this is simply the most plausible scenario.

Excuse me for saying, but I honestly doubt they would give a shit about "In God We Trust".

They can have a moment of silence, I'm fairly certain, for extenuating circumstances. After 9/11, I'm almost sure that there were moments of silence in just about every major sporting event.

except...

Very interesting...

so we can all find a middle ground somewhere in between.

We are more in middle ground. Now they just complain to pull it more into their favor.

Who the fuck is that, anyways? I'm not cutting anything out of what they said. Look it up for yourself and you'll see plainly.

Nah. I already know what you people do.

[JakeHero]

At 7/6/07 01:25 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Also, americans are so stupid.

If this is so what does that make canadians, uber retarded?

[Memorize]

At 7/6/07 02:48 PM, JakeHero wrote:

If this is so what does that make canadians, uber retarded?

Well, considering they're 1 point below us...

[Everlasting-Elements]

We came here believing in God, why change that? Just leave our shit the way it is. So what if there is 'In God We Trust' Or that God is in the pledge of allegiance. Change the words to buddah when you say it, or something!

[Drakim]

At 7/6/07 05:47 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: We came here believing in God, why change that? Just leave our shit the way it is. So what if there is 'In God We Trust' Or that God is in the pledge of allegiance. Change the words to buddah when you say it, or something!

From what I've heard, saying something else or skipping that part has gotten a lot of people (mostly students) into trouble.