NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to the amazing amount of sheer stupidity surrounding the issue, Do you understand "Seperation of Church & State"?

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

here's what i don't get:

people who support having "Under God" on American money and in the American Pledge are usually refered to as "traditionalists." but both of those things were modifications made in the 1950s, and so are clearly antithetical to actual American tradition.

I feel the same way (about the religious additions to our currency and Pledge of Allegiance). What's so traditional about anything introduced in the 50's?
Stranger than fiction.

finally I find that someone agrees with me..

Neat test. I missed no.8 and no.14. I should have figured them out with common sense .

here's what i don't get:

people who support having "Under God" on American money and in the American Pledge are usually refered to as "traditionalists." but both of those things were modifications made in the 1950s, and so are clearly antithetical to actual American tradition.

Just an interesting point, but only the coinage is printed by the U.S. Government. The paper money is under the control of a quasi-government entity called the Federal Reserve Bank. The only real control that the government has over the Federal Reserve is the President's appointments to the board.

ha. i run tings. i passed on guesses

I got 19 out of 21 correct!

finally I find that someone agrees with me..
Hi AFS! You'll find that a lot of people here do. You'll also find a lot of semi-intelligent people who overanalyze the issue and attempt lame linguistic tricks in order to justify their bizarre translations of clear and straightforward documents... like the constitution and BOR.

"Separation of Church & State" is heresy.

"Separation of Church & State" is heresy.

Thank GOD, we don't live in a theocracy, then....


Oh, ha ha ha ha...

:D

"Separation of Church & State" is heresy.

According to who's religion?

I got a *14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans*

It was cool to see that wisconsin question on there. My 10th grade social studies teacher, a strong supporter of seperation, always liked to point that out.

"Separation of Church & State" is heresy.

It doesn't matter if it's heresy. If you want to live in a theocracy, then go find one and live there. Otherwise, don't complain about how anti- or un-christian the United States is becoming. We weren't founded as a Christian nation, so there's no reason for the Christian faith to be imposed on every citizen.

It doesn't matter if it's heresy. If you want to live in a theocracy, then go find one and live there. Otherwise, don't complain about how anti- or un-christian the United States is becoming. We weren't founded as a Christian nation, so there's no reason for the Christian faith to be imposed on every citizen.
All on earth His scepter reign.

All on earth His scepter reign.


That was stated by your fallible human form, was it not? If the Divine Creator actually stepped down and typed that for you, tell him 'hi' for me.

Anyway, you made no point, so all I'm getting out of your post is one MAJOR WTF moment.

All on earth His scepter reign.

I think you must be missing an "Over" in there, somewhere.

Oh, you forgot to include an argument, too.

Or any evidence.

I'm sure that will all improve by your next post, though... because you are obviously not just trolling this thread... right?

I think we should abolish the separation of church and state so we can have female and gay priests. Without separation then government equal opportunity laws could be applied to churches. That would be great. For instance a church could have a muslim priest. After all, you aren't allowed to discriminate against a potential employee on the basis of his religion.

I got 14 out of 21 right, which means I am better informed than most Americans. This is pretty good, I think, due to the fact that I'm not American!

I got 14 out of 21 right, which means I am better informed than most Americans. This is pretty good, I think, due to the fact that I'm not American!

That certainly is rather good. Congratulations ^_^

NOWHERE in the Constitution is there a "separation of Church and State" mentioned. It's so annoying having my rights trampled over. I'm a Christian. That's what I choose to believe in and people just can't seem to leave it alone and let me believe what I want.The only thing that clause in the First amendment meant was that the federal government couldn't set up an official religion of the state, like the Anglican church in England at the time, and they couldn't bar any religion from practicing their faith. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

NOWHERE in the Constitution is there a "separation of Church and State" mentioned. It's so annoying having my rights trampled over. I'm a Christian. That's what I choose to believe in and people just can't seem to leave it alone and let me believe what I want.The only thing that clause in the First amendment meant was that the federal government couldn't set up an official religion of the state, like the Anglican church in England at the time, and they couldn't bar any religion from practicing their faith. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


What are you getting so bent out of shape about? No one is meddling with your beliefs and saying that you can't practice your own faith.

NOWHERE in the Constitution is there a "separation of Church and State" mentioned. It's so annoying having my rights trampled over. I'm a Christian. That's what I choose to believe in and people just can't seem to leave it alone and let me believe what I want.The only thing that clause in the First amendment meant was that the federal government couldn't set up an official religion of the state, like the Anglican church in England at the time, and they couldn't bar any religion from practicing their faith. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Freedom from religion is a part of freedom of religion. Not all religions beleive in god. Some are atheist, like some types of buddhism, some have a goddess, some have many gods. By using government funds and power to promote a god, you trample on the rights of the above mentioned religions.

NOWHERE in the Constitution is there a "separation of Church and State" mentioned. It's so annoying having my rights trampled over. I'm a Christian. That's what I choose to believe in and people just can't seem to leave it alone and let me believe what I want.The only thing that clause in the First amendment meant was that the federal government couldn't set up an official religion of the state, like the Anglican church in England at the time, and they couldn't bar any religion from practicing their faith. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's right. (Thanks for posting this, Gnostikos!!!)

"respecting an establishment of religion" means that it cannot promote the establishment of any religion. This doesn't mean Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, etc. This means that no laws can be made in regard to religion IN GENERAL --- meaning that you really don't have to be exposed to religion at all.

It's kinda funny how conversations change depending on your nationality.
I mean, I come from Quebec (mostly french-speaking canadian province) and I would never see this kind of debate between Quebecers, even most Canadians... or German, Swiss, French, English, Swedish, etc. people.

Why is that so ? I wonder.

But the facts are that the United States and their worst enemies (integrist muslims) really are touchy about religion.

I see freedom of religion (and from religion) and tolerance not only as human rights, but as keys to achieve world peace.
Muslims are convinced to hold the truth, and so are Christians, Buddhists, Hinduists, Jainists, Taoists, Jews, Raeliens, and so on.

It's kinda funny how conversations change depending on your nationality.
I mean, I come from Quebec (mostly french-speaking canadian province) and I would never see this kind of debate between Quebecers, even most Canadians... or German, Swiss, French, English, Swedish, etc. people.

Why is that so ? I wonder.

But the facts are that the United States and their worst enemies (integrist muslims) really are touchy about religion.

I see freedom of religion (and from religion) and tolerance not only as human rights, but as keys to achieve world peace.
Muslims are convinced to hold the truth, and so are Christians, Buddhists, Hinduists, Jainists, Taoists, Jews, Raeliens, and so on.
The only way to achieve world peace is through the total restoration of Holy Christendom.

just a little question here -- could we consider this Troll's activity hijacking the thread?

And how would the muslims react ?
And Buddhists ?
And Atheists ?

And how would the muslims react ?
And Buddhists ?
And Atheists ?
Expulsion...

And how would the muslims react ?
And Buddhists ?
And Atheists ?


I think they'd get pissed...just like I'm getting. *thinks to self* "don't feed the troll..don't feed the troll.."

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I'm glad you posted to help make the point. Freedom from religion is, indeed what was meant, as well as freedom of religion.
Nobody wants to enforce atheism on believers! That's a rediculous, paranoid fantasy. The area of debate lately has been government funding of religious groups and beliefs.
Read the constitution again, I'm sure you'll see that this is expressly forbidden.
So more specifically, freedom from government spending handouts to religious orgainizations and education (a form of establishment).
Does that help you to understand the constitution?

The only way to achieve world peace is through the total restoration of Holy Christendom.

Are you a F---ing nut? The only way and I mean only way to achieve world peace is to have a world government and truly have a seperation of religion and state.

just a little question here -- could we consider this Troll's activity hijacking the thread?

You think so ? What a shame ! :p

You shall burn in hell for such a blasphemy !

I'm glad you posted to help make the point. Freedom from religion is, indeed what was meant, as well as freedom of religion.
Nobody wants to enforce atheism on believers! That's a rediculous, paranoid fantasy. The area of debate lately has been government funding of religious groups and beliefs.
Read the constitution again, I'm sure you'll see that this is expressly forbidden.
So more specifically, freedom from government spending handouts to religious orgainizations and education (a form of establishment).
Does that help you to understand the constitution?

Thats right!!

Are you a F---ing nut? The only way and I mean only way to achieve world peace is to have a world government and truly have a seperation of religion and state.
Peace is only through God, not Man!

The only way to achieve world peace is through the total restoration of Holy Christendom.
No, then we will have conflicts between heretics like you and the holy catholic church over issues like evolution.

I thought that species of human beings was extinct...

I'm glad you posted to help make the point. Freedom from religion is, indeed what was meant, as well as freedom of religion.
Nobody wants to enforce atheism on believers! That's a rediculous, paranoid fantasy. The area of debate lately has been government funding of religious groups and beliefs.
Read the constitution again, I'm sure you'll see that this is expressly forbidden.
So more specifically, freedom from government spending handouts to religious orgainizations and education (a form of establishment).
Does that help you to understand the constitution?

The government doesn't do it, but nutcases (like the people who wander up on my campus) can stand there and yell at you all day while shoving tracts in your face. (Personally, I think this borders on harassment,though.)

See? You can do whatever you want.

Peace is only through God, not Man!

Where is your god?

Wow...16 out of 21...."Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans". Not bad for a Brit. :D Mostly got the American History ones wrong.

No, then we will have conflicts between heretics like you and the holy catholic church over issues like evolution.
The Catholic Church will crush heresies like the absurd hypothesis of "evolution."

Where is your god?
Deus in Caelo est...

Wow...16 out of 21...."Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans". Not bad for a Brit. :D Mostly got the American History ones wrong.

Proof that most Americans can't keep American History straight. *smirk*

Anyway, like someone else said, let's stop feeding the troll.

The Catholic Church will crush heresies like the absurd hypothesis of "evolution."
You are the heretic. You will face GOD's justice and burn for eternity in a pool of fire and brimstone. The HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH has officially embraced evolution. What the pope declares bound on earth is bound in heaven. DIE HERETIC!!!!!!!

Congratulations! You scored 17 correct out of 21!

14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans

You are the heretic. You will face GOD's justice and burn for eternity in a pool of fire and brimstone. The HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH has officially embraced evolution. What the pope declares bound on earth is bound in heaven. DIE HERETIC!!!!!!!
The Catholic Church condemns heresies such as "evolution."

Tell me you ARE a joke. :headbang:

I think they'd get pissed...just like I'm getting. *thinks to self* "don't feed the troll..don't feed the troll.."

He has already had moderator warnings for his behaviour.

He still seems unable to control his flaming, trolling and flamebaiting... so you might as well just sit it out for a while... my guess is, he won't be here long.

He has already had moderator warnings for his behaviour.

He still seems unable to control his flaming, trolling and flamebaiting... so you might as well just sit it out for a while... my guess is, he won't be here long.

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. No reason to get stressed out over a troll.

The Catholic Church condemns heresies such as "evolution."

Stultus! Nonne non credes talem stercorem!

Anyway, like someone else said, let's stop feeding the troll.
Exactly. I hate to throw that word around, but I would say his entire style is the very definition of a shit-sucking troll. Posting cheesy one-liners with nothing to say but "teh pope is teh truest king of teh world" or other brilliant tidbits of inflammatory nonsense is trolling in its purest sense.
So as AFS said, Don't feed the attention-starved troll. Like bears and racoons, it only encourages them.
Feel sorry for the bastard, how many similar friends and likeminded peers could this guy have in the real world???

Deus in Caelo est...

God is in the clouds...

Thanks for that.

Yay! 20 out of 21!

The first half was easy, though, anyone who cares about the seperation of church and state should have gotten those... The other half I learned from a good government teacher.

Yay! 20 out of 21!

The first half was easy, though, anyone who cares about the seperation of church and state should have gotten those... The other half I learned from a good government teacher.


This is probably a stupid question, but your username is pronounced like "Mousy Tongue", right? *snicker*

Evolution is fact buddy. Like it or not. It is fact!!!!! Any that says it isn't needs to go to the looney bin.

God is in the clouds...

Thanks for that.
This is not Classical Rome, fool.

I really want to click the "report" button again, but I'm running out of reasons...

This is not Classical Rome, fool.

Then what does it really mean, smart man/

I really want to click the "report" button again, but I'm running out of reasons...
I hear ya there. I just choose to turn my head while he publicly masturbates on the forums. He's just flashing his little prick for reactions, that's all. Laugh, and return to the subjuect at hand.

Then what does it really mean, smart man/
God is in Heaven. When Caelo is capitalized, it refers to Heaven in modern Latin.

I hear ya there. I just choose to turn my head while he publicly masturbates on the forums. He's just flashing his little prick for reactions, that's all. Laugh, and return to the subjuect at hand.

good point.

on a related tangent -- has anyone checked out the nontracts on the same site?

Wow, it's funny how many noncitizens seem to understand our constitution better than most of us!
That's scary...
:confused:

God is in Heaven. When Caelo is capitalized, it refers to Heaven in modern Latin.
But...there isn't modern Latin. Latin is a dead language. Only the Vattican speaks it now, and it's not really a living language there anyways.

good point.

on a related tangent -- has anyone checked out the nontracts on the same site?
Yeah, they're pretty good antipropoganda to have on hand. I'm a member of FFrF and usually have a printout or two on hand when I go out, just in case.
You never know when you'll need them.

Yeah, they're pretty good antipropoganda to have on hand. I'm a member of FFrF and usually have a printout or two on hand when I go out, just in case.
You never know when you'll need them.


woot! (I know, gratuitous use of netspeak, but I say it aloud as well) I'm a supporter, but too broke to be a member. I've got a stack of free copies I've confiscated from people on campus who were misusing them (ie mocking them)

God is in Heaven. When Caelo is capitalized, it refers to Heaven in modern Latin.

Of course, Modern Latin (such as it is) is a secular device.. since Latin is not an active language EXCEPT in the scientific community, where it is used for nomenclature, etc.

Of course, I'm looking at, for example Deuteronomy 4:39, where it says "scito ergo hodie et cogitato in corde tuo quod Dominus ipse sit Deus in caelo sursum et in terra deorsum et non sit alius".

So - scripture says 'caelo', not 'Caelo'... so it's irrelevent what you say, anyway... :)

The Catholic Church condemns heresies such as "evolution."
You are the heretic. Evolution is accepted by the church. Recant your heretical ways or die.

Guys, let's let the troll starve. please? *tries to look sweet and innocent, while pouting and trying to hide her fangs*

Of course, Modern Latin (such as it is) is a secular device.. since Latin is not an active language EXCEPT in the scientific community, where it is used for nomenclature, etc.

Of course, I'm looking at, for example Deuteronomy 4:39, where it says "scito ergo hodie et cogitato in corde tuo quod Dominus ipse sit Deus in caelo sursum et in terra deorsum et non sit alius".

So - scripture says 'caelo', not 'Caelo'... so it's irrelevent what you say, anyway... :)
Modern Latin is of the Church.

Guys, let's let the troll starve. please? *tries to look sweet and innocent, while pouting and trying to hide her fangs*
Ok, but being an atheist I just don't get enough opportunities to accuse people of heresy. I couldn't resist.

You are the heretic. Evolution is accepted by the church. Recant your heretical ways or die.
Evolution is CONDEMNED by the Holy Church. It contradicts Divine Creation.

Modern Latin is of the Church.
And not of taxonomers...intriguing, I had no idea!

Ok, but being an atheist I just don't get enough opportunities to accuse people of heresy. I couldn't resist.
Be careful. He's a good example of how one could become addicted to such folly...

Be careful. He's a good example of how one could become addicted to such folly...

very good point. I almost got sucked in as well.

Due to the amazing amount of sheer stupidity surrounding the issue, Do you understand "Seperation of Church & State"?

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php
20/21, not bad,

20/21, not bad,

I've just got one thing to say about that --- damn you're good!!

Evolution is CONDEMNED by the Holy Church. It contradicts Divine Creation.

Tu es festivum!

(Note: I thought the neuter case would be most fitting for you...)

Evolution is CONDEMNED by the Holy Church. It contradicts Divine Creation.

Okay... let's put it this way, DF.

You have been embarrased by people having a better grasp of Latin than you, by people having a better grasp of the Catholic Church than you, by people having a better knowledge of scripture that you.

All you are doing is making a big noise.

If you do not present some form of logical, reasoned response, this is the last response you will get from me.

I am not going to bother feeding a troll. Put up or shut up.

Okay... let's put it this way, DF.

You have been embarrased by people having a better grasp of Latin than you, by people having a better grasp of the Catholic Church than you, by people having a better knowledge of scripture that you.

All you are doing is making a big noise.

If you do not present some form of logical, reasoned response, this is the last response you will get from me.

I am not going to bother feeding a troll. Put up or shut up.

*applauds*

Okay... let's put it this way, DF.

You have been embarrased by people having a better grasp of Latin than you, by people having a better grasp of the Catholic Church than you, by people having a better knowledge of scripture that you.

I) No, I have not.
II)No, I have not.
III)No, I have not.

The Catholic Church condemns heresies such as "evolution."
no it dont
youre just misguided, sinceyoure not in touch with a larger catholic comunity. Live insouth america or europe ( catholic majorities, mostly) and theyll know all they need to know on the pope's stances on everything. The man beleives in evolution, so did his predecesor. he jas openly requested that his succesor does as well

no it dont
youre just misguided, sinceyoure not in touch with a larger catholic comunity. Live insouth america or europe ( catholic majorities, mostly) and theyll know all they need to know on the pope's stances on everything. The man beleives in evolution, so did his predecesor. he jas openly requested that his succesor does as well

*poke* no more trollfood *pouts*

I) No, I have not.
II)No, I have not.
III)No, I have not.

I know I should let the troll starve, but every animal is here for a reason, eh?

I know I should let the troll starve, but every animal is here for a reason, eh?


Yes, and the troll is here to starve.

no it dont
youre just misguided, sinceyoure not in touch with a larger catholic comunity. Live insouth america or europe ( catholic majorities, mostly) and theyll know all they need to know on the pope's stances on everything. The man beleives in evolution, so did his predecesor. he jas openly requested that his succesor does as well

While you are undoubtedly far superior in knowledge to the 'troll', it's blanket refusal to debate means that you are ultimately wasting your time.

I, for one, have had enough of pandering to it's ego. I suggest that anyone else seriously considering debate, debate among themselves, and let the 'troll' go find easier pickings elsewhere.

But, it's a free country/world... feed the trolls as you will. :)

While you are undoubtedly far superior in knowledge to the 'troll', it's blanket refusal to debate means that you are ultimately wasting your time.

I, for one, have had enough of pandering to it's ego. I suggest that anyone else seriously considering debate, debate among themselves, and let the 'troll' go find easier pickings elsewhere.

But, it's a free country/world... feed the trolls as you will. :)

well, i like feeding the trolls, Theyre my pets. Of course, the dam PETA took most of the fun out of having trolls as pets

While you are undoubtedly far superior in knowledge to the 'troll', it's blanket refusal to debate means that you are ultimately wasting your time.

I, for one, have had enough of pandering to it's ego. I suggest that anyone else seriously considering debate, debate among themselves, and let the 'troll' go find easier pickings elsewhere.

But, it's a free country/world... feed the trolls as you will. :)


I'm advising against the troll-feedings because he already ate one of my threads a while ago. He should still be full from that. bleh.

I'm advising against the troll-feedings because he already ate one of my threads a while ago. He should still be full from that. bleh.
I don't think that trolls can ever be fully sated.

I don't think that trolls can ever be fully sated.
good point, but all the more reason to starve him.

the fact is that god is a relative term. It's only refering to a higher being. The problem is that athiests and the such don't want any special connection between religion and state, but the want special treatment for their differences. Hey, i've got an idea. How about schools stop teaching about the declaration of Independance because it says God.Oh and by the way, the Constitution and the BOR are the same thing. Get your facts straight.

Troll :sniper:

And now that we're done with that. I got a 14 on the test, I missed some due to not knowing the precice date, but it's ok.

the fact is that god is a relative term. It's only refering to a higher being. The problem is that athiests and the such don't want any special connection between religion and state, but the want special treatment for their differences. Hey, i've got an idea. How about schools stop teaching about the declaration of Independance because it says God.Oh and by the way, the Constitution and the BOR are the same thing. Get your facts straight.
Not pushing for the acceptance of god isn't special treatment for anyone. It leaves everyone free to make up his own mind. I have no problem with the declaration. It's a historical document. I would also have no problem with comparative religion classes in public schools. As long as they give an honest overview of many different religions without favoring any and treat it as a scholarly subject.

Slightly off-topic for a second...

Drunk Commies?

I thought communists didn't believe in 'spirits'?

:D

(Okay.. it was terrible....)

the fact is that god is a relative term. It's only refering to a higher being. The problem is that athiests and the such don't want any special connection between religion and state, but the want special treatment for their differences. Hey, i've got an idea. How about schools stop teaching about the declaration of Independance because it says God.Oh and by the way, the Constitution and the BOR are the same thing. Get your facts straight.
First post? You're obviously an invention of another screen name here (transparent, man, very thin).
You got the joke, but took the bait on the Constitution/BOR thing.
Atheists don't want special treatment, unless that means that their hard-earned tax money shouldn't be going to fund religious organizations. Think about which group (believers/atheists) is asking for "special treatment". Are you aware of any atheist groups that demand public funding?

Lol, I got : "14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans". Considering I'm Irish does that mean Americans aren't educated enough or that I have too much time on my hands? ;)

The Catholic Church will crush heresies like the absurd hypothesis of "evolution."

When will they do that? They are too busy chasing alterboys.....

19.

It should be 20 because I accidently clicked the wrong dot on the Presidential oath.

I always forget the Roger Williams settlement.......

When will they do that? They are too busy chasing alterboys.....
What is that supposed to mean?

Actually, I think no.11 is incorrect:
"It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

What is that supposed to mean?
It means you fail as a Christian for not keeping up with any news or even ideals for that matter.
Troll :sniper:

When will they do that? They are too busy chasing alterboys.....

What is that supposed to mean?

Just how big of a rock do you live under? Do you even really care about what happens on earth?

Oh by the way, Defensor, please tell your God that as soon as he makes a taco so hot that even he can't eat, I will become a devout follower.

Just how big of a rock do you live under? Do you even really care about what happens on earth?

Oh by the way, Defensor, please tell your God that as soon as he makes a taco so hot that even he can't eat, I will become a devout follower.

Oooh, the crushing grip of taco-based logic...

Actually, I think no.11 is incorrect:
"It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.


No it is right. It wasn't mandated to appear on all money till 57. You are right that it appeared then but subsequent years it didn't.....

No it is right. It wasn't mandated to appear on all money till 57. You are right that it appeared then but subsequent years it didn't.....
Two interesting posts. Does anyone know why it was taken off of our tender/coinage? Controversial? Expensive minting?

According to the quiz, I'm a First Amendment scholar....

Two interesting posts. Does anyone know why it was taken off of our tender/coinage? Controversial? Expensive minting?
Because it wasn't.

Deus in Caelo est...

Vescere bracis meis.

And since Latin is a pathetic, non-original language.

Καθίστε και περιστραφείτε την τρύπα γαιδάρων!

Bam, 19.

Hell, that time it worked when we starved him. He's not going away yet this time...

I think I'm gonna cry...
:(


I'd love to make the troll cry..

*coughcough*

I didn't say that.

Vescere bracis meis.

And since Latin is a pathetic, non-original language.

Καθίστε και περιστραφείτε την τρύπα γαιδάρων!
W00t for Greek!

W00t for Greek!


damn I wish I could read Greek...

I actually am my own individual person with a life other than the computer. *wink wink* I actually do not believe in religion but still do believe that it is okay for religious groups to recieve federal funding. And it actually isn't that hard to recieve federal funding. I think that maybe athiests are too busy trying to ruin the good intentions of others to promote thrie own views.

14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans

Yup. After all... I am no American :fluffle:

IF Defensor Fidei, was truly devout, he'd know to answer in Aramaic....not Latin.

I'd like to point out that the U.S. constitution never says anything about the seperation of church and state, it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means that Congress can't make a law that concerns religion. It doesn't say that you can't have the Bible or any of its verses used in a courtroom or that federal employees can't be involved in something religious.

I'd like to point out that the U.S. constitution never says anything about the seperation of church and state, it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That means that Congress can't make a law that concerns religion. It doesn't say that you can't have the Bible or any of its verses used in a courtroom or that federal employees can't be involved in something religious.

I was under the impression that Bibles have always been used in courtrooms anyway (put your right hand on it, swear to tell the truth, blah blah blah) . Also, federal employees are just like everyone else; they can do whatever they want to do --- on their own time!

I was under the impression that Bibles have always been used in courtrooms anyway (put your right hand on it, swear to tell the truth, blah blah blah) . I believe that stopped a while ago. same, "Swearing to God infringes on my religious beliefs" argument.

I believe that stopped a while ago. same, "Swearing to God infringes on my religious beliefs" argument.


Well, an Atheist can't exactly swear to something he/she doesn't believe in, so it kind of makes sense. To them, it would be kind of like swearing to the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

16, which puts me in:

14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans

not bad for a canuck who never took american history...

Well, an Atheist can't exactly swear to something he/she doesn't believe in, so it kind of makes sense. To them, it would be kind of like swearing to the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
one who follows astaru may be offended as well...

or hell, any religion whose god is called something other than "god"

one who follows astaru may be offended as well...

or hell, any religion whose god is called something other than "god"

Exactly. It makes no sense to appease the few "Christians" who will gripe about it while pissing off the millions of others who go through our courtrooms each year.

Well, an Atheist can't exactly swear to something he/she doesn't believe in, so it kind of makes sense. To them, it would be kind of like swearing to the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.That's a good question... If an Atheist is someone who belives in no God... basically that God is nothing more than a 3 letter word... why are they so afraid of it. I mean if the crazies out there can be mollified by saying a 3 letter word, what is the consiquences if they break their word. For the believers, it will be damnation... but if an Athiest doesn't believe in any God in any form, then there is nothing to damn them for their lack of belief. So shouldn't the Athiest be as less fearful of God than say, the Easter Bunny or Santa? I would think that the Athiest would be the ones not caring about such things because there is no greater being thus there is no consiquence.

If they are afraid of the 3 letter word, then perhaps, deep down, they believe after all.

Evolution is CONDEMNED by the Holy Church. It contradicts Divine Creation.
want to check what the pope has been saying?

That's a good question... If an Atheist is someone who belives in no God... basically that God is nothing more than a 3 letter word... why are they so afraid of it. I mean if the crazies out there can be mollified by saying a 3 letter word, what is the consiquences if they break their word. For the believers, it will be damnation... but if an Athiest doesn't believe in any God in any form, then there is nothing to damn them for their lack of belief. So shouldn't the Athiest be as less fearful of God than say, the Easter Bunny or Santa? I would think that the Athiest would be the ones not caring about such things because there is no greater being thus there is no consiquence.

If they are afraid of the 3 letter word, then perhaps, deep down, they believe after all.
they're not afraid. if anything, it's offensive, furthermore, woudln't you feel silly swearing an oath to the easter bunny?

That's a good question... If an Atheist is someone who belives in no God... basically that God is nothing more than a 3 letter word... why are they so afraid of it. I mean if the crazies out there can be mollified by saying a 3 letter word, what is the consiquences if they break their word. For the believers, it will be damnation... but if an Athiest doesn't believe in any God in any form, then there is nothing to damn them for their lack of belief. So shouldn't the Athiest be as less fearful of God than say, the Easter Bunny or Santa? I would think that the Athiest would be the ones not caring about such things because there is no greater being thus there is no consiquence.

If they are afraid of the 3 letter word, then perhaps, deep down, they believe after all.

It is not that they are afraid, and people are not Atheists because they don't care. They are Atheists because they have a firm belief that there is indeed NO God. Would you want to swear to my imaginary friend Bob?

It is not that they are afraid, and people are not Atheists because they don't care. They are Atheists because they have a firm belief that there is indeed NO God. Would you want to swear to my imaginary friend Bob?if it will appease you and make you happy... sure.

Of course, if I break my word to bob and nothing supernatural happens... well then...

if it will appease you and make you happy... sure.

Of course, if I break my word to bob and nothing supernatural happens... well then...

Ohh, then swear to Ahura Mazda on my Avesta!

I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me Ahura Mazda.

Sounds nice, eh?

if it will appease you and make you happy... sure.

Of course, if I break my word to bob and nothing supernatural happens... well then...
some people like to stick to their guns and not swear to things they don't believe exist.

i'm sure many christians would have an issue swearing to vishnu.

some people like to stick to their guns and not swear to things they don't believe exist.

i'm sure many christians would have an issue swearing to vishnu.

or Pan, my horned goat god

Ohh, then swear to Ahura Mazda on my Avesta!

I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me Ahura Mazda.

Sounds nice, eh?If you swear to Jesus to have open and honest talks about the bible with your Pastor. (I'll even be nice... it doesn't have to be Catholic, it can be Baptist or Prodistant, it'll be up to you.)

About the evolution vs. creation argument:
The Catholic Church has no position on evolution vs. creation. It's fine with them if you think Genisis is not literaly how mankind came to be. As long as you believe that God is the source of evolution, which makes perfect sense, the church is fine with your beliefs. God made the world to be logical, right? and evolution is perfectly logical isn't it? The story of creation is ment to be SYMBOLIC. For instance; if God made the world in 7 days, what would have determined what a day was before he made the sun? A day to God could be billions of years to us.

Anyway, about church and state, the reason this was written was to prevent the church, which had a tendency to become corrupt in thoes days, from gaining too much power in the government. These days, I think people are totaly abusing this, as is showing in the arguments about the pledge of alliegence. How did this even get into the pledge in the first place? why wasnt it rejected as soon as it was put into it? What I REALLY hate is how cities are having to take down religious monuments in public because they might "offend" people who dont agree with it. It seems to me that we are losing our right to show our faith in public, and isn't that against freedom of religion? Theres's no law saying people who don't believe in God can't put up their own monuments.
If anyone dissagrees with this, let me know your position

As an Atheist, i'd prefer to be given the choice to swear to something other than the idea of God, since it would take the value out of the oath. It's like if two people swear on their mothers grave and one of them has a mother who is still alive - the person whose mother is alive isn't exactly making a meaningful oath.

As an Atheist, i'd prefer to be given the choice to swear to something other than the idea of God, since it would take the value out of the oath. It's like if two people swear on their mothers grave and one of them has a mother who is still alive - the person whose mother is alive isn't exactly making a meaningful oath.fair enough, and before I jump to conclusion... what is your opinion of "Under God" on money (if you live in the US), and saying "Merry Christmas" Honestly asking here.

What I REALLY hate is how cities are having to take down religious monuments in public because they might "offend" people who dont agree with it. It seems to me that we are losing our right to show our faith in public, and isn't that against freedom of religion? Theres's no law saying people who don't believe in God can't put up their own monuments.
If anyone dissagrees with this, let me know your position
well, if it's on city property and the city funded it, then it shouldn't be.

the government cannot encourage or fund one religion over all others.

no one is saying that churches should be torn down or some shit. the government doesn't fund those afterall.

it's not against private citizens putting up monuments on their own property, there is something against the city putting up religious monuments on public property.

fair enough, and before I jump to conclusion... what is your opinion of "Under God" on money (if you live in the US), and saying "Merry Christmas" Honestly asking here.
personally, i issue the approriate holiday greeting to each of my friends. if i don't know what religion they are, i wish them happy holidays.

well, if it's on city property and the city funded it, then it shouldn't be.

the government cannot encourage or fund one religion over all others.

no one is saying that churches should be torn down or some shit. the government doesn't fund those afterall.

it's not against private citizens putting up monuments on their own property, there is something against the city putting up religious monuments on public property.But if the city also allows other religions to put up their Religion baised Holiday symbols on city property to be displayed along side the Christian ones. They won't be showing preference, they will be showing religious diversity and will that be alright for you?

personally, i issue the approriate holiday greeting to each of my friends. if i don't know what religion they are, i wish them happy holidays.so you perfere Happy Holidays...

neat little quiz. I got a 16/21. A few things I didn't know, I now know.

If you swear to Jesus to have open and honest talks about the bible with your Pastor. (I'll even be nice... it doesn't have to be Catholic, it can be Baptist or Prodistant, it'll be up to you.)

So, you would bow to another god?

Interesting. I take it you're not a christian, then... because that would be forbidden, if you were.

That's a good question... If an Atheist is someone who belives in no God... basically that God is nothing more than a 3 letter word... why are they so afraid of it. I mean if the crazies out there can be mollified by saying a 3 letter word, what is the consiquences if they break their word. For the believers, it will be damnation... but if an Athiest doesn't believe in any God in any form, then there is nothing to damn them for their lack of belief. So shouldn't the Athiest be as less fearful of God than say, the Easter Bunny or Santa? I would think that the Athiest would be the ones not caring about such things because there is no greater being thus there is no consiquence.

If they are afraid of the 3 letter word, then perhaps, deep down, they believe after all.

It's not that good a question, I'm afraid.

As an atheist, (or Godless Heathen) I have absolutely no fear of divine retribution for anything I might say and do... because, to me, it's just another of the rich tapestry of myths and fairytales that spice our lives.

I WOULD, however, object to being forced to pretend to have some regard for someone else's fairytale. Why should my money have your fairytale printed on it? Why should I be legally bound by your imaginary friend?

personally, i issue the approriate holiday greeting to each of my friends. if i don't know what religion they are, i wish them happy holidays.

I'm with you.

If someone says Happy Christmas to me, then I'll say happy christmas right back... after all, it's their holiday.

And, if green martian men wish me a Happy Zippafday... well, I'll wish it right back.

fair enough, and before I jump to conclusion... what is your opinion of "Under God" on money (if you live in the US), and saying "Merry Christmas" Honestly asking here.

1) Stop printing money with it and let it go out like a bad fad.

2) I say Yay Gifty WubWub Day. Because Christmas is a crock of shit, and Happy Capitalist Consumer Day sounds incredibly cold and cynical.

So, you would bow to another god?

Interesting. I take it you're not a christian, then... because that would be forbidden, if you were.note, what Nekone was asked was to swear to tell the truth by an imaginary friend, not bow and worship. but no one answered his challange.

a seperation of church and state would be nice

a seperation of church and state would be niceAccording to majority of people here... it already exsists.

if there truly was, then we wouldn't be in this rediculous hullaballoo over gay marrige

If you swear to Jesus to have open and honest talks about the bible with your Pastor. (I'll even be nice... it doesn't have to be Catholic, it can be Baptist or Prodistant, it'll be up to you.)


I don't have a Pastor. Thats like asking you to swear to Ahura Mazda you'll talk to your Dastur about the Avesta and Gathas.

According to majority of people here... it already exsists.

it's supposed to exist. whether the government is holding up its end of the bargain is somewhat controversial.

note, what Nekone was asked was to swear to tell the truth by an imaginary friend, not bow and worship. but no one answered his challange.

Swearing an oath to an imaginary friend (especially in the context we are discussing - i.e. why should Atheists have to swear to a christian's 'imaginary friend') is the same thing as bowing to another god.

I wouls gladly answer his/her challenge (although I can't remember it, I think it was about talking to a local pastor...?), but I don't think it would be relevent in my case.

I got 15. Things I got wrong included the question about where did separation of Church and State originate (I put France) and the one with the treaty statement. (I put lincoln)

That means that Congress can't make a law that concerns religion. It doesn't say that you can't have the Bible or any of its verses used in a courtroom or that federal employees can't be involved in something religious.
If it used in a courtroom, then that is a government endorsment of that religion. And federal employees can be involved in religious activites, I have no idea why that was even brought up. Sure, the government (by "Congress" it refers to the legislature, who make laws) may not hinder any religion, but it also may not further or endorse it in any way, Constitutionally.

If they are afraid of the 3 letter word, then perhaps, deep down, they believe after all.
Perhaps they have strong convictions, and don't want to say something they don't believe. Some people stand up for their beliefs. I am agnostic, but I sure as hell am not going to say that I believe in any "almighty" unless I'm sarcastically mocking some devout religious person.

what is your opinion of "Under God" on money (if you live in the US), and saying "Merry Christmas" Honestly asking here.
Umm...it's "In God We Trust" on the U.S. currency. And I believe that it should be removed--do all Americans trust in God? Certainly not. It is publicly saying that the U.S. government trusts in God, which is respecting an establishment of religion. And I personally prefer to wish people a happy winter solstice. That's what I celebrate. If someone who celebrates Yule says to me "Merry Christmas", then I certainly will wish them the same back. I am wishing them a happy day in their religion, not mine. It's rude to try to impose my celebratory practices onto others if they don't agree.

I would say that I don't believe in the idea of secularism (infact, I could say that I hate it).

Instead, I am becoming a believer in 'throne and altar'.