NationStates Jolt Archive

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?

What'll we do with all the money?

In my opinion, it is akin to forcing religion on others, so I think it should be abolished.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

And NO.

It'll be supported in court also-the SC is tired of the "Seperation of church and state" BS the ACLUE puts out.

Tradition is no excuse for intolerance!

"In God We Trust" isn't going anywhere.. It'd be heavy-handed and unneccesary for the courts to waste their time with it.

In my opinion, it is akin to forcing religion on others, so I think it should be abolished.From the pledge, maybe. But the money issue is just bullshit. What about pyramids. Should they be removed too?

There's no point in tryint to abolish your cultural roots. You don't have to like them, but it's part of who you & your society are.

"In God We Trust" isn't going anywhere.. It'd be heavy-handed and unneccesary for the courts to waste their time with it.

60% of the Usian people want it removed according to this poll.

60% of the Usian people want it removed according to this poll.

This isn't an American forum.

Well I don't trust God, so it dosn't represent my views, so I would like it abolished. It won't be though, cause it would be way too much of a hassle for that to get through the U.S. government.

60% of the Usian people want it removed according to this poll.
Nice try C&T, but you are wrong. For all you know every voter in your poll is not a citizen of the USA. I, for example, am not.

From my point of view, however, having something written on your bills does not infringe on anyone. The phrase is not libelous or anything. There is no reason why the USA cannot be secular and respectful of religious views at the same time.

A far better motto is "E pluribus unum" Translated from Latin, it means "From many, one" or "Out of many, one" It was the motto from the beginning until it was changed to fight the "Godless Communists" You would think conservatives would want the original. Especially as anyone who looks around the US will note it is a far better describer of the nation.

Besides the Bible (Remember that little thorn in the side of conservative "Christians") says that a Christian should do nothing that would offend anyone. So a true Christian would not argue in favor of something that offends his neighbor. And of course Jesus (remember him conservative "Christians"?) set up the division between Church and state so it matters not what the constitutions says about it. It's unChristian to combine church and state. So those who make that arguement are not truly Christian.

Boy it's tough trying to be a conservative and Christian at the same time.

60% of the Usian people want it removed according to this poll.

Besides the error (that others have pointed out) in assuming that only Americans voted in your poll, the polling sample itself is fairly inconsistent with the constituency of America as a whole.

Ignoring demographics, size of sample, etc., most of the members of NS are intelligent and politically active, not to mention (as an extension, perhaps) fairly secular and liberal minded.

In contrast, the majority of Americans... are not.


And please... don't encourage Xisla. The only reason why he’s known in the first place is because of his self aggrandizement via shamelessly and transparently emblazoning his name on options in his polls.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

And NO.

It'll be supported in court also-the SC is tired of the "Seperation of church and state" BS the ACLUE puts out.


Yeah that bullshit stuff that also protects your religion from being governed by the state … complete BS

Hey guys, guess what? There was this stuff all over the news. Some guy was moaning about how his daughter had to say "under God" within the pledge and how it was a breach on her rights or WHATEVER. Guess what? I didn't see that guy complaining about his Christmas vacation. Maybe we should get rid of that too, since it's also there because of a religion.

No, "under God" should not be removed. And by that, neither should "In God We Trust"

It needs "all others cash only" added to it

"In God We Trust" isn't going anywhere.. It'd be heavy-handed and unneccesary for the courts to waste their time with it.
While I believe ideally it would not be on there I don’t think it is practical to fuck with it either just best to work on other more pressing issues honestly.

Well I don't trust God, so it dosn't represent my views, so I would like it abolished. It won't be though, cause it would be way too much of a hassle for that to get through the U.S. government.

Kirya-shi, when did you lose your faith in God? He wishes for you to return to Him.

I think i dealt with this just a little while ago ....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11195772&postcount=76

From the pledge, maybe. But the money issue is just bullshit. What about pyramids. Should they be removed too?

There's no point in tryint to abolish your cultural roots. You don't have to like them, but it's part of who you & your society are.

I dont think it should be removed from the pledge either because that also is now part of our cultural roots. AND god could refer 2 any god that u believe in... and for those who dont... find somthing more important to bitch about

And please... don't encourage Xisla. The only reason why he’s known in the first place is because of his self aggrandizement via shamelessly and transparently emblazoning his name on options in his polls.
I disagree.
There's some wholesome messages in is poll options. Especially the ones involving mannequins.

Kirya-shi, when did you lose your faith in God? He wishes for you to return to Him.

I don't know you well enough to know whether that was a serious or facetious comment, but either way, it was fucking hilarious.

A far better motto is "E pluribus unum" Translated from Latin, it means "From many, one" or "Out of many, one" It was the motto from the beginning until it was changed to fight the "Godless Communists" You would think conservatives would want the original. Especially as anyone who looks around the US will note it is a far better describer of the nation.

Besides the Bible (Remember that little thorn in the side of conservative "Christians") says that a Christian should do nothing that would offend anyone. So a true Christian would not argue in favor of something that offends his neighbor. And of course Jesus (remember him conservative "Christians"?) set up the division between Church and state so it matters not what the constitutions says about it. It's unChristian to combine church and state. So those who make that arguement are not truly Christian.

Boy it's tough trying to be a conservative and Christian at the same time.

Good Lifes, are you saying that Christians should tolerate immorality and incorporate it into their faith?

find somthing more important to bitch about
You're not gonna do well here .. as Zoidberg inferred, you're too pretty.

Hey guys, guess what? There was this stuff all over the news. Some guy was moaning about how his daughter had to say "under God" within the pledge and how it was a breach on her rights or WHATEVER. Guess what? I didn't see that guy complaining about his Christmas vacation. Maybe we shuold get rid of that too, since it's also there because of a religion.

No, "under God" should not be removed.
Who said they have a Christmas vacation … most religions have something around that time not to mention just winter solstice.

Guess what most Christian kids are celebrating Santa clause not Jesus anyways

It needs "all others cash only" added to it
Seconded.

It needs "all others cash only" added to it

That's a standard athesistic joke, but still LOLz. Here here

I dont think it should be removed from the pledge either because that also is now part of our cultural roots. AND god could refer 2 any god that u believe in... and for those who dont... find somthing more important to bitch about
Yeah it has been embedded roughly 40 years into our “Cultural roots” pfft please :rolleyes:

The motto should be abolished, yes. Replace it with nothing, we have enough nationalist symbols to venerate as it is.

We just complete it, that's all:

"In God We Trust; All Other Pay Cash."

Better? :)

From the pledge, maybe. But the money issue is just bullshit. What about pyramids. Should they be removed too?

There's no point in tryint to abolish your cultural roots. You don't have to like them, but it's part of who you & your society are.
I say screw that.Society can bite my ass. Take "God" out of the entire government. Maybe people would rather like "in Saten We Trust." But noooooooo...its gotta be God God God.It won't be the end of the world to take out in god we trust. It's forcing riligoin on to others.

I disagree.
There's some wholesome messages in is poll options. Especially the ones involving mannequins.

Are you saying that he doesn't plug himself in his polls in order to make himself known?

I'm not saying that he's a bad person, I'm just saying it's a prety pathetic way to make a name for yourself on a forum.

We just complete it, that's all:

"In God We Trust; All Other Pay Cash."

Better? :)
My faith is fucking runed! LG was the SECOND person to use that joke
NOOOOOOOO

We just complete it, that's all:

"In God We Trust; All Other Pay Cash."

Better? :)

Lunatic, if that was enough, it would be OK. But the word God can't be in anything the government does. The Founders intended it this way.

“In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true.” - Mark Twain

Are you saying that he doesn't plug himself in his polls in order to make himself known?
No, i disagree with whatever the first part said, for posterity.
I sorta agree with the second part, but i don't think it's solely so he gets himself known. Sometimes it's desperate cry for interventive attention ... take the mannequin, for example. Or maybe not so much attention as a desire for company in such endeavours.

My faith is fucking runed! LG was the SECOND person to use that joke
NOOOOOOOO

I didn't notice. In my defense, I just got here. :p

Who said they have a Christmas vacation … most religions have something around that time not to mention just winter solstice.

Guess what most Christian kids are celebrating Santa clause not Jesus anyways

So: Same thing. God could refer to another "god" of another religious persuasion. So therefore if you want to get rid of religion, get rid of that religious holiday. I still don't see people moaning about that.

And if you've been properly educated, everybody knows Christmas is about Jesus DURRRRRRRR. I would think especially Christian kids would know that. Hell, my parents are atheist/buddhist and I still knew that.

I say screw that.Society can bite my ass. Take "God" out of the entire government. Maybe people would rather like "in Saten We Trust." But noooooooo...its gotta be God God God.It won't be the end of the world to take out in god we trust. It's forcing riligoin on to others.

My main reason for opposing God is because of all the rules he puts on us. I mean, my parents are already hard enough. I don't know much about Evolution, but thank G** for Darwin.

I didn't notice. In my defense, I just got here. :p
Too late crying already

So: Same thing. God could refer to another "god" of another religious persuasion. So therefore if you want to get rid of religion, get rid of that religious holiday. I still don't see people moaning about that.

And if you've been properly educated, everybody knows Christmas is about Jesus DURRRRRRRR. I would think especially Christian kids would know that. Hell, my parents are atheist/buddhist and I still knew that.

Well, if we can get rid of Santa Claus that would help reduce the support for Christians, and then we can have restrictive laws on them, and defer to Science.

And if you've been properly educated, everybody knows Christmas is about Jesus DURRRRRRRR. I would think especially Christian kids would know that. Hell, my parents are atheist/buddhist and I still knew that.
Don't durr him. You need to know a little more about what YOU'RE talking about.

So: Same thing. God could refer to another "god" of another religious persuasion. So therefore if you want to get rid of religion, get rid of that religious holiday. I still don't see people moaning about that.

And if you've been properly educated, everybody knows Christmas is about Jesus DURRRRRRRR. I would think especially Christian kids would know that. Hell, my parents are atheist/buddhist and I still knew that.
And I am personally fine getting rid of the holiday I always work it anyways its been 7 years sense I have had it off.



Llol right I went to a catholic school for 7 years … plenty of talk about what santa brought them not a word outside of Friday mass about Jesus.

They may understand what it is SUPPOSED to be about… that does not mean it is what they follow or idolize

Lunatic, if that was enough, it would be OK. But the word God can't be in anything the government does. The Founders intended it this way.

This is the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Now keep in mind that I personally don't give a shit about 'In God We Trust' one way or the other. I just thought you might like to see that. :)

This is the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Now keep in mind that I personally don't give a shit about 'In God We Trust' one way or the other. I just thought you might like to see that. :)

Can this declaration be amended??

My teacher was saying how indepdence is obsolete in this age. What we need is a new Declaration of Interdependence in its place.

Well, if we can get rid of Santa Claus that would help reduce the support for Christians, and then we can have restrictive laws on them, and defer to Science.

So: You're saying get rid of Santa Claus? And get rid of that Christmas vacation? Nooo, we can't!

But seriously. Why bother removing it? If you're atheist (I think like almost everybody here is) or one of those other groups that don't believe in Him, then I think you guys can find a better thing to bitch about. Like intelligent science. Man, that thing is so stupid.

But still. You guys don't want those Christmas vacations removed do you all? Or those religious holidays? Am I right?

Too late crying already

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets stripsearched."

Better?

\ you're too pretty.

i try :p

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets stripsearched."

Better?

i like

I dont think it should be removed from the pledge either because that also is now part of our cultural roots. AND god could refer 2 any god that u believe in.Either it's part of your roots & refers to God, or it's neither.and for those who dont... find somthing more important to bitch aboutProblem with the pledge is that people have to swear their allegiance to the false God, when they swear their allegiance to your society. There's nothing voluntary about that, and it does indeed ram Christianity up the arse of everyone, regardless of their wishes & beliefs.

The currency is a different matter entirely.

Still, it's a storm in a glass of water. I've buried friends & family in churches & sdaid Amen etc. at the right time. Didn't make me Christian.

Can this declaration be amended??

My teacher was saying how indepdence is obsolete in this age. What we need is a new Declaration of Interdependence in its place.

Your teacher is wrong and I hope that Dick Cheney personally gives him a long thorough body cavity search. :)

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets stripsearched."

Better?Depends. Who'll be doing the searching?

So: You're saying get rid of Santa Claus? And get rid of that Christmas vacation? Nooo, we can't!

But seriously. Why bother removing it? If you're atheist (I think like almost everybody here is) or one of those other groups that don't believe in Him, then I think you guys can find a better thing to bitch about. Like intelligent science. Man, that thing is so stupid.

But still. You guys don't want those Christmas vacations removed do you all? Or those religious holidays? Am I right?
Like I said before I personally don’t care about the holiday whatsoever, I refuse to follow a religion just because some people used it as an excuse to buy me a few days off (theoretically)

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets stripsearched."

Better?
Much

Either it's part of your roots & refers to God, or it's neither.Problem with the pledge is that people have to swear their allegiance to the false God, when they swear their allegiance to your society. There's nothing voluntary about that, and it does indeed ram Christianity up the arse of everyone, regardless of their wishes & beliefs.

The currency is a different matter entirely.

Still, it's a storm in a glass of water. I've buried friends & family in churches & sdaid Amen etc. at the right time. Didn't make me Christian.

noone makes u say the pledge. THAT is a choice. look its there now and really dont think that that should be the most important thing on people's minds right now anyway

noone makes u say the pledge. THAT is a choice. look its there now and really dont think that that should be the most important thing on people's minds right now anyway
If you don’t feel like honest debate about a topic why are you in a political debate forum? This is all for entertainment anyways

America was founded upon freemasonry and freemasonry ideals. To change it would be changing the american dream into something disastrous like san francisco.

If you're ashamed to call yourself an american, then im sure you'll be able to find a country that suits you better. If you can find a haven take it, otherwise stop trying to make it hell for others.

while there is no need to have the saying on the money, its a simple case of "pick your battles". I'd rather fight for human rights than three letters on a piece of linen

Your teacher is wrong and I hope that Dick Cheney personally gives him a long thorough body cavity search. :)

See thats the problem with conservatives, they hate our liberties. Just like Emporer Palpatine in Star Wars.

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets stripsearched."

Better?

How about

"In God We Trust; Everyone else gets spanked."

America was founded upon freemasonry and freemasonry ideals.And quite clearly the directive of freemasonry is NOT to hold any PARTICULAR god in religious reverence ... and that's why you have "Nature's God" and not Jehovah or Allah specifically.

while there is no need to have the saying on the money, its a simple case of "pick your battles". I'd rather fight for human rights than three letters on a piece of linenYups. Seems pretty insignificant compared to dodgy elections, illegal invasions & secret CIA prisons in forign countries.

See thats the problem with conservatives, they hate our liberties. Just like Emporer Palpatine in Star Wars.
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

Can this declaration be amended??

My teacher was saying how indepdence is obsolete in this age. What we need is a new Declaration of Interdependence in its place.

Even if your teacher was right, we're living in an age when the rich land owner with the power to change it is neither intelligent nor moral.

Better to leave it as it is than give them any more leeway.

And quite clearly the directive of freemasonry is NOT to hold any PARTICULAR god in religious reverence ... and that's why you have "Nature's God" and not Jehovah or Allah specifically.

I'm pretty sure Allah was never in contention. Sharia Law is the only thing compatible with Allah. Sometimes I wonder if our liberties would be better protected if we just had Sharia Law here.

Even if your teacher was right, we're living in an age when the rich land owner with the power to change it is neither intelligent nor moral.- And has zero interest in interdependence.

Yups. Seems pretty insignificant compared to dodgy elections, illegal invasions & secret CIA prisons in forign countries.
yeah...I mean, it is great to consider, and as a symbolic gesture, it is meaningful...but sometimes handling reality is more important than a symbol...

I'm pretty sure Allah was never in contention. Sharia Law is the only thing compatible with Allah. Sometimes I wonder if our liberties would be better protected if we just had Sharia Law here.
You know people are bringin' pitchforks & torches to your next post and the period on this one, right?

Yes it should be removed from both our money and the pledge. We're a secular nation and putting "In God We Trust" on our money is favoritism and promoting a faith that not every American is a part of.

And, if not the money, just the pledge, because it was added to the pledge. It was perfect already, there was absolutely no need to add it in there.

You know people are bringin' pitchforks & torches to your next post and the period on this one, right?

You mean the Christians?

And, if not the money, just the pledge, because it was added to the pledge. It was perfect already, there was absolutely no need to add it in there.I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading it was added to the money around the same time.

It was added to the money too? Well damn! Remove it from both!

You mean the Christians?
That and some severely duped U.S.A. folk who haven't learned the consequences of a lack of scrutinous thinking.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading it was added to the money around the same time.
Hey ho McCarthy-oh.
:mad:
:mad:
:mad:

Good Lifes, are you saying that Christians should tolerate immorality and incorporate it into their faith?
Of course not. But there is nothing moral or immoral about "In God We Trust" or "Under God". Using them won't help a Christian and not using them won't hurt a Christian. BUT if they do in any way harm others the Christian is instructed not to do anything that will harm others. Since this is not a matter or morality and since others have shown that it hurts their conscience the Christian is not to do it. This is similiar to the eating of meat given to idols. Christians are told not to eat it because it will harm the conscience of others even though Christians would otherwise be allowed to eat it.

After 25 years of conservative dominance I think we should change it to:


"Remember The Golden Rule--He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules"

Yes.

What'll we do with all the money?
http://www.drkuss.de/KUSS_sieht/Fotos/lagerfeuer.jpg
Cook some soup!

Of course not. But there is nothing moral or immoral about "In God We Trust" or "Under God". Using them won't help a Christian and not using them won't hurt a Christian. BUT if they do in any way harm others the Christian is instructed not to do anything that will harm others. Since this is not a matter or morality and since others have shown that it hurts their conscience the Christian is not to do it. This is similiar to the eating of meat given to idols. Christians are told not to eat it because it will harm the conscience of others even though Christians would otherwise be allowed to eat it.

Isn't God the source of all rights?

The whole idea of rights comes from the moral concept of right and wrong.

“In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true.” - Mark Twain
In Mark Twain We Trust.

Isn't God the source of all rights?.

No.

The whole idea of rights comes from the moral concept of right and wrong.
?.[/QUOTE]

Which varies with time and context, generally speaking.

No.

?.

Which varies with time and context, generally speaking.[/QUOTE]

Luckily the Constitution is alive, becasue we could never change it because we could never get the 2/3's needed.

The whole idea of rights comes from the moral concept of right and wrong.

Untrue. Rights are strictly a legal construct.

Luckily the Constitution is alive, becasue we could never change it because we could never get the 2/3's needed.
Its been done in the past ... fuck they got prohibition up there

"In God We Trust. You can too if you want. You don't have to though. Just saying, we do."
Might be a bit too big to fit on money though.

No. It doesn't force any one religion on anybody as most religons have a god, so there is no telling what god it is mentioning. Also I never even notice it.

No. It doesn't force any one religion on anybody as most religons have a god, so there is no telling what god it is mentioning. Also I never even notice it.

I know England is post-christian and computer geeks believe in Science, which makes up 80% of the posters on this forum, but what I don't get is why there is a passionate hatred against God. Why not just tolerate God?

Why should atheism be the etablished faith of the nation?

No. It doesn't force any one religion on anybody as most religons have a god, so there is no telling what god it is mentioning. Also I never even notice it.
You know there are these people ... that you know dont believe in god ... oh gosh what do we call them again... yeah Atheists, agnostics and anti-theists

I know England is post-christian and computer geeks believe in Science, which makes up 80% of the posters on this forum, but what I don't get is why there is a passionate hatred against God. Why not just tolerate God?

Why should atheism be the etablished faith of the nation?
How does not plastering god across everything equate to having an atheistic state?

You know there are these people ... that you know dont believe in god ... oh gosh what do we call them again... yeah Atheists, agnostics and anti-theists


ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


That would be me....I don't see any problem with the phrase. Religion doesn't offend me, religious intolerance does.

How does not plastering god across everything equate to having an atheistic state?



Because it would mean the government and the people deny god.

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


That would be me....I don't see any problem with the phrase. Religion doesn't offend me, religious intolerance does.
How is it being intolerant to correct some idiotic change they made to fight the “Communist menace” in the early to mid part of the `960’s? Specially when the proposed change would bring us more inline with the constitution.

Don’t get me wrong I think to push this through in reality would be a waste of time and effort. But I don’t see how not letting them plaster god all over everything is being intolerant.

Because it would mean the government and the people deny god.
My car does not have a bumper sticker of any kind (including one about god) does that mean my car denys god?

I think you are confused on what "deny" means. Not mentioning him is not denying him

Because it would mean the government and the people deny god.
I don't see how it would.

Because it would mean the government and the people deny god.

That's not denying god. That's just failing acknowledge god. They'd be taking no stance on god one way or the other.

Untrue. Rights are strictly a legal construct.

Our rights come from majority vote?

Meh .... I just take a black marker and block out "God" on all monetary notes that come through me.

Civil Disobedience FTW!

Our rights come from majority vote?
In a legal sense. One could argue that people have rights whether their government recognises them or allows one to exercise them or not.

How does not plastering god across everything equate to having an atheistic state?

The Creator is the source of right and wrong. He serves as the compass by which we judge our actions. That's why it's important for everyone, including legislators, to remember that they answer to a higher power.

In a legal sense. One could argue that people have rights whether their government recognises them or allows one to exercise them or not.

The whole "new order for the world" (novus ordo seculorum) that was established by the United States at the Revolution, was that rights come from God, and not from other men or governments.

The Creator is the source of right and wrong. He serves as the compass by which we judge our actions. That's why it's important for everyone, including legislators, to remember that they answer to a higher power.



Ummm. How can they answer to a higher power that may not even exist and one they don't believe in?

The Creator is the source of right and wrong. He serves as the compass by which we judge our actions. That's why it's important for everyone, including legislators, to remember that they answer to a higher power.
They can personally believe anything they want as long as it does not cross the separation of church and state boundary.

This is to protect your faith as much as it is to protect the government. How would you feel if the government had the ability to dictate your faith?

The Creator is the source of right and wrong. He serves as the compass by which we judge our actions. That's why it's important for everyone, including legislators, to remember that they answer to a higher power.

It's also important to remember that not everyone answers to that particular higher power or believes that higher power exists. Should we ignore the source of their morality in favor of someone else's?

The Creator is the source of right and wrong. He serves as the compass by which we judge our actions. That's why it's important for everyone, including legislators, to remember that they answer to a higher power.
Assuming there is a creator and that said creator thinks we should have to answer to it and calibrate our right/wrong compasses according to its beliefs.

Our rights come from majority vote?

Like any law, its basis lies in the someone holding the power to enforce it.

The whole "new order for the world" (novus ordo seculorum) that was established by the United States at the Revolution, was that rights come from God, and not from other men or governments.
Maybe they do, but it's the government that recognises your rights and allows you to exercise them.

"Under God", and "In God We Trust" should both be removed. I do my part by crossing it off of paper money.

I don't know you well enough to know whether that was a serious or facetious comment, but either way, it was fucking hilarious.

Kudos

They can personally believe anything they want as long as it does not cross the separation of church and state boundary.

This is to protect your faith as much as it is to protect the government. How would you feel if the government had the ability to dictate your faith?

Because it's important for government to recognize God, so that the government itself knows that it does not give rights, it is the protector of our individual rights, which are given by God.

"Under God", and "In God We Trust" should both be removed. I do my part by crossing it off of paper money.

Separate from this debate, it is a technically illegal to deface money. You may want to protest in another way.

Because it's important for government to recognize God, so that the government itself knows that it does not give rights, it is the protector of our individual rights, which are given by God.

Even if that were true (which I don't concede), why would it matter?

Yeah that bullshit stuff that also protects your religion from being governed by the state … complete BS

Who is going to convert to theism because on the government coin it says "In God We Trust?" Anyone that stupid is not worth worrying about.

Separate from this debate, it is a technically illegal to deface money. You may want to protest in another way.

Actually, it's only illegal if what you do either renders the money unusable, or attempts to make it look like a different denomination (ie trying to make a $1 look like a $10.)

Because it's important for government to recognize God, so that the government itself knows that it does not give rights, it is the protector of our individual rights, which are given by God.

The church can tell you all you need to know about God, and they can teach you all about the rights that came from God if they want to as well. But until God shows up and lays an Almighty smack-down to anyone who threatens those rights, the goverment protects and defines those rights and can rightfully claim to be their origin.

The church can tell you all you need to know about God, and they can teach you all about the rights that came from God if they want to as well. But until God shows up and lays an Almighty smack-down to anyone who threatens those rights, the goverment protects and defines those rights and can rightfully claim to be their origin.

You do realize that you defending the old order. Government does not grant rights, God does. While this was omitted from the Federal Constitution, because the constitution was supposed to simply be an limited inter-state contract, this was the overriding belief that was the entire basis of the Revolution.

Well, since it was only changed in the fifties, it's not exactly historical. In any case, "E. Pluribus unum" has a much better ring to it. But i'm a Brit, so my opinion really doesn't count.

You do realize that you defending the old order. Government does not grant rights, God does. While this was omitted from the Federal Constitution, because the constitution was supposed to simply be an limited inter-state contract, this was the overriding belief that was the entire basis of the Revolution.

The rights are given by, and enforced by, agents of the secular and binding United States constitution. Tell me, which book of the Bible contains the Bill of Rights? Where does it set up the Supreme Court (in the US) to enforce them? As the government grants us rights, it can, with the permission of the States, remove them. Thus, rights are provided by and granted by the US constitution, not the deity you believe in.

It may have been a limited inter-state contract, but it clearly says in article VI and the Ist amenndment that there is a separation of Church and State, and this is binding on the States. If it was the entire basis of the revolution, don't you think it may have found its way into the Constitution a little more clearly, instead of doing the opposite?

That would mean that all the bills in circulation would have to come back and be reprinted, all because of four words, one of them just happens to be "God". The time it would take and the tax dollars to pay for it would piss off alot of people. No just the religious.

Hey guys, guess what? There was this stuff all over the news. Some guy was moaning about how his daughter had to say "under God" within the pledge and how it was a breach on her rights or WHATEVER. Guess what? I didn't see that guy complaining about his Christmas vacation. Maybe we should get rid of that too, since it's also there because of a religion.

No, "under God" should not be removed. And by that, neither should "In God We Trust"


yea well i dont believe in god, never have. so i dont want all that religous bull on my money and everything else.. the world would go straight to hell if it was ran by religions...

The rights are given by, and enforced by, agents of the secular and binding United States constitution. Tell me, which book of the Bible contains the Bill of Rights? Where does it set up the Supreme Court (in the US) to enforce them? As the government grants us rights, it can, with the permission of the States, remove them. Thus, rights are provided by and granted by the US constitution, not the deity you believe in.

It may have been a limited inter-state contract, but it clearly says in article VI and the Ist amenndment that there is a separation of Church and State, and this is binding on the States. If it was the entire basis of the revolution, don't you think it may have found its way into the Constitution a little more clearly, instead of doing the opposite?

It was intended that the Federal Constitution would have very little impact on ordinary citizens. The First Amendment is only applicable to the Congress. Certain judges have "evolved" to include the States, but this principle is no where to be found in the Constitution.

yea well i dont believe in god, never have. so i dont want all that religous bull on my money and everything else.. the world would go straight to hell if it was ran by religions...

What would it take to have you turn back to God?

You do realize that you defending the old order. Government does not grant rights, God does. While this was omitted from the Federal Constitution, because the constitution was supposed to simply be an limited inter-state contract, this was the overriding belief that was the entire basis of the Revolution.

God grants no rights in the Bible, and no prophecies or religious works ever attributed to the Christian Faith ever mention natural rights. The thinkers that enumerated rights attributed them to God, but humans attribute quite a bit to God that He hasn't claimed. The Crusades, 9/11, tsunamis, etc.

Humans came up with the idea of rights and we deny or acknowledge those rights as we please. In the United States, the rights we have are enumerated in a document written and modified by humans, none of whom claim divine inspiration. The government enforces these rights and can alter them as the legislators and states please.

What would it take to have you turn back to God?


For me it would take a degree of brain damage in order to destroy my intelligence/logic/rationality.

God grants no rights in the Bible, and no prophecies or religious works ever attributed to the Christian Faith ever mention natural rights. The thinkers that enumerated rights attributed them to God, but humans attribute quite a bit to God that He hasn't claimed. The Crusades, 9/11, tsunamis, etc.

Humans came up with the idea of rights and we deny or acknowledge those rights as we please. In the United States, the rights we have are enumerated in a document written and modified by humans, none of whom claim divine inspiration. The government enforces these rights and can alter them as the legislators and states please.

There are certain rights that exist over and above what the government decides. The moral law, ordained by God, is the basis for our rights. The very idea of rights come from the appeal to the higher law, the law of right and wrong.

For me it would take a degree of brain damage in order to destroy my intelligence/logic/rationality.

Remilla, you are very rational, a man of Science. Out of curiousity, what courses and/or research have you been involved with?

There are certain rights that exist over and above what the government decides. The moral law, ordained by God, is the basis for our rights. The very idea of rights come from the appeal to the higher law, the law of right and wrong.

I'm not confident that isn't a linguistic coincidence. I haven't looked into it.

But regardless of what the original basis for rights might have been, what they are now is a set of legal guarantees. That's all.

For me, I'd turn to god only if I had both conclusive evidence that he exists, and conclusive evidence that I should care.

I'm not confident that isn't a linguistic coincidence. I haven't looked into it.

But regardless of what the original basis for rights might have been, what they are now is a set of legal guarantees. That's all.

For me, I'd turn to god only if I had both conclusive evidence that he exists, and conclusive evidence that I should care.

What is the basis for your rejection of God? Science? Rationality?

It was intended that the Federal Constitution would have very little impact on ordinary citizens.
Where is there any evidence that its framers did not intend it to affect ordinary citizens?

The First Amendment is only applicable to the Congress. Certain judges have "evolved" to include the States, but this principle is no where to be found in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Read it carefully and tell me what part says this only applies to Congress.

Isn't God the source of all rights?

The whole idea of rights comes from the moral concept of right and wrong.
Actually the Bible says that all goverments are given their power by God. This includes all of those African governments, N Korea, SE Asia, and Saddam. God can remove that power when he wishes. Notice the changes in government when God withdrew power in East Europe. Maybe the US went against God by going to war rather than waiting for God's time to withdraw his power.

Rights are not necessarily right and wrong. There isn't a right and wrong about freedom of arms for instance. In fact freedom of speech, press, trial by jury are not inherently right or wrong. They are a tradition of a very small number of God's chosen governments.

But that avoids the issue.

Where in the Bible does it say that any goverment outside of ancient Israel is to unite government and religion? Certianly that is not the position anywhere in the NT. And where does it say that a Christian should take a position that hurts the conscience of his neighbors? The answer is that both Jesus and especially Paul always argued that Christians should be a humble people that would not do anything that would hurt neighbors. I would add the caveat that a Chistian isn't to act immorally. But to not do something that is not moral or immoral if the neighbor sees it as immoral then the Christian is to yield to the conscience of the neighbor. In other words, if I as a Christian were to have dinner with a person I knew was Jewish or Muslim I would not order pork. Not because there is any law against me ordering pork, but because I as a Christian would yield to the conscience of those around me.

The same is true as far as this thead is concerned.

Actually the Bible says that all goverments are given their power by God. This includes all of those African governments, N Korea, SE Asia, and Saddam. God can remove that power when he wishes. Notice the changes in government when God withdrew power in East Europe. Maybe the US went against God by going to war rather than waiting for God's time to withdraw his power.

Rights are not necessarily right and wrong. There isn't a right and wrong about freedom of arms for instance. In fact freedom of speech, press, trial by jury are not inherently right or wrong. They are a tradition of a very small number of God's chosen governments.

But that avoids the issue.

Where in the Bible does it say that any goverment outside of ancient Israel is to unite government and religion? Certianly that is not the position anywhere in the NT. And where does it say that a Christian should take a position that hurts the conscience of his neighbors? The answer is that both Jesus and especially Paul always argued that Christians should be a humble people that would not do anything that would hurt neighbors. I would add the caveat that a Chistian isn't to act immorally. But to not do something that is not moral or immoral if the neighbor sees it as immoral then the Christian is to yield to the conscience of the neighbor. In other words, if I as a Christian were to have dinner with a person I knew was Jewish or Muslim I would not order pork. Not because there is any law against me ordering pork, but because I as a Christian would yield to the conscience of those around me.

The same is true as far as this thead is concerned.

Acknowledging God as the foundation of our liberties does not mean we have established a National Church.

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?


How does it make people worship a religion? The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If people don't believe in God (which 90% of Americans do), then the saying "In God we trust" is not going to FORCE them to believe in God.

Acknowledging God as the foundation of our liberties does not mean we have established a National Church.
NOTICE I did not say anything about the constitution or a national church.

Everything I said was based on what it says in the Bible. Something that those who call themselves "Conservative Christians" very seldom read, follow, or think about. They simply follow the neo-pharisees that lead them.

Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are told to do something that goes against the conscience of their neighbors? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are told to operate to gain political power? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are to unite religion and political power? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians were told to insult the beliefs of others or force their beliefs on others?

NO it's not there. Read Paul's speech to the Athenians. He started by honoring them for their beliefs. He then discussed how their beliefs meshed with Christian beliefs. Read about eating meat given to idols. Christians were free to do it but were told not to because of the conscience of their neighbors. I could write a new gospel quoting examples.

NOTICE I did not say anything about the constitution or a national church.

Everything I said was based on what it says in the Bible. Something that those who call themselves "Conservative Christians" very seldom read, follow, or think about. They simply follow the neo-pharisees that lead them.

Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are told to do something that goes against the conscience of their neighbors? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are told to operate to gain political power? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians are to unite religion and political power? Can you find anywhere in the NT where Christians were told to insult the beliefs of others or force their beliefs on others?

NO it's not there. Read Paul's speech to the Athenians. He started by honoring them for their beliefs. He then discussed how their beliefs meshed with Christian beliefs. Read about eating meat given to idols. Christians were free to do it but were told not to because of the conscience of their neighbors. I could write a new gospel quoting examples.

Christians have every right to pursue higher office as Atheist (so-called) Progressives do. They aren't imposing a religious belief on anyone, although Christians generally do want our law to reflect a more moral way of life. For example, Christians feel that certain laws should encourage family values.

Remilla, you are very rational, a man of Science. Out of curiousity, what courses and/or research have you been involved with?


I have a BS in Psychology and minored in Philosophy.

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?
No, it should be abolished because it is an embarassment for any nation that has moved out of the Dark Ages, and because it is a flat-out bald-faced lie.

Hey guys, guess what? There was this stuff all over the news. Some guy was moaning about how his daughter had to say "under God" within the pledge and how it was a breach on her rights or WHATEVER. Guess what? I didn't see that guy complaining about his Christmas vacation. Maybe we should get rid of that too, since it's also there because of a religion.
That would be Mike Newdow. He filed a suit against Congress to try to abolish any reference to God in the U.S. national motto. Judge Damrell, of the United States district court for the Eastern District of California, dismissed (http://207.41.18.73/caed/DOCUMENTS/Opinions/damrell/newdow_v_congress.pdf) the suit a couple weeks ago, saying the motto is secular and ceremonial in nature. Newdow is probably going to file an appeal. He also has a suit against Congress (and several other parties) that he won, but is currently in appeal. I believe appellants filed opening briefs earlier this month.

Anyway, personally I don't care too much one way or the other about having "In God We Trust" on our money. I can see how it could be offensive to atheists, but at the same time I don't really think it hurts anything for it to be there. Meh. I've yet to hear any arguments that really sway me to one side. *shrug*

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?

No as for any1 who doesn't believe in God, call in the natural symbol in which all of our ppl rally behind, much like the Eagle, if u r religous then u should already know what it means.

Hey guys, guess what? There was this stuff all over the news. Some guy was moaning about how his daughter had to say "under God" within the pledge and how it was a breach on her rights or WHATEVER. Guess what? I didn't see that guy complaining about his Christmas vacation. Maybe we should get rid of that too, since it's also there because of a religion.

No, "under God" should not be removed. And by that, neither should "In God We Trust"

Or we could change Christmas vacation to the winter break or holiday vacation. Oh, wait.... we already did that.

Meanwhile, Christmas is not a celebration of the birth of Christ despite what most Christians think. Mithras was born on December 25. Not Christ.

So: Same thing. God could refer to another "god" of another religious persuasion. So therefore if you want to get rid of religion, get rid of that religious holiday. I still don't see people moaning about that.

And if you've been properly educated, everybody knows Christmas is about Jesus DURRRRRRRR. I would think especially Christian kids would know that. Hell, my parents are atheist/buddhist and I still knew that.

You knew wrong. It's a pagan holiday that Christians stole for a while and then became a rather commercialized secular holiday. Unless you think gift-giving and trees and mothers tearing each others' hair out over Tickle Me Elmo(tm) have something to do with the birth of the Savior.

You knew wrong. It's a pagan holiday that Christians stole for a while and then became a rather commercialized secular holiday. Unless you think gift-giving and trees and mothers tearing each others' hair out over Tickle Me Elmo(tm) have something to do with the birth of the Savior.

Um it still has some religous value for the ppl that celebrate the birth of Christ. Many of the ppl who don't simply c it as hey look Santa, similar to easter's easter bunny.

Um it still has some religous value for the ppl that celebrate the birth of Christ. Many of the ppl who don't simply c it as hey look Santa, similar to easter's easter bunny.

You just made my point for me. It has some religious value for people who assign that value. It's something they choose. It's not inherent to the holiday.

Meanwhile, you are technically incorrect. I celebrate the birth of Christ. I just don't do it on the birthday of Mithras since celebrating the birth of my Savior on a holiday originally started to celebrate another god's birth. It's silly in my eyes.

Christians have every right to pursue higher office as Atheist (so-called) Progressives do. They aren't imposing a religious belief on anyone, although Christians generally do want our law to reflect a more moral way of life. For example, Christians feel that certain laws should encourage family values.
Biblically a Christian can't run for office on the idea of imposing beliefs on others. NEVER does the NT say anything about imposing beliefs. That is what this thread is all about. As a Christian you should be able to defend your position Biblically. There is nothing in the NT that would give any credence to the idea of putting "In God We Trust" on anything that has to do with government especially a government of people with different and no religion. The same is true of the intimidation of "under God" in a pledge. Both are directly against the teachings of the NT. But then "Christian" conservatives really don't care about Biblical teaching they care about power. The one thing Jesus most critisized were those that used religion for power. He said that they had killed all of the prophets and they would kill him. Today "Christian" conservatives kill the teachings of Jesus every day in order to gain power.

It was intended that the Federal Constitution would have very little impact on ordinary citizens. The First Amendment is only applicable to the Congress. Certain judges have "evolved" to include the States, but this principle is no where to be found in the Constitution.

Certain judges? Are you not aware of these things called amendments? You are aware of a couple of amendments that have occurred SINCE the framers created it, no? Like perhaps the 14th amendment.

1. It'd be way too much of a hassel
2. How is a phrase on a piece of paper or metal forcing religion on you? It's not like the government is saying "you have to believe in Christ or you will be arrested!" which is really what the seperation of church and state is all about. It's not as if the money is persecuting you because you you're not a christian.

Certain judges? Are you not aware of these things called amendments? You are aware of a couple of amendments that have occurred SINCE the framers created it, no? Like perhaps the 14th amendment.

To what part of the 14th amendment are you referring?

Biblically a Christian can't run for office on the idea of imposing beliefs on others. NEVER does the NT say anything about imposing beliefs. That is what this thread is all about. As a Christian you should be able to defend your position Biblically. There is nothing in the NT that would give any credence to the idea of putting "In God We Trust" on anything that has to do with government especially a government of people with different and no religion. The same is true of the intimidation of "under God" in a pledge. Both are directly against the teachings of the NT. But then "Christian" conservatives really don't care about Biblical teaching they care about power. The one thing Jesus most critisized were those that used religion for power. He said that they had killed all of the prophets and they would kill him. Today "Christian" conservatives kill the teachings of Jesus every day in order to gain power.

The Christians can vote so long as they endorse all the immoral things the so-called progressives want?

The Christians can vote so long as they endorse all the immoral things the so-called progressives want?
You keep going back to morality. How is having "In God We Trust" or "under God" moral or immoral? Will you commit a sin if these are not used? Will anyone commit a sin if these are not used? Explain how their use is either moral or immoral to a Christian? Are you saying that all the nations that don't use these things can't have Christian citizens because it's immoral to not use them?

Morality simply doesn't apply as far as a Christian is concerned. It's like eating pork or not eating pork with a Jew or Muslim. It isn't moral to eat pork or immoral to eat pork. BUT if something is immoral to your neighbor and it is neither to you then a Christian is to submit to the conscience of those around him.

A Christian is of course to do the moral thing but few things in government are moral or immoral. Most are amoral to a Christian. But that doesn't mean they are amoral to others. Show me where a Christian is to force a person of another belief to do something that to the other person is immoral when that thing is amoral to the Christian.

You are simply arguing against the teachings of both Jesus and Paul.

To what part of the 14th amendment are you referring?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's a common application. Are you actually arguing this without being aware of that?

In Bob we thrust?

"In God We Trust" and "under God" were both added by Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was President. Personally, I like the national motto "Novus Ordem Seclorum" instead.


The first amendment to the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" both these clauses, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, are significant. To give perspective, there was a great conservation of language in the Bill of Rights; the intention was to avoid creating loopholes, while still providing a buffer between the Legislature and the most basic rights of the people. It is significant, then, that there are two clauses where one would suffice, were the intention only to prevent respect for a religious establishment or only to protect free exercise.

The Tripoli Treaty of 1796 between the United States and the Barbary States, specifically stated that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". Many are of the view that this statement (known as Article 11), which was written in a document endorsed by then-president John Adams and passed unanimously by the Senate, taken in context with similar writings of the founding fathers, supports the idea of a secular state.

"In God We Trust" and "under God" were both added by Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was President. Personally, I like the national motto "Novus Ordem Seclorum" instead.
Good post. *bows*

From the pledge, maybe. But the money issue is just bullshit. What about pyramids. Should they be removed too?

No... Why? Because it isn't a symbol of religion that not all of us share a belief in.

There's no point in tryint to abolish your cultural roots. You don't have to like them, but it's part of who you & your society are.

The roots will remain the roots no matter what. What we are debating here is whether we readily expose the roots or let them stay under the ground. If your "roots" actively displayed racist comments on your government buildings, pledges, and coins, would you not move to rid your country of them? The history would still remain--the active modern endorsement of the racism would not. As such, you must agree that the removal of "religionist" comments should also be removed?

From the pledge, maybe. But the money issue is just bullshit. What about pyramids. Should they be removed too?
No... Why? Because it isn't a symbol of religion that not all of us share a belief in.


Besides, much of the nation's wealth was built on pyramid schemes.;)

Granted the country was founded on the idea of freedom of religion, but only to the extent that the original colonists could exercise their religion without persecution. It had nothing to do with allowing people to believe what they wanted. That part has come from recent history.

Maybe instead of "In God We Trust", we could change it to "Trust No One".

What is the basis for your rejection of God? Science? Rationality?

It's not so much that I reject God as it is that I simply never accepted him.

The rational default position on any issue is uncertainty. Prior to seeing any relevant information, I have no opinion on any given issue.

I never saw enough of God to conclude that he's real.

The phrase is not libelous or anything. There is no reason why the USA cannot be secular and respectful of religious views at the same time.

There's only one problem with this viewpoint. The statement in question is supportive of one *particular* god -- the one whose name is always spelled "God" with a capital "G". We all know which one that is, right? No? It's the Judeo-Christian god. I don't care about the people who argue that it's, somehow, "generic". It isn't, and the people who make that argument are, when you get them to spill the beans, Christians. It doesn't even acknowledge the fact that some people believe in a godDESS and not a god. It's not generic. It was never intended to be generic. This country was founded by Christians, who, in spite of lipservice about separation of Church and State, built Christian leanings into the government. "In God we trust" is a glaring example of that. Were our government truly secular it could respect relgious views without either espousing them (as this does) or even mentioning them.

Before any of you come down on me for Christian bashing, I'm not. I'm just a proponent of secular government -- completely, totally, absolutely secular. I believe that "freedom of religion" should include "freedom *from* religion, for those people who don't want it pushed into their faces by official sources. No mention of any diety has any rational reason in any government document -- or on government-printed money.

Before any of you come down on me for Christian bashing, I'm not. I'm just a proponent of secular government -- completely, totally, absolutely secular. I believe that "freedom of religion" should include "freedom *from* religion, for those people who don't want it pushed into their faces by official sources. No mention of any diety has any rational reason in any government document -- or on government-printed money.

Well, part of the deal when the so-called "free" government education was established throughout the land was that parents on the local level could decide the religious based education component included. Nowadays, you rule that unconstitutional and propagate your progressive propaganda through it because you know how much easier it is to influence children, as opposed to adults.

So, I'll be for radically secular government, if the government gives parents a choice in what school their kids can attend.

Deal?

What the heck.. this country was built on christian ideals whether you want to believe it or not

I'm athiest.. it doesn't offend me at all

I don't care whether they leave it in the pledge or on money or whatever
because if you don't believe in it it should not faze you at all.. it is just so stupid to be offended by something...

as for the seperation of church and state shit.. they aren't forceing you to believe it of say it.. it is there because the founding fathers and the gov't put it there

Well, part of the deal when the so-called "free" government education was established throughout the land was that parents on the local level could decide the religious based education component included. Nowadays, you rule that unconstitutional and propagate your progressive propaganda through it because you know how much easier it is to influence children, as opposed to adults.

So, I'll be for radically secular government, if the government gives parents a choice in what school their kids can attend.

Deal?
Since when doesn't the government give parents the freedom to choose a school? Heck, in the last 25 years the govenment has given parents the right to no school at all.

What you are really saying is why doesn't the government financially support any school regardless of what is being taught. Of course I doubt if you would be silent when the moonies, or devil worxhipers, or fundamentalist Muslims apply for funds for religious schools where anything or nothing can be taught. Before you ask for funds for religious schools remember what a big word "religion" is.

If God we trust...

I always thought that a nation's motto should be something that brings the citizens together, something that they all can share pride in. E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One") seems like a much better motto in that respect. "We," as refering to all Americans, do NOT "trust in God," since 15-20% of us don't believe in God in the first place. So why have a motto that is a bald-faced lie? Why have a motto that divides, as opposed to a motto that unites?

What the heck.. this country was built on christian ideals whether you want to believe it or not

I'm athiest.. it doesn't offend me at all

I don't care whether they leave it in the pledge or on money or whatever
because if you don't believe in it it should not faze you at all.. it is just so stupid to be offended by something...

as for the seperation of church and state shit.. they aren't forceing you to believe it of say it.. it is there because the founding fathers and the gov't put it there
This country was built on as many if not more secular ideals then Christian

And are you really that bad at reading that you missed the like 100 times that it has been said that the founding fathers had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT FRASE IT was added like god in the pledge in the mid 1900's by Eisenhower

Besides the Bible (Remember that little thorn in the side of conservative "Christians") says that a Christian should do nothing that would offend anyone. So a true Christian would not argue in favor of something that offends his neighbor.

I don't remember the "don't offend anyone" verse. There's the "as much as possible, I am all things to all men," which is about the same idea, but as the little discalimer at the beginning. On teh other hand, Christ also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, so you see, it's not exactly easy to figure out what to do.

Me, I say take it off 'cause it by and large isn't true right now.

Since when doesn't the government give parents the freedom to choose a school? Heck, in the last 25 years the govenment has given parents the right to no school at all.

What you are really saying is why doesn't the government financially support any school regardless of what is being taught. Of course I doubt if you would be silent when the moonies, or devil worxhipers, or fundamentalist Muslims apply for funds for religious schools where anything or nothing can be taught. Before you ask for funds for religious schools remember what a big word "religion" is.

Allow a private market for schools, and if an individual parent wants to opt-out of "free" government-controlled education, that they would get a check for the amount the government spends per child per year to spend at a private school of their choice.

Agree?

Allow a private market for schools, and if an individual parent wants to opt-out of "free" government-controlled education, that they would get a check for the amount the government spends per child per year to spend at a private school of their choice.

Agree?

No. This was answered before, I believe.

No. This was answered before, I believe.

The government schools teach a different morality than I would like my kids to learn, and since their is no objective morality, and since "you can't put your morality on me," then why don't I have the right to receive my own wages and earnings put towards government-controlled education as a refund so I can provide for my own child's education?

The government schools teach a different morality than I would like my kids to learn, and since their is no objective morality, and since "you can't put your morality on me," then why don't I have the right to receive my own wages and earnings put towards government-controlled education as a refund so I can provide for my own child's education?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11244596&postcount=88

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11244596&postcount=88

No, but the point is you keep saying that the government cannot uphold any personal morality issues, even when they have consequences, because of some theory of the Wall of Separation, but then you go and say you want education, healthcare, childcare and housing provided by the government, and say that that is perfectly fine, even if there are people that don't share your values on these areas.

Not because they oppose education, healthcare, childcare and housing, but because they want to provide them for themselves.

Well, part of the deal when the so-called "free" government education was established throughout the land was that parents on the local level could decide the religious based education component included. Nowadays, you rule that unconstitutional and propagate your progressive propaganda through it because you know how much easier it is to influence children, as opposed to adults.

So, I'll be for radically secular government, if the government gives parents a choice in what school their kids can attend.

Deal?

Ha. Radically secular? Color me amused.

No, but the point is you keep saying that the government cannot uphold any personal morality issues, even when they have consequences, because of some theory of the Wall of Separation, but then you go and say you want education, healthcare, childcare and housing provided by the government, and say that that is perfectly fine, even if there are people that don't share your values on these areas.

Not because they oppose education, healthcare, childcare and housing, but because they want to provide them for themselves.

Because those things aren't subjective moral values? They can not directly use them, but the continue to live in the society and benefit from them. No refunds.

Ha. Radically secular? Color me amused.

...That's like, a sandy brown right?

No, but the point is you keep saying that the government cannot uphold any personal morality issues, even when they have consequences, because of some theory of the Wall of Separation, but then you go and say you want education, healthcare, childcare and housing provided by the government, and say that that is perfectly fine, even if there are people that don't share your values on these areas.

Not because they oppose education, healthcare, childcare and housing, but because they want to provide them for themselves.

It's not about values. It's about their being a societal benefit to promoting free education, healthcare, childcare and housing. The government can become involved in anything not prohibited by the Constitution(s) provided a societal benefit exists.

Not only is involvement in religion prohibited by the Constitution but it's to the detriment of society to become involved in religion. I'm quite glad the government is finally making moves to get completely out of my religion. My religion will prosper as a result. I guess the problem here is that you don't have as much faith in the objective value of your religion as I do.

Whatever keeps the people pacified.

Most people are dumb and satisfied. You give them a motto that seems comforting and they back what you want.

The problem with the US is that only the jerkoffs have figured that out. All the good leaders want the people to be smart and motivated, and that isn't going to happen.

I guess the problem here is that you don't have as much faith in the objective value of your religion as I do.

Oh snap!

Allow a private market for schools, and if an individual parent wants to opt-out of "free" government-controlled education, that they would get a check for the amount the government spends per child per year to spend at a private school of their choice.

Agree?
What if the private school of choice is one of those fundamentalist Muslim schools that teaches jihad? I take it you would be all for that?

Or are you just talking about funding "christian" private schools?

What if the private school of choice is one of those fundamentalist Muslim schools that teaches jihad? I take it you would be all for that?

Or are you just talking about funding "christian" private schools?

Moreover, only "My paticular beliefs, insecurities and desires sorta supported by my random demonination of Christianity" schools.

It's not about values. It's about their being a societal benefit to promoting free education, healthcare, childcare and housing. The government can become involved in anything not prohibited by the Constitution(s) provided a societal benefit exists.

Not only is involvement in religion prohibited by the Constitution but it's to the detriment of society to become involved in religion. I'm quite glad the government is finally making moves to get completely out of my religion. My religion will prosper as a result. I guess the problem here is that you don't have as much faith in the objective value of your religion as I do.

All of the benefits that you speak of are weighted according to you culturally accrued values, just the same as his/hers.

What if the private school of choice is one of those fundamentalist Muslim schools that teaches jihad? I take it you would be all for that?
Little Jimmy Goes To School:

"Hey Stevie, do you have Jihad with Mr. Jones during fifth period? Sweet, me too! Save me a seat, okay? We can practice our ululations together!"

Since when is "Theism" unconstitutional? I'd like you to point out the "separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. Having trouble? That's because there is none. Also, the first amandment just says that congress (I don't know who designs money, but I'm sure that there are no laws about it) cannot make a law (imagine the tedium if everything, including design of money, had to be passed by Congress) respecting the establishment of a religion (which atheism is not, be even if that were to let slide, my argument is still solid). That's not really a mandate that bans theism, nor dies it constitute separation of Church and State.

I'm an athiest and I don't care; do you really think changing that slogan on the dollar will really remove religon from politics. These whiny assholes complaining about should think about more important political things like an Exit strategy for our wars.

I don't remember the "don't offend anyone" verse. There's the "as much as possible, I am all things to all men," which is about the same idea, but as the little discalimer at the beginning. On teh other hand, Christ also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, so you see, it's not exactly easy to figure out what to do.

Me, I say take it off 'cause it by and large isn't true right now.
1cor 8:9-13 The example used is eating meat given to idols but notice how Paul responds. He would not do anything that someone else feels is wrong even though it is not wrong for him or any Christian.

There are others that teach the same thing. But basicly just think of the second greatest commandment and how that would apply to this situation.

Since when is "Theism" unconstitutional? I'd like you to point out the "separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. Having trouble? That's because there is none. Also, the first amandment just says that congress (I don't know who designs money, but I'm sure that there are no laws about it) cannot make a law (imagine the tedium if everything, including design of money, had to be passed by Congress) respecting the establishment of a religion (which atheism is not, be even if that were to let slide, my argument is still solid). That's not really a mandate that bans theism, nor dies it constitute separation of Church and State.

Where's the standard response for the "there is no Separation of Church and State clause"? I know I filed it somewhere....

Since when is "Theism" unconstitutional? I'd like you to point out the "separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. Having trouble? That's because there is none. Also, the first amandment just says that congress (I don't know who designs money, but I'm sure that there are no laws about it) cannot make a law (imagine the tedium if everything, including design of money, had to be passed by Congress) respecting the establishment of a religion (which atheism is not, be even if that were to let slide, my argument is still solid). That's not really a mandate that bans theism, nor dies it constitute separation of Church and State.

As discussed earlier even if you argue that the constitution doesn't apply that doesn't solve your problem because the NT BIBLE argues for a separation of church and state. And any study of history shows that when any religion combines with any government the results have been devistating.

All of the benefits that you speak of are weighted according to you culturally accrued values, just the same as his/hers.

If you press that too far you could say the same about murder. The difference his 'values' infringe up constitutionally protected rights. Mine do not. His demonstrate no societal value and offeres a societal detriment we almost always see in practice.

He's not claiming there is no benefit to universal education or to healthcare or any such thing and it's not unconstitutional, nor has he shown in detriment to government sponsorship.

Since when is "Theism" unconstitutional? I'd like you to point out the "separation of Church and State" clause in the constitution. Having trouble? That's because there is none. Also, the first amandment just says that congress (I don't know who designs money, but I'm sure that there are no laws about it) cannot make a law (imagine the tedium if everything, including design of money, had to be passed by Congress) respecting the establishment of a religion (which atheism is not, be even if that were to let slide, my argument is still solid). That's not really a mandate that bans theism, nor dies it constitute separation of Church and State.

Someone needs to work on their understanding of the government. The Congress most certainly does approve the design of money.

If you press that too far you could say the same about murder.

Agreed, luckily we have near unanimous agreement that murder is wrong.

The difference his 'values' infringe up constitutionally protected rights. Mine do not.

This is true.

His demonstrate no societal value and offeres a societal detriment we almost always see in practice.

No societal value by your value set.

Granted I haven't read what he is proposing, outside of not paying for public schools if he doesn't use them, which doesn't sound like a horrible idea to me.

He's not claiming there is no benefit to universal education or to healthcare or any such thing and it's not unconstitutional, nor has he shown in detriment to government sponsorship.

I am not arguing over practical matters. I was disputing what I saw as your claim to the moral highground.

Agreed, luckily we have near unanimous agreement that murder is wrong.



This is true.



No societal value by your value set.

Granted I haven't read what he is proposing, outside of not paying for public schools if he doesn't use them, which doesn't sound like a horrible idea to me.

Except it allows him to stop paying for schools after he finished using them. "Granted I'm ignorant as to what you're discussing but I thought I'd correct you anyway." Brilliant. Tell me how you didn't like Moby Dick before you read it, too. I'm sure there will something interesting in your review.

I am not arguing over practical matters. I was disputing what I saw as your claim to the moral highground.

Perhaps you should reread. I said it's not about values. It's about societal benefit. Show me the demonstrable benefit to thwarting people's freedom of religion.

It's not about values. It's about their being a societal benefit to promoting free education, healthcare, childcare and housing. The government can become involved in anything not prohibited by the Constitution(s) provided a societal benefit exists.

Not only is involvement in religion prohibited by the Constitution but it's to the detriment of society to become involved in religion. I'm quite glad the government is finally making moves to get completely out of my religion. My religion will prosper as a result. I guess the problem here is that you don't have as much faith in the objective value of your religion as I do.

Can you point out where I claimed the moral high ground? I'd be interested how a post that discusses benefits is really about morality and then when I continue to discuss benefits you claim it's not something you're looking to disucss. Weak.

Boy has this thread taken a left turn off the subject.

But if you want to talk about school funding. If you don't want to use the schools you don't have to. If you don't want to use the National Parks you don't have to. If you don't want to drive on the government roads you don't have to. If you don't want to call for fire, amulance, police or any other government service you don't have to.

BUT the job of government is to spend money that will benefit the country, state, county, city as a whole. It is not to spend money that will benefit a particular person or group. (Yes I know it happens but shouldn't)

Government has decided that it is good for the group as a whole if everyone has the oportunity to receive an education. Government has dicided that parks benefit the group as a whole even if you never travel. Government has decided that roads are good for the group as a whole even if you never leave the house. Government has decided that it's good to have fire ambulance, police and other services even if you never have a fire, illness, or robbery.

If you want to hire a teacher you can. If you want to buy a woodland to walk through you can. If you want to buy a helicopter to avoid roads you can. If you want to hire private emergency services you can.

BUT don't expect to take money away that benefits society as a whole.

Boy has this thread taken a left turn off the subject.

But if you want to talk about school funding. If you don't want to use the schools you don't have to. If you don't want to use the National Parks you don't have to. If you don't want to drive on the government roads you don't have to. If you don't want to call for fire, amulance, police or any other government service you don't have to.

BUT the job of government is to spend money that will benefit the country, state, county, city as a whole. It is not to spend money that will benefit a particular person or group. (Yes I know it happens but shouldn't)

Government has decided that it is good for the group as a whole if everyone has the oportunity to receive an education. Government has dicided that parks benefit the group as a whole even if you never travel. Government has decided that roads are good for the group as a whole even if you never leave the house. Government has decided that it's good to have fire ambulance, police and other services even if you never have a fire, illness, or robbery.

If you want to hire a teacher you can. If you want to buy a woodland to walk through you can. If you want to buy a helicopter to avoid roads you can. If you want to hire private emergency services you can.

BUT don't expect to take money away that benefits society as a whole.
Well said and good comparisons.

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?
That isn't the national motto, it's "E Plurbis Unium"(again itt's lattte adn Iye cann't spel.)

Should this "national motto" for the United States be abolished as unconstitutional establishment of Theism?
why say "In God We Trust"? has He kept any of His promises? trust me instead; i've been much better at keeping my promises of making a Hell out of Earth.

That isn't the national motto, it's "E Plurbis Unium"(again itt's lattte adn Iye cann't spel.)
it's "Et Pluribus Unum" and it's also the motto of an european football club which, coincidently, also has an eagle as a symbol and wears red (my favourite colour)...

That isn't the national motto, it's "E Plurbis Unium"(again itt's lattte adn Iye cann't spel.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

PASTE

"In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.[1]

Well doesn't almost everyone believe something?

"In God we Trust." Can easily be thought up as:

"In Gods we Trust"
"In Allah we Trust"
"In Budda we Trust."
"In Shiva we Trust."
"In Invisible Pink Unicorn we Trust."
"In Flying Spagatti Monster we trust."
"In Nothing we Trust."
"In ourselves we Trust."
"In (Insert religious Deity) we Trust."

See, is that so hard?

why say "In God We Trust"? has He kept any of His promises? trust me instead; i've been much better at keeping my promises of making a Hell out of Earth.
You mean a hell out of Utah?

"In Invisible Pink Unicorn we Trust."
"In Flying Spagatti Monster we trust."

See, is that so hard?
Well, there was a giant teal stuffed lizard in there too, they made a tryst of it ...

and you forgot, of course,
"In Bob we Thrust"

Well doesn't almost everyone believe something?

"In God we Trust." Can easily be thought up as:

"In Gods we Trust"
"In Allah we Trust"
"In Budda we Trust."
"In Shiva we Trust."
"In Invisible Pink Unicorn we Trust."
"In Flying Spagatti Monster we trust."
"In Nothing we Trust."
"In ourselves we Trust."
"In (Insert religious Deity) we Trust."

See, is that so hard?

I'm not blaming you Lone Alliance, but in general, this stuff is why I'm glad computer geeks (and I mean this term in a friendly way) are too geeky to ever be elected. Nor, do I think many geeks even take a break from gaming long enough to remember to vote on election day.

Sorry for the insult, but many of you know it's true.

Most atheists/pagans are just in either teenage or hippie rebellion, and I'm sure most of your/their ancestors were either Christian or Jewish. Other faiths can take any meaning they want from the motto, as most have a notion of God. So I don't understand the obsessive hatred of morality and God on the part of the Forum. Just because you know a little Java programming, doesn't mean that you have disproven God. I know the majority culture alienates computer geeks and it's tempting to lash out at us, but even computer geeks are welcome in God's house. So, end this rebellion, God is waiting for you to come home.

I'm not blaming you Lone Alliance, but in general, this stuff is why I'm glad computer geeks (and I mean this term in a friendly way) are too geeky to ever be elected. Nor, do I think many geeks even take a break from gaming long enough to remember to vote on election day.

Sorry for the insult, but many of you know it's true.

Most atheists/pagans are just in either teenage or hippie rebellion, and I'm sure most of your/their ancestors were either Christian or Jewish. Other faiths can take any meaning they want from the motto, as most have a notion of God. So I don't understand the obsessive hatred of morality and God on the part of the Forum. Just because you know a little Java programming, doesn't mean that you have disproven God. I know the majority culture alienates computer geeks and it's tempting to lash out at us, but even computer geeks are welcome in God's house. So, end this rebellion, God is waiting for you to come home.

From the poll around the last presidential election this forum had a WAY WAY WAY higher percentage of active voters then the general population.

Among us citizens it was in the high 90 percentile range if I remember right

From the poll around the last presidential election this forum had a WAY WAY WAY higher percentage of active voters then the general population.

Among us citizens it was in the high 90 percentile range if I remember right

John Kerry was pleased, he carried the NationStates Forum.

Well, Bill Clinton initially solidified the geek vote. And I know that geeks have been furious at capitalism ever since Bill Gates came up with the idea of copyrighting and selling software. And I know that geeks have hated Christians because they feel that after they install a new hard drive in their computer, they have somehow disproven God.

So I don't understand the obsessive hatred of morality and God on the part of the Forum.

Basicly it is due to fear of Satan. Some Christians told me that that red guy likes to lead people astray from that which is good and just. He was said to employ various methods, but one of his most devious ones is giving people some sound advice and honestly telling them what the right thing to do actually is. And again. And again. Until you trust him, and then he starts giving slightly less good advice, leading you astray step by step.

Then I thought "how then can I seperate good from evil" ? Blindly following the words of a man (or woman !) who in the past has shown himself to be right is no guarantee, since that is how Satan works. So I decided to evaluate moral prescriptions for their worth. Check if they are consistent with other morals. Verify if they serve the higher goal or lead away from it. Observe if they have backing, or are just given out of the blue.

The Bible failed this test. Miserably.

Basicly it is due to fear of Satan. Some Christians told me that that red guy likes to lead people astray from that which is good and just. He was said to employ various methods, but one of his most devious ones is giving people some sound advice and honestly telling them what the right thing to do actually is. And again. And again. Until you trust him, and then he starts giving slightly less good advice, leading you astray step by step.

Then I thought "how then can I seperate good from evil" ? Blindly following the words of a man (or woman !) who in the past has shown himself to be right is no guarantee, since that is how Satan works. So I decided to evaluate moral prescriptions for their worth. Check if they are consistent with other morals. Verify if they serve the higher goal or lead away from it. Observe if they have backing, or are just given out of the blue.

The Bible failed this test. Miserably.

But you read the Bible like its a scientific text; it is not. It's a way of understanding the nature of God. You don't need to take every detail of creation literally, but the moral truths revealed ring true to any person who loves good. Our Lord Christ said: "Those who hear the truth, hear my voice."

I'm not blaming you Lone Alliance, but in general, this stuff is why I'm glad computer geeks (and I mean this term in a friendly way) are too geeky to ever be elected. Nor, do I think many geeks even take a break from gaming long enough to remember to vote on election day.

Sorry for the insult, but many of you know it's true.

Most atheists/pagans are just in either teenage or hippie rebellion, and I'm sure most of your/their ancestors were either Christian or Jewish. Other faiths can take any meaning they want from the motto, as most have a notion of God. So I don't understand the obsessive hatred of morality and God on the part of the Forum. Just because you know a little Java programming, doesn't mean that you have disproven God. I know the majority culture alienates computer geeks and it's tempting to lash out at us, but even computer geeks are welcome in God's house. So, end this rebellion, God is waiting for you to come home.

Amusing. So those of us who are Christians and simply don't want the government in our religion are just 'geeks', 'hippies' and 'teenagers'. Hmmm... I wonder which I am. Marine veteran. Nearly twice teenaged. I guess I must be a geek. But then so are you.

But you read the Bible like its a scientific text; it is not. It's a way of understanding the nature of God. You don't need to take every detail of creation literally, but the moral truths revealed ring true to any person who loves good. Our Lord Christ said: "Those who hear the truth, hear my voice."

Hmmm... convenient reading. The compiled Bible contains many bads that are claimed to be the word of God. I don't believe God ever endorsed slavery despite what the current Bible claims.

So, end this rebellion, God is waiting for you to come home.
And given "God"'s notorious temperment, "he"'s more than apt to move right into the "martial law" phase. :rolleyes:

And if that's what you have in mind
yeah if that's what you're all about
Good luck movin' up 'cause I'm movin' out.
Mmm, I'm movin' out. Ooh-hoo, uh-huh, mmmm

Yeah, "he"'s gonna have a long night.

Amusing. So those of us who are Christians and simply don't want the government in our religion are just 'geeks', 'hippies' and 'teenagers'. Hmmm... I wonder which I am. Marine veteran. Nearly twice teenaged. I guess I must be a geek. But then so are you.

Well, I don't understand you then. Sometimes I wonder if MoveOn and DailyKos are urging their members to post here.

Hmmm... convenient reading. The compiled Bible contains many bads that are claimed to be the word of God. I don't believe God ever endorsed slavery despite what the current Bible claims.

Ok, you bring this classic attack up, from Jenna Jacobs on the West Wing, which is the holy grail of leftists.

Anyhow, which Christian denomination promote slavery, even Westboro Baptist doesn't bring this up. At the time of the revelation of the Old Testament and up to almost just before modern times, if you captured an enemy, you either killed all their people or took them into slavery. God was simply giving you guidelines on how to treat them respectfully.

This is moot anyway, because in Christ, God revealed his complete law, which does not endorse slavery.

Let's just end the pretense that you have done advanced scientific research and disproven God, because I don't believe it. The simple truth is, the moral law is hard to follow, and even I admit this, and I'm not perfect, but it's still good, it's something we need to strive for, it's worth maintaining it even today.

Well, I don't understand you then. Sometimes I wonder if MoveOn and DailyKos are urging their members to post here.

Ah, there it is. More ad hominems. Do you have anything interesting to say? Are you upset because I have enough faith that I don't need government support in order for my beliefs to prosper? When you have right on your side, you don't need might. So what does it mean when might is so important to you?

Well obviously it is completely silly to remove "In God We Trust" from the US dollar. After all it is well known the trust that is placed in the Almighty Dollar in the US so why shouldn't the phrase be printed on the Almight itself?

Ah, there it is. More ad hominems. Do you have anything interesting to say? Are you upset because I have enough faith that I don't need government support in order for my beliefs to prosper? When you have right on your side, you don't need might. So what does it mean when might is so important to you?

I'm not intending it as a argument, but I deeply feel that this Forum almost has no common sense typical of the average sampling of Americans you might out in public if you took 20 people aside.

I'm not intending it as a argument, but I deeply feel that this Forum almost has no common sense typical of the average sampling of Americans you might out in public if you took 20 people aside.
Le sens commun n'est pas si commun.
:p

Ok, you bring this classic attack up, from Jenna Jacobs on the West Wing, which is the holy grail of leftists.

From who and from where? Are you citing television as my source. I've read the Bible. My source is the Bible. You should read it.

Anyhow, which Christian denomination promote slavery, even Westboro Baptist doesn't bring this up. At the time of the revelation of the Old Testament and up to almost just before modern times, if you captured an enemy, you either killed all their people or took them into slavery. God was simply giving you guidelines on how to treat them respectfully.

He gave them permission to take slaves according to the current texts.

This is moot anyway, because in Christ, God revealed his complete law, which does not endorse slavery.

You really should read the Bible, my friend. Paul added much 'Law' after the demise and resurrection of Christ. Meanwhile, Christ said he did not come to amend the Word. Did you even read the Bible? Tell me honestly. Have you read EVERY page of the Bible?

Let's just end the pretense that you have done advanced scientific research and disproven God, because I don't believe it. The simple truth is, the moral law is hard to follow, and even I admit this, and I'm not perfect, but it's still good, it's something we need to strive for, it's worth maintaining it even today.

I believe in God. Your ad hominems do not help your argument.

It is hard for you to follow. Apparently, you think the best way to serve God is to make false accusations and to call people 'hippies', 'geeks' and insinuate they are teenagers.

Meanwhile, the motto of the US has nothing to do with the Law or what my faith is or will be. I would prefer it than in explaining my faith I not have to apologize for governments claiming to be working on behalf of God and using God as an excuse for some pretty troubling actions.

I'm not intending it as a argument, but I deeply feel that this Forum almost has no common sense typical of the average sampling of Americans you might out in public if you took 20 people aside.

"God has commissioned me to insult people on his behalf." Do you think the best way to bring people to your faith is to insult them?

John Kerry was pleased, he carried the NationStates Forum.

Well, Bill Clinton initially solidified the geek vote. And I know that geeks have been furious at capitalism ever since Bill Gates came up with the idea of copyrighting and selling software. And I know that geeks have hated Christians because they feel that after they install a new hard drive in their computer, they have somehow disproven God.
Amazing how that rings SO MUCH like a billowing hodge podge of utter right wing cowardice.
A lot of sifting for a point.

"God has commissioned me to insult people on his behalf." Do you think the best way to bring people to your faith is to insult them?
It could be that, by that conjunction of unholy political philosophy, this posters' faith IS an insult.
Or, as the bible said a few times, an abomination.

I believe in God. Your ad hominems do not help your argument.

Meanwhile, the motto of the US has nothing to do with the Law or what my faith is or will be. I would prefer it than in explaining my faith I not have to apologize for governments claiming to be working on behalf of God and using God as an excuse for some pretty troubling actions.


Jacobia, I'm afraid you have substituted your own desires, for that of God. Presuming you subscribe to the Democrat platform, most of it is like spit in God's face. I'm not endorsing a political party, but the Democrat party is all about human vice.

On Christ, he did extend the Law, voiding some parts and strengthening others. Paul only expounds on Christ's teaching, there is no Law of Paul that overrides Christ on core moral issues. Paul addressed church issues.

Are you running as one of those DNCC recruited candidates to run as an Iraq War veteran, so the republican can't criticize your cut-and-run strategy?

Amazing how that rings SO MUCH like a billowing hodge podge of utter right wing cowardice.
A lot of sifting for a point.

Straughn, workers of the world.... unite!

Straughn, workers of the world.... unite!
I'm already committed.
Spam Local 144.92.7734.
... i've got a pamphlet, if you're interested ....

*shuffles through trenchcoat*
BTW - have you seen a .... well, never mind.

I'm already committed.
Spam Local 144.92.7734.
... i've got a pamphlet, if you're interested ....

*shuffles through trenchcoat*
BTW - have you seen a .... well, never mind.

the Manifesto? Mao's little Red Book?

Jacobia, I'm afraid you have substituted your own desires, for that of God. Presuming you subscribe to the Democrat platform, most of it is like spit in God's face. I'm not endorsing a political party, but the Democrat party is all about human vice.

On Christ, he did extend the Law, voiding some parts and strengthening others. Paul only expounds on Christ's teaching, there is no Law of Paul that overrides Christ on core moral issues. Paul addressed church issues.

Are you running as one of those DNCC recruited candidates to run as an Iraq War veteran, so the republican can't criticize your cut-and-run strategy?

So if I quote Christ saying that he did not come to amend the law, will you admit you don't know at all what you're talking about?

Aha, more insults. Can you tell what part of your faith encourages personal insults? People who talk about God out of one side of their mouth while insulting everyone who disagrees with them out of the other are the reason some people spit the word Christian out of their mouths on this forum.

I agree that Democrats don't represent God. Neither do the Republicans. I can't believe that anyone knowledgeable of the teachings of Christ could claim otherwise.

And have I substituted my own desires for that of Christ. Hmmmm... Do you think I could find a large portion of Christ's teachings supporting the seperation? Ready for a Bible lesson?

Why does it matter? Reading a slogan isnt the same as forcing you to convert or adhere to religious principals. Many Christians are offended by images and slogans that they have to see every day, some even endorsed or legislated by the government, but they can't remove those.

I don't know guys, I'm not saying that this is a Christian country and we should all trust in God, and I seriously don't care, I just agree with the guy who said it was like the pyramids. Its part of America's cultural roots, and removing it is unnecessary and impractical. Seriously, I mean, why? I mean, should we take the name Apollo off of our old moon rockets because people don't all believe in the Roman god Apollo? Should we rename the planets because theyre named after Roman gods? Should we rename cities like San Francisco (Saint Francis in Spanish, guys) and Los Angeles (The Angels), because theyre Christian? Hell, why don't we make anyone with a name like David or Mark change them because theyre Europeanized Hebrew names, a reference to Judeo-Christian roots.
Why don't we change the Bill of Rights because it mentions "Certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator"
You're opening a can of worms here.

So if I quote Christ saying that he did not come to amend the law, will you admit you don't know at all what you're talking about?

Aha, more insults. Can you tell what part of your faith encourages personal insults? People who talk about God out of one side of their mouth while insulting everyone who disagrees with them out of the other are the reason some people spit the word Christian out of their mouths on this forum.

I agree that Democrats don't represent God. Neither do the Republicans. I can't believe that anyone knowledgeable of the teachings of Christ could claim otherwise.

And have I substituted my own desires for that of Christ. Hmmmm... Do you think I could find a large portion of Christ's teachings supporting the seperation? Ready for a Bible lesson?

He overrode the Sabbath Day. He override love thy neighbor to include enemies. He didnt just re-affirm the Mosaic Law, he strengthed it.

I have never advocated for merging the holy Roman Church with our beloved USA. But that doesn't mean that the USA has to have immoral laws.

And Christ didn't preach socialism, he preached for individuals to be generous to others, but not by force of government.

I'm already committed.
Spam Local 144.92.7734.
... i've got a pamphlet, if you're interested ....

*shuffles through trenchcoat*
BTW - have you seen a .... well, never mind.
I heard a lot of screaming it the ACLU thread.

*nods*

[return to drunkeness]

the Manifesto? Mao's little Red Book?
Lots of questions, eh? Did your faith leave you stranded?

Why does it matter? Reading a slogan isnt the same as forcing you to convert or adhere to religious principals. Many Christians are offended by images and slogans that they have to see every day, some even endorsed or legislated by the government, but they can't remove those.

I don't know guys, I'm not saying that this is a Christian country and we should all trust in God, and I seriously don't care, I just agree with the guy who said it was like the pyramids. Its part of America's cultural roots, and removing it is unnecessary and impractical. Seriously, I mean, why? I mean, should we take the name Apollo off of our old moon rockets because people don't all believe in the Roman god Apollo? Should we rename the planets because theyre named after Roman gods? Should we rename cities like San Francisco (Saint Francis in Spanish, guys) and Los Angeles (The Angels), because theyre Christian? Hell, why don't we make anyone with a name like David or Mark change them because theyre Europeanized Hebrew names, a reference to Judeo-Christian roots.
Why don't we change the Bill of Rights because it mentions "Certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator"
You're opening a can of worms here.

The ACLU and Michael Newdow do want to "amend" the Declaration of Independence, which would be an absolute travesty if it happened.

Lots of questions, eh? Did your faith leave you stranded?

What about your faith?


Straughn, I'm sorry for being so angry towards you. I hope one day your progressive vision is attained.

Lots of questions, eh? Did your faith leave you stranded?
Well, i felt THAT was a bit predictable, given ...

Let's see, shall we believe you or Jesus -

Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus wrong or are you? He said that not the smallest letter nor the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law. Perhaps he meant to say that the OT is gone and that we should instead listen to Paul.

What about your faith?


Straughn, I'm sorry for being so angry towards you. I hope one day your progressive vision is attained.
Angry?
Teehee, silly, it's just love patter.
You're not really mad at me, you're mad at what could be a significantly repressed upbringing ... you know, lockstep and all?
*massage*

He overrode the Sabbath Day. He override love thy neighbor to include enemies. He didnt just re-affirm the Mosaic Law, he strengthed it.

I have never advocated for merging the holy Roman Church with our beloved USA. But that doesn't mean that the USA has to have immoral laws.

And Christ didn't preach socialism, he preached for individuals to be generous to others, but not by force of government.

So you want to force people to be good so long as it's not good to each other? Interesting interpretation. And by interesting, I mean embarrassing.

I heard a lot of screaming it the ACLU thread.

*nods*

[return to drunkeness]Whoa! S/he's REALLY growing up fast!
*books it outta this thread*

Let's see, shall we believe you or Jesus -

Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus wrong or are you? He said that not the smallest letter nor the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law. Perhaps he meant to say that the OT is gone and that we should instead listen to Paul.

He strengthed the law on numerous occasions. And I know almost no Christians follow all 613 mitzvot, so I'm not sure what branch of CHristianity you hail from.

Angry?
Teehee, silly, it's just love patter.
You're not really mad at me, you're mad at what could be a significantly repressed upbringing ... you know, lockstep and all?
*massage*

Well as the socialist professor did find, it was due to me being a whiny baby.

Well as the socialist professor did find, it was due to me being a whiny baby.
Perhaps you pacifier was misapplied?

Perhaps you pacifier was misapplied?

I know, I wish I was more progressive, but I'm too rigid in my thinking to accept the notion that if I just pulled the level for Democrats, that they can bring in so much Progress into the world.

I know, I wish I was more progressive, but I'm too rigid in my thinking to accept the notion that if I just pulled the level for Democrats, that they can bring in so much Progress into the world.I think The UN abassadorship gave you too much advice about mammary glands.
And .. no, i don't think you know at all what i was referring to. But you're still cute.

He strengthed the law on numerous occasions. And I know almost no Christians follow all 613 mitzvot, so I'm not sure what branch of CHristianity you hail from.

That's not the point. Did he say it or not? If Jesus said what I quoted, then one MUST, MUST address a part of the Bible CLAIMING to be the Word of God that you are claiming no longer applies. Jesus claimed that some of the claimed Laws were actually Laws of Man, not God. However, in the current Bible, it quotes the part about Slavery as being the Word. Jesus did not reject any Word.

60% of the Usian people want it removed according to this poll.
So, an Internet poll should decide US policy? Hell, I love that system. That way, we get an even stupider electorate than usual, with an overrepresentation of rich white kids.

So, an Internet poll should decide US policy? Hell, I love that system. That way, we get an even stupider electorate than usual, with an overrepresentation of rich white kids.
...and abnormally atrocious grammar and spelling.

Conscience and Truth

Your problem is you think everything is a matter of "moral vs. immoral". There are things that are moral and there are things that are immoral but most things are simply neither. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it immoral.

Your other problem is you (like most conservative "christians") make Christianity so complicated that the average person simply can't live up to it. (Now what was it Jesus said those evil Pharasees did to people?)

Now if you would put away all of those rantings of your preacher and actually study Christianity you would find that it is the simplest and easyest religion in the world. It only has two (count them two laws). And this whole thread is about why "christians" of your ilk don't want to follow the second.

Imagine that, two rules and one can't be followed because it goes against your wants. You need to decide if you are going to follow the Bible and teachings of Jesus or if you are going to try to live with the combersome rules and regulations of the neo-pharasees.

Except it allows him to stop paying for schools after he finished using them. "Granted I'm ignorant as to what you're discussing but I thought I'd correct you anyway." Brilliant. Tell me how you didn't like Moby Dick before you read it, too. I'm sure there will something interesting in your review.

I said that because I didn't want to get into a debate on the merits of any of those policies that you listed. I do not care what policies you are arguing about, all I care about is the statement where you claim that your system benefits society more, yet deny that values have anything to do with it.

Perhaps you should reread. I said it's not about values. It's about societal benefit. Show me the demonstrable benefit to thwarting people's freedom of religion.

I don't need to reread, you cannot deny the values at play here and then say that societal benefit is important to policy, or deny the benefit of a lack of freedom of religion. You show your subjective value set simply by speaking (or typing, as the case may be).

I could say that religion is divisive, and that its elimination, while detrimental to this generation, would show its effects in the long run. I could say that the promotion of a single religion could create a oneness that would motivate people to work towards a common good.

I do not agree with either of those statements because they involve sacrifices and consequences that I do not desire, not because I rationally determined that they were wrong.

Can you point out where I claimed the moral high ground? I'd be interested how a post that discusses benefits is really about morality and then when I continue to discuss benefits you claim it's not something you're looking to disucss. Weak.

Benefits are subjective. The benefits you claim to be superior are only superior because you weigh them with your subjective values. By claiming the benefits of your system are preferable to his, you are also affirming that your values are preferable to his.

You can continue to discuss benefits as if they are objectively and rationally derived and make one system objectively better than another, and it will seem that you are right and that your system is better. But you will be judging the results based on your own opinion, and the opinion of a great many who share a similar upbringing and value set, not on any rational basis.

Besides the Bible (Remember that little thorn in the side of conservative "Christians") says that a Christian should do nothing that would offend anyone. So a true Christian would not argue in favor of something that offends his neighbor. And of course Jesus (remember him conservative "Christians"?) set up the division between Church and state so it matters not what the constitutions says about it. It's unChristian to combine church and state. So those who make that arguement are not truly Christian.

Boy it's tough trying to be a conservative and Christian at the same time.

When the **** did Jesus talk about seperation of church and state?

...and abnormally atrocious grammar and spelling.
lol i kno!!1! ppl on teh net r so dum!

*smacks self on head repeatedly with a brick*

When the **** did Jesus talk about seperation of church and state?
Matthew 22:15-21 (NIV)
"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

And besides that, any theocratical system will inevitably fall victim to the leadership of modern Pharisees, be they mullahs, Osama, or Pat Robertson.

When the **** did Jesus talk about seperation of church and state?
MT 22:17-22 Just to name an obvious one.