Freedom from religion

[ksbluesfan]

And Black people aren't given free reign with racial slurs, just like white people.

As much as both of us want that, people will never be un-biased one way or the other.

I hope there is a difference between "people" and "federal government".

 

[Azure]

I hope there is a difference between "people" and "federal government".

Maybe we should have a national vote on it...

A referendum...see what the people want.

I'm afraid the statement, "In God we trust" would stay on the bill. Why? Because it has nothing to do with forcing people to be religious.

If you think it does, you're an idiot.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Maybe we should have a national vote on it...

A referendum...see what the people want.

I'm afraid the statement, "In God we trust" would stay on the bill. Why? Because it has nothing to do with forcing people to be religious.

If you think it does, you're an idiot.

Last I checked, the US was a Constitutional Republic. We are governed by the rule of law, not by the majority. Thank God! Better yet, thank Thomas Jefferson.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I never complained about "In God We Trust" on currency. I've been making the point that the US is a secular nation.

 

[Azure]

Last I checked, the US was a Constitutional Republic. We are governed by the rule of law, not by the majority. Thank God! Better yet, thank Thomas Jefferson.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I never complained about "In God We Trust" on currency. I've been making the point that the US is a secular nation.

Exactly my point.

Some people see fit to complain about the currency, but really, what are you going to do about it.

Quit using it if you don't like the words.

How is the US a secular nation? There is not clear seperation of church and state....yet. As much as me and you would like that.

 

[Blank]

How is the US a secular nation? There is not clear seperation of church and state....yet. As much as me and you would like that.

Mind clarifying the comment about "clear separation of church and state" a bit.

What kinda things in the US are against the separation of church and state in your opinion?

 

[Azure]

Mind clarifying the comment about "clear separation of church and state" a bit.

What kinda things in the US are against the separation of church and state in your opinion?

Marriage....still being looked at as a religious institution, stuff like that.

Even the motto, "In God we trust" is a violation if the seperation is real.

Swearing, 'so help me God' would also be a violation.

Stuff like that doesn't matter to me, even if there is a clear seperation of church and state....but many people are up in arms over it.

 

[Lonewulf]

I used to live in the US, plus I deal with US dollars a lot.

Maybe I should refrain from using Canadian dollars because the words 'in God we trust' are not there, and I believe in God.

That would do wonders, eh?

Hey, I could just have money distributed where you live that all says, "God Does Not Exist". No problem. It seems to be what you think that atheists really want, given the above post... which, coupled with your suggestion that there are more atheists than Christians in jail, just serves to further demonstrate your ignorance.

Which is ironic, as you were the one that were claiming a while back, on another thread, that everyone else was ignorant as to what religion actually was. Funny that.

Marriage....still being looked at as a religious institution, stuff like that.

You can be married by a judge, using a legal institution.

Even the motto, "In God we trust" is a violation if the seperation is real.

Indeed. Too bad it came around at a time of religious fervor against those godless communists...

Personally, I'd prefer that we remove the motto.

Swearing, 'so help me God' would also be a violation.

Being forced to swear, under threat of law? Definitely.

Stuff like that doesn't matter to me, even if there is a clear seperation of church and state....but many people are up in arms over it.

Indeed they are.

It's the "NIMN" principle. "Not In My Name". America was crafted to be a secular country with a seperation between church and state, where the church does not run things like they did in good ol' Europe. There was supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, religion being one of them. And, most of all, the government should not unduly represent any one religion. Those were ideals that I feel were great to be upheld, personally.

Religion has changed, and so has America. But most of the "God" mentions that you talk about did not come until only recently, in the Cold War era. They were deliberately implemented for a specific socio-political and religious cause. The politics was to be anti-communist.

But if the federal government speaks for the people, or forces the people through law to exclaim any amount of religious beliefs (such as swearing, or a forced pledge of allegiance that states "under god"), then the idea of a free exchange is kaput. The state is favoring one religion, and is even putting pressure on individuals to swear fealty to it. I do not hold that that is an ideal situation.

And, judging from the fact that you like to remind us that you're religious every two posts or so (as if it wasn't glaringly, painfully obvious that you were incredibly biased), I suggest that the main reason you have no problem with this is because you happen to agree with that religion.

 

[Schneibster]

I considered addressing the hypocracy of the idea that the US is a Christian nation

"Hypocracy" works for me. I'm gonna steal it; I don't care if you typoed, it's just the sort of amusing thing that I like to have around to refer to the current state of affairs.

ETA: Note that we can now refer to individuals like Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales as hypocrats.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I believe in God.

I knew there had to be something warping your personality.

 

[Azure]

I knew there had to be something warping your personality.

Nice.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How is the US a secular nation?

We have a 1st ammendment that helps define us as a secular nation. Unfortunately the christians in congress tend to ignore this when they pass laws.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Hell hath frozen over. Azure makes the best pionts.

Strathmeyer, Azure was pointing out that having "In god we trust" on your banknotes means NOTHING to you in any practical way.

A preactical way? Is that the criterion? Well, then, I guess we should just throw out the last half century of precedence. School sponsored prayer doesn't affect anyone in a practical way. Nor does being forced to say the pledge. Heck, requiring all school children to pledge devotion to Jesus Christ would not have any practical effect.

I'm afraid the statement, "In God we trust" would stay on the bill. Why? Because it has nothing to do with forcing people to be religious.

If you think it does, you're an idiot.

I see you have to resort to insults in the place of actual argument.

Exactly my point.

Some people see fit to complain about the currency, but really, what are you going to do about it.

Quit using it if you don't like the words.

How is the US a secular nation? There is not clear seperation of church and state....yet. As much as me and you would like that.

You just countered your own position. The fact that the money says "In God We Trust" is used by people like you to claim that the US is not a secular nation, which makes it easier to defend forcing people to particpate in religion.

 

[Gurdur]

A preactical way? Is that the criterion? Well, then, I guess we should just throw out the last half century of precedence. School sponsored prayer doesn't affect anyone in a practical way. Nor does being forced to say the pledge. Heck, requiring all school children to pledge devotion to Jesus Christ would not have any practical effect.

Wrong.
Being forced to go along in school prayer or reciting a Pledge most certainly DOES have a big practical effect; it reinforces either behaving as one with the group or feeling alienated, both effects especially with repetition.

Phrases on banknotes have bugger all such practical effect.

 

[Lemastre]

That this piece appeared in a major newspaper is a bit strange. But whenever somebody feels it necessary to remind us of whatever the founders said involving God, it usually means he's feeling a bit threatened in his own religion. This person is almost always a Christian religionist who's come up against the fact that some people don't believe in his myths and don't want them flaunted in their faces. And he's a guy who isn't content to practice his religion quietly in his own church and home. He's secure in his religion only as long as he feels everyone else believes it too, or at least believes it might be true. He seems able to tolerate varieties of Christianity and Judaism because they all profess to believe in God. But when someone simply pooh-poohs the whole religious idea and goes on living a quite normal life, he has a big problem. He thinks that someone's not buying it threatens his right to do so.

The appropriate response, of course, is, "If you want me to heed what God said, prove there is a God and then show me where he wrote it." This may give them something to do for awhile, although the old hands at it may not go for the challenge, having failed before.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Wrong.
Being forced to go along in school prayer or reciting a Pledge most certainly DOES have a big practical effect; it reinforces either behaving as one with the group or feeling alienated, both effects especially with repetition.

Phrases on banknotes have bugger all such practical effect.

And being reminded, every time you look at a piece of money, that the government is going out of its way to make you feel unwelcome, doesn't have an alienating effect?

 

[Gurdur]

And being reminded, every time you look at a piece of money, that the government is going out of its way to make you feel unwelcome, doesn't have an alienating effect?

Really?
That sounds to me more like a self-reminder, an obsession to me, rather than a real effect from outside.

In my life, I've used money from a great many countries, and I wouldn't even be able to read the phrases on many of their banknotes. It has bugger all effect on me.

But if it was demanded I recite a pledge, or go along with prayer, that would have a very real effect on me -- I would refuse.

 

[The Painter]

Anyone who doesn’t like the pieces of paper they have that say "In God we trust” please send them to me.

Thank You, The Painter

 

[Art Vandelay]

Really?
That sounds to me more like a self-reminder, an obsession to me, rather than a real effect from outside.

Well, if you want to get technical, ANY offense that one takes is ultimately an internal effect. If we were to put swastikas on the money, and that reminds holocaust victims of the horrors they suffered, well, they don't have to look at the money.

But if it was demanded I recite a pledge, or go along with prayer, that would have a very real effect on me -- I would refuse.

What's the difference between having to orally declare one's devotion to God, and having to hand out pieces of paper that declare one's devotion to God? Is the difference that it's easier to ignore the latter? What, exactly, constitutes a "real" or "practical" effect? And what about school sponsored prayers, where the students don't have to actively participate?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Phrases on banknotes have bugger all such practical effect.

That's strange, because I've had a few evangelicals tell me that the USA is not for atheists and they used "In God We Trust" as their absolute "proof" of it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It's really quite simple. The money, the Pledge, all that stuff, is completely unimportant, and anyone who expresses the slighest misgivings about it is a thinskinned, whiny obstructionist who's going out of his way to make trouble. Unless, of course, a fundie needs to justify ignoring the Constitution, in which case suddenly these things are freighted with meaning.