the_human_being
Gold Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 15,277
- 2,741
- 290
Good stuff.The argument for "In God We Trust" was always that "God" could represent any religion's God. It was only later that the Christian believer's pushed the statement to be a support of /their/ religion alone. It is because of the Christian insistence that /their/ God was /the/ God spoken of on money and in the pledge, that these other religious folks wish such things removed. As for the non-religious, they might want such things removed regardless because they dislike being excluded simply because they cast off the belief in the supernatural realm of religion. It is only the religious who turn it into a "war against" /their/ religion.
And those like me, look upon it and shrug for the most part, because, in all honestly, I consider it childish bickering akin to my young children fighting over who's picture might get hung upon the fridge. As if the hanging of all of them, or only one of them, could or would affect my love and/or support for each of them somehow. Reality is that I love all my boys, regardless of their individual strengths or weaknesses, it was not until they grew up that they understood this.
Oh! I get it. You are the mature adult and those of us who want to have the Christian God removed from the public sphere......as is the law.....are behaving like so many children wanting mommy's attention.
That's so awesome. When I grow up, I'll learn to accept that God is infused into our government like you have. Because you have matured.
Eat shit, please.
Actually I'm an agnostic. I don't think any religion has any place in government, but for little shit like "In God We Trust" or the placing of religious idols, I care not. I only really get riled up about the religious' folks discrimination; as in LGBT, or the exclusion of the religious beliefs of polygamists, etc. I am not against religion because I see benefit in the psyche for the "mentally weak" - this is not an insult, though I'm sure many would take it as such and for that I apologize. We are either leaders, or followers, and for followers, religion provides a generally good basis of societal behavior, there are extremists of course, but I do not blame the followers themselves for their "transgressions" rather I blame their leaders for leading them "improperly." It is the leaders onus to lead their people not for personal gain, but for the good of their people; many leaders are not mentally strong enough to recognize that they allow themselves to fall pray to "being lead" which means they are merely followers falsely leading followers.
Thus, I support religion, and the absence of religion alike. Does this make me more "mature"? Perhaps, or perhaps, as I stated, that is simply how it is how it seems to me. I'm sorry if my "feeling" that I have a more open mind than others offends you, though it actually should not, because in reality I support your ideals of anti-religion as well...
This appears to be just another example in which a specific group of people has decided that it is "offended" by what is obviously a huge part of both our history and our present, and they want to leverage as much control as they can to control it.
These are the same people, of course, who very much dislike the history of this country, and seeing them wanting to eliminate remnants of that history is not terribly surprising.
Those of us who are agnostic on religion (and Christianity in specific) can see the good and the bad, but we don't feel a need to ignore the (obviously) significant role it occupies in this country.
.
It's the "victim" mentality again. These folks have to bitch about everything. Big corporations, you have more money than I do so that's not fair, George Bush did it, it's all his fault, etc. They're professional crybabies.