In Gawd We Trust LMAO!!!

But the only reason to legislate a behavior is because it is considered morally wrong, what would be the purpose otherwise?


1) Is it 'wrong' to have sex outside marriage with another consenting adult? Should it be illegal?

2) Is it wrong to have sex with children, consenting or otherwise? Should it be illegal?

While both are strictly matters of opinion, #1 is NOT wrong to enough people that the rest of us need to simply tolerate the behavior. #2, on the other hand IS wrong in the eyes of a vast majority and therefore is worthy of legislation with a punitive response to the crime.

This thread started with "In God We Trust" being affirmed in Congress as a national motto.

Since I do NOT trust in "God" - does that make me some sort of second class citizen? Should it?

The opinion of the majority can not be allowed to run over the lifestyle of the minority to appease a religious opinion, no matter how widely held that opinion is, provided there is no other compelling reason for the legislation.

Please remember that this thread started in response to an act of congress affirming a national motto that many Americans consider a joke, and a joke in poor taste at that.

And where is that happening? That was my question?

As far as "In God We Trust", why should the minority be appeased and the majority offended? Why is that okay? If it's not okay for a minority to be offended, then it definitely follows that it would be even more wrong for the majority to be offended.

Let me put it this way... I could live with a change to "In God Some of Us Trust". At least then it wouldn't be blatant bullshit.

That said, what's wrong with leaving all references to God out of our national identity? Remain religion neutral, as it were.
 
But the only reason to legislate a behavior is because it is considered morally wrong, what would be the purpose otherwise?


1) Is it 'wrong' to have sex outside marriage with another consenting adult? Should it be illegal?

2) Is it wrong to have sex with children, consenting or otherwise? Should it be illegal?

While both are strictly matters of opinion, #1 is NOT wrong to enough people that the rest of us need to simply tolerate the behavior. #2, on the other hand IS wrong in the eyes of a vast majority and therefore is worthy of legislation with a punitive response to the crime.

This thread started with "In God We Trust" being affirmed in Congress as a national motto.

Since I do NOT trust in "God" - does that make me some sort of second class citizen? Should it?

The opinion of the majority can not be allowed to run over the lifestyle of the minority to appease a religious opinion, no matter how widely held that opinion is, provided there is no other compelling reason for the legislation.

Please remember that this thread started in response to an act of congress affirming a national motto that many Americans consider a joke, and a joke in poor taste at that.


And where is that happening? That was my question?


As far as "In God We Trust", why should the minority be appeased and the majority offended? Why is that okay? If it's not okay for a minority to be offended, then it definitely follows that it would be even more wrong for the majority to be offended.

Prime example in this country is the gay marriage debate. The Social Security Act of 1933 defines marriage as between a man and a woman - done to appease the religious conservatives of the day.

This means that some straight slut-puppy can leave a trail of ex-wives, and as long as he was married to each of them for 10 years minimum, they can ALL draw widows benefits at his death from syphilis, whereas a monogamous relationship of 30 years between Adam & Steve ending in an untimely death results in nothing for the survivor.

Direct religious intervention resulting in a group of second class citizens, denied something given to others based solely on a lifestyle choice.
 
And yes, non-believers fear the Christian version of theocracy even more than the Muslim version of theocracy. Why? .





Why? Because you know damn well that Christians (the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, in any real way) don't really want a theocracy, so squealing about it gives self-absorbed drama queens a convenient, non-threatening means of venting their empty hyperbole and feeling important witihout risking anything. It's like the 'artists' in Hollywood and TV that even today use 'The Church' as some generic symbol of authority that the 'heroic' protagonist defies to show how bold and courageous secular liberalism is in the face of anything representing tradition or responsibility. In other words, it's nothing but self-indulgent bullshit by mouthy cowards who wouldn't dare do this little song and dance in any context where a real theocracy were an actual likelihood.
 
1) Is it 'wrong' to have sex outside marriage with another consenting adult? Should it be illegal?

2) Is it wrong to have sex with children, consenting or otherwise? Should it be illegal?

While both are strictly matters of opinion, #1 is NOT wrong to enough people that the rest of us need to simply tolerate the behavior. #2, on the other hand IS wrong in the eyes of a vast majority and therefore is worthy of legislation with a punitive response to the crime.

This thread started with "In God We Trust" being affirmed in Congress as a national motto.

Since I do NOT trust in "God" - does that make me some sort of second class citizen? Should it?

The opinion of the majority can not be allowed to run over the lifestyle of the minority to appease a religious opinion, no matter how widely held that opinion is, provided there is no other compelling reason for the legislation.

Please remember that this thread started in response to an act of congress affirming a national motto that many Americans consider a joke, and a joke in poor taste at that.


And where is that happening? That was my question?


As far as "In God We Trust", why should the minority be appeased and the majority offended? Why is that okay? If it's not okay for a minority to be offended, then it definitely follows that it would be even more wrong for the majority to be offended.

Prime example in this country is the gay marriage debate. The Social Security Act of 1933 defines marriage as between a man and a woman - done to appease the religious conservatives of the day.

This means that some straight slut-puppy can leave a trail of ex-wives, and as long as he was married to each of them for 10 years minimum, they can ALL draw widows benefits at his death from syphilis, whereas a monogamous relationship of 30 years between Adam & Steve ending in an untimely death results in nothing for the survivor.

Direct religious intervention resulting in a group of second class citizens, denied something given to others based solely on a lifestyle choice.

Well, I happen to agree with you regarding the gay marriage debate. I think that might be the only example you could find of Christians using the Bible to determine what the secular world should live by via legislation. And they haven't been all that successful, and it's only a matter of time before they're shot down. There's two sides to that story as well though, I think the gay activists could also get what they want by agreeing to different language and calling it a civil union, and allowing marriage to be sanctified by the church. Then it's up to a church whether or not the 'marry' a gay couple. Then the religious and the legal are separated.

But, I guess my point is that people's beliefs, regardless of where they stem from, have an impact on all of us. An example would be the extreme environmentalist movement, who would have all of us living in huts with no heat and definitely no motor transporation. That has wended it's way into our legal system through all sorts of things, how much water your toilet can flush, what kind of light bulbs you can buy and use. Trying to increase the price of energy so that people will use less of it. To me the extreme environmentalist movement is like a religion, and it's being legislated into my life in small bits and pieces, and I have no recourse to it because it isn't a 'religion'. So, I don't see religion as really being any different than any other ideology out there that is used to shape morals and beliefs, which in turn impact what legislation is passed for us all to follow. As long a government isn't being used as a tool to force people to worship or believe, then I don't see that values and morals coming from the Bible are really any different than morals or values coming from any other source. Sorry so long. :lol:
 
And yes, non-believers fear the Christian version of theocracy even more than the Muslim version of theocracy. Why? .





Why? Because you know damn well that Christians (the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, in any real way) don't really want a theocracy, so squealing about it gives self-absorbed drama queens a convenient, non-threatening means of venting their empty hyperbole and feeling important witihout risking anything. It's like the 'artists' in Hollywood and TV that even today use 'The Church' as some generic symbol of authority that the 'heroic' protagonist defies to show how bold and courageous secular liberalism is in the face of anything representing tradition or responsibility. In other words, it's nothing but self-indulgent bullshit by mouthy cowards who wouldn't dare do this little song and dance in any context where a real theocracy were an actual likelihood.

First of all - stop deleting parts of my posts while quoting them - highlighting is o.k., but leave the content alone.

And you're correct - most of the history of Christian governance is fraught with just as much paranoid bloodshed in the name of maintaining the status quo as modern day Muslim governments like Iran and Syria and people like me were put to horrible death for daring to express our opinions of the bullshit being used to keep the sheeple in line.

One thing you completely missed the boat on is the fact that those with the stones to speak out against the status quo, be it religious or economic, are not mouthy cowards, they're mouthy heros. Their lives culminating early in violence helped to make this bastion of free thinking, speech and opinions known as USMB possible.

Thanks for that useful, albeit difficult to read, post.
 
Um, what? A Neutral Nation? Taking God out of the nation's identity would make us neutral? Neutral for WHOm? MOST everyone in the WORLD believes in some form of God... The names may differ and the ways of religious ceremonies may be different... but there are far more people who believe and worship God... of one form or another... than not. :dunno:

The poles and surveys are a riot... they are so diverse... and most are completely lacking in detail. I suppose it would not be so much a surprise to those within this board that there is even a pole that suggests 52% of Jews do NOT believe in God... Hmmm, Really. Wow.

As a woman... Men who refuse to believe in God or who desire to remove the belief of God from their women's lives baffle me, completely. I'm certain there is a complete lack of understanding... be it mine, theirs, or both... :dunno:
 
Um, what? A Neutral Nation? Taking God out of the nation's identity would make us neutral? Neutral for WHOm? MOST everyone in the WORLD believes in some form of God... The names may differ and the ways of religious ceremonies may be different... but there are far more people who believe and worship God... of one form or another... than not. :dunno:

The poles and surveys are a riot... they are so diverse... and most are completely lacking in detail. I suppose it would not be so much a surprise to those within this board that there is even a pole that suggests 52% of Jews do NOT believe in God... Hmmm, Really. Wow.

As a woman... Men who refuse to believe in God or who desire to remove the belief of God from their women's lives baffle me, completely. I'm certain there is a complete lack of understanding... be it mine, theirs, or both... :dunno:

Believing in god is a fad. Either that or mass confusion. As we speak in this world if the south sea Islands are included there are more than 4000 gods being worshipped. Take the Christian faith, break it down, there are more than 44,000 denominations, conventions, sects, cults, sub cults, etc. and it poses to me one great question, "If It's So Important That Mankind's Eternal Life Depends On It...Why Is It So Complicated And Confusing"
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top