In Gawd We Trust LMAO!!!

Why would it concern you so much what others believe or disbelieve? You clearly have a sizeable chip on your shoulder and an overdose of arrogance. You need to shake yourself out of lazy mode and get a job, or do you prefer being a douchebag!

I retired 18 years ago after 41 years with the same company. I'm not looking for a job.

So why the big chip on your shoulder? Small dick syndrome?

He's in his 80's. He's got limp dick syndrome.
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I believe my Creator to be Mother Earth using the tools of Time, Evolution, Sex and Luck.

Does that make my rights any less unalienable or the truth of those rights any less self-evident?

I say no, it does not.

:beer: To Mom, Her smartest little bastards, and their quest for the stars!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HBON9hBDQo]Earth - A pale blue dot, your home in space HD - YouTube[/ame]

So who or what created mother earth?

Time, luck and the same natural forces we can see creating and destroying stars, systems and galaxies today.

I'm not saying that I have proof that no God was involved - all I have is observations that tell me in no uncertain terms that if God is, she is WAY bigger than can be contained in ALL the ancient story books, let alone one over another.
 
God doesn't legislate how a person lives they live the way they choose to because that's what they want to do. I'm not a Christian but I do know that much about the Christian faith.

No, people legislate. And legislating morality, especially the morality of one faith over another will never work in America.

The thesis of this thread is America trying to define herself as a Christian Nation, complete with "In God We Trust" printed on the currency..... This is patently unfair to non Christians, even though for believers other than Christian, it's glossed over politically by using the more generic "God" rather than "In Jesus We Trust".

As someone whose personal beliefs about our origins, purpose and destiny are based more on modern knowledge and science rather than the popular ancient story books, I am offended by the trend.

Not to be harsh, but so what? I'm offended by a lot of things that are morally abhorent but are legal in this country, so get in line. Unfortunately we don't have a right to not be offended, and everyone's whims can't be accomodated. At least we each have the FREEDOM to speak out about what we think is wrong and try to change it.

That's all I'm trying to do... express MY opinion in a relevant manner.
 
No, people legislate. And legislating morality, especially the morality of one faith over another will never work in America.

The thesis of this thread is America trying to define herself as a Christian Nation, complete with "In God We Trust" printed on the currency..... This is patently unfair to non Christians, even though for believers other than Christian, it's glossed over politically by using the more generic "God" rather than "In Jesus We Trust".

As someone whose personal beliefs about our origins, purpose and destiny are based more on modern knowledge and science rather than the popular ancient story books, I am offended by the trend.

Not to be harsh, but so what? I'm offended by a lot of things that are morally abhorent but are legal in this country, so get in line. Unfortunately we don't have a right to not be offended, and everyone's whims can't be accomodated. At least we each have the FREEDOM to speak out about what we think is wrong and try to change it.

That's all I'm trying to do... express MY opinion in a relevant manner.

But my point is that I think that's what everyone is trying to do, so what difference does it make where your values come from or what they're based on? As long as no one is forced to follow a religion, everyone should have a voice in government. No one should be told their voice can't be heard because their morals or values stem from the wrong place. You're just as wrong for wanting to remove a Christian's morals and values from government as a Christian would be to want an atheists morals or values removed. It's the same thing.
 
[ - all I have is observations that tell me in no uncertain terms that if God is, she is WAY bigger than can be contained in ALL the ancient story books, let alone one over another.


Oh, starting to get the idea? You're almost ready for preschool, don't stop now.
 
Where in the christian bible New Testament does it say to kill your enemy? Where do it say hate your enemy? How many Christians had a jihad lately?

Lately? Not many - but history sides with my argument.

The point is that religion should not be a factor in making the laws we live by. Either something is a good idea to the overwhelming majority (thou shall not steal comes to mind) or not. (Thou shall not have sex with humans of your same gender is a fine example.)


Morality, like love and hate, cannot and should not be legislated - only behavior.

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.
 
Lately? Not many - but history sides with my argument.

The point is that religion should not be a factor in making the laws we live by. Either something is a good idea to the overwhelming majority (thou shall not steal comes to mind) or not. (Thou shall not have sex with humans of your same gender is a fine example.)


Morality, like love and hate, cannot and should not be legislated - only behavior.

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.
 
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.

I have a couple of questions who prints the money the the U.S. uses as a currency? Isn't it the fed that prints the money? Isn't the Fed a privately owned bank?
 
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.

I have a couple of questions who prints the money the the U.S. uses as a currency? Isn't it the fed that prints the money? Isn't the Fed a privately owned bank?

Yes, it is. You would think there would be more concern about that. :eusa_shhh:
 
Lately? Not many - but history sides with my argument.

The point is that religion should not be a factor in making the laws we live by. Either something is a good idea to the overwhelming majority (thou shall not steal comes to mind) or not. (Thou shall not have sex with humans of your same gender is a fine example.)


Morality, like love and hate, cannot and should not be legislated - only behavior.

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.

Also, another thought on that comment. Take out the word 'religious' and put in any other adjective, and ask yourself why that adjective is okay or better to legislate on.

How about an atheist opinion? A communist opinion? A Marxist opinion? A Black opinion? A white opinion? A poor man's opinion? A rich man's opinion? An environmentalist's opinion? Why do all of those get to voice their morality and values and market them to the masses to be enforced by government, but a christian opinion is not? Where's the difference between morals and values based off of the beliefs or perspectives of these other idealogies I just listed and christian morals and values? They should all get equal consideration, none should be barred? Right?
 
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.

I have a couple of questions who prints the money the the U.S. uses as a currency? Isn't it the fed that prints the money? Isn't the Fed a privately owned bank?

Yes, it is. You would think there would be more concern about that. :eusa_shhh:

So the motto in God we trust would not be a violation of the first amendment? Would that be a correct statement?
 
I have a couple of questions who prints the money the the U.S. uses as a currency? Isn't it the fed that prints the money? Isn't the Fed a privately owned bank?

Yes, it is. You would think there would be more concern about that. :eusa_shhh:

So the motto in God we trust would not be a violation of the first amendment? Would that be a correct statement?

Well, I don't hold the belief that it's a violation even if the federal government were printing the money themselves. It's not the establishment of a religion, it's not forcing anyone to practice any faith. If you take the the time to study and read the personal letters of the founders themselves and what they said, you would know that they in no way intended for that to be interpreted the way the left is interpreting it today. At the start of the very first session of Congress there was a two hour prayer session, many of the founding fathers had degrees in theology and were practicing pastors. Their intent was to not to remove religion from government, but protecting both the people and the government from any one religion. Conceptually that's completely different than what's trying to be enforced today.
 
Yes, it is. You would think there would be more concern about that. :eusa_shhh:

So the motto in God we trust would not be a violation of the first amendment? Would that be a correct statement?

Well, I don't hold the belief that it's a violation even if the federal government were printing the money themselves. It's not the establishment of a religion, it's not forcing anyone to practice any faith. If you take the the time to study and read the personal letters of the founders themselves and what they said, you would know that they in no way intended for that to be interpreted the way the left is interpreting it today. At the start of the very first session of Congress there was a two hour prayer session, many of the founding fathers had degrees in theology and were practicing pastors. Their intent was to not to remove religion from government, but protecting both the people and the government from any one religion. Conceptually that's completely different than what's trying to be enforced today.

Well, I don't hold the belief that it's a violation even if the federal government were printing the money themselves.

I wasn't saying you were but there are some who do think that and I was trying to make a point. I agree with what you say. And will add that the founders believe in the Christian faith so much that they also create the position of Congressional chaplain as one of their first act of congress.
 
That's how the Republicans are going to create jobs. I was curious about their motivation.

"The House on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution reaffirming 'In Gawd We Trust' as the national motto."

Let's see...in 1954 they added "Under Gawd" to our pledge and started putting "In Gawd We Trust" on our currency. The worship of ancient Gawds is alive and well.

If this is so offensive to you, just send me all of your money that has "In God we trust" on it. It doesn't offend me at all and a big part of the problem in this country is people like you that share your same attitude.

Why is not believing in The Christian God "a big part of the problem in this country"?

Either we are free to worship (and/or complain about forced recognition of another mans god) or not.

Which is it?
 
It's one thing to be an atheist.

But why are you so anti-Christian?

What is threatening you so much that you spend so much time calling out religious people?

:eusa_pray:

It's not just Christianity - The Worship Industry is as politically motivated and as politically active as any PAC or special interest group and The Worship Industry pays no taxes.

It's unfair.

Get your God and your Bible out of my politics and I won't mention Christianity ever again - same goes for Allah, Mohammed and the Koran.

Here's where we disagree Joe, I most certainly pay taxes, I pay a lot of them. I'm also a Christian, as well as a member of many other social 'groups', so many things shape my values and beliefs, and I have every right to participate in politics and vote based on my morals and beliefs. So, unless you're specifically referring to clergy only, and not the body of Christians in this country as a whole, who certainly pay a lot of taxes, I really don't see how your point is a valid one? And incidentally, my pastor in my church has never once uttered political speech from the pulpit or in a sermon, our missionary money goes to help the homeless, the jobless, the hungry, the victimized, etc.. not to any political party or pac. So how are 'organized christians' who 'don't pay taxes' influencing the government exactly?


All I can say is that Christians, like Liberals, Muslims and many other social subsets undoubtedly get a bad rap because of their more politically vocal groups within.

The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes conservative Christian values,[1][2][3][4] such as opposition to same-sex marriage, pornography, and abortion,[5] as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act.[6] It was founded in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon as the National Federation for Decency and is headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association

Whether or not you approve of things like same sex marriage abortion and pornography is not the issue in a free society. We are either free to face God on our own terms or we need a nanny government to make certain we're pure on judgement day - there's no 'sort of' in the equation.

Why a 'Christian Values' organization is involved in lobbying for oil industry deregulation and union rules is quite beyond me, but I've not taken the time to follow the money.
 
It's not just Christianity - The Worship Industry is as politically motivated and as politically active as any PAC or special interest group and The Worship Industry pays no taxes.

It's unfair.

Get your God and your Bible out of my politics and I won't mention Christianity ever again - same goes for Allah, Mohammed and the Koran.

Here's where we disagree Joe, I most certainly pay taxes, I pay a lot of them. I'm also a Christian, as well as a member of many other social 'groups', so many things shape my values and beliefs, and I have every right to participate in politics and vote based on my morals and beliefs. So, unless you're specifically referring to clergy only, and not the body of Christians in this country as a whole, who certainly pay a lot of taxes, I really don't see how your point is a valid one? And incidentally, my pastor in my church has never once uttered political speech from the pulpit or in a sermon, our missionary money goes to help the homeless, the jobless, the hungry, the victimized, etc.. not to any political party or pac. So how are 'organized christians' who 'don't pay taxes' influencing the government exactly?


All I can say is that Christians, like Liberals, Muslims and many other social subsets undoubtedly get a bad rap because of their more politically vocal groups within.

The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes conservative Christian values,[1][2][3][4] such as opposition to same-sex marriage, pornography, and abortion,[5] as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act.[6] It was founded in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon as the National Federation for Decency and is headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.
American Family Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether or not you approve of things like same sex marriage abortion and pornography is not the issue in a free society. We are either free to face God on our own terms or we need a nanny government to make certain we're pure on judgement day - there's no 'sort of' in the equation.

Why a 'Christian Values' organization is involved in lobbying for oil industry deregulation and union rules is quite beyond me, but I've not taken the time to follow the money.

As I've stated in other posts, I'm certainly not opposed to Christians (or members of any other faith) voting. I'm also not opposed to political organizing by religious folks per se, just have a damn good reason (other than "The Good Book Says...) for removing my freedoms.
 
Or you could learn to separate Dogma from the Lesson of Virtue and Value.

Why should it be up to me to learn anything about Christian Politics? Just keep The Bible out of politics and we're good here. Doesn't mean Christians can't vote their conscience.

Where is it in politics? I'm sure you as an atheist have values that you believe should be enforced by society through laws, so why is it any more valid for what you believe to be moral enforced via government force versus what I believe to be moral enforced via government force? Does it really matter where our separate values originated from? Just because your sense of right and wrong isn't related to a religion doesn't make them more valid than my values.

Of course I have values, even creepy predators have values. My thesis remains: If you think a law should be enacted that restricts freedoms, have a valid reason for restricting those freedoms other than "The Good Book Says...".

Politically speaking, all an average atheist wants is recognition that The Bible, The Koran, etc. are not valid starting points for secular law, in spite of those books having some good ideas for society living in fair-minded peace together. Atheists view the Ancient Creation/Salvation stories as fiction - we don't want to be told that they're 'sacred' in a political context - even though 3 out of 10 Commandments are good ideas for secular law.

And yes, non-believers fear the Christian version of theocracy even more than the Muslim version of theocracy. Why? Because if the Muslims try to pull that shit, you Christians will be there to help us thwart their effort.
 
Where in the christian bible New Testament does it say to kill your enemy? Where do it say hate your enemy? How many Christians had a jihad lately?

Lately? Not many - but history sides with my argument.

The point is that religion should not be a factor in making the laws we live by. Either something is a good idea to the overwhelming majority (thou shall not steal comes to mind) or not. (Thou shall not have sex with humans of your same gender is a fine example.)


Morality, like love and hate, cannot and should not be legislated - only behavior.

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

Is allowing industry to pollute or not a moral decision? If it is, why is ALL pollution not illegal?

Behavior is a wider net than morality. What is immoral to you may be perfectly fine for me and vice-versa - My morality can be putrid while my behavior is perfect - that is why behavior can (and should) be subject to legislation and legislating morality is a slippery slope leading to Sharia Law or worse.
 
I most certainly pay taxes, I pay a lot of them. I'm also a Christian, as well as a member of many other social 'groups', so many things shape my values and beliefs, and I have every right to participate in politics and vote based on my morals and beliefs.

And that’s fine provided you don’t attempt to codify those morals and beliefs. You yourself may not make such efforts but unfortunately many of your kind do.
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.

Correct.

This is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law.

So the motto in God we trust would not be a violation of the first amendment? Would that be a correct statement?

It is not but not for the reasons you reference.

In Aronow v. United States (1970), the Court held that the motto did not advance religion and was consequently Constitutional. It is considered settled law. I found the ruling unimpressive and unsurprising.

The motto is a non-issue, inane and pointless.

It is evidence, however, of a Nation where a significant number of its people remain fearful and ignorant.
 
Not to be harsh, but so what? I'm offended by a lot of things that are morally abhorent but are legal in this country, so get in line. Unfortunately we don't have a right to not be offended, and everyone's whims can't be accomodated. At least we each have the FREEDOM to speak out about what we think is wrong and try to change it.

That's all I'm trying to do... express MY opinion in a relevant manner.

But my point is that I think that's what everyone is trying to do, so what difference does it make where your values come from or what they're based on? As long as no one is forced to follow a religion, everyone should have a voice in government. No one should be told their voice can't be heard because their morals or values stem from the wrong place. You're just as wrong for wanting to remove a Christian's morals and values from government as a Christian would be to want an atheists morals or values removed. It's the same thing.

As I've said, I've no issues whatsoever with religious folks voting or organizing. The problem comes when the only reason for restricting freedoms in a free society is "Because The Bible Says..."

Prohibition is a prime example of a misguided Moral Majority attempting to force religious morals by legislating them. It don't work.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top